Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
No way. It is rather strange to divide people into those who have read a series of children's books and those who have not. This is not Marx's Das Kapital or Hitler's Mein Kampf. Although, those who have read the last two also do not differ much from those who have not read them.
I think that the only difference that I have is that I like this “universe”, as well as in general similar literature and cinema, before Harry Potter, such things occupied a smaller volume in my perception. I don't think it affects other people who haven't read books or watched movies in the same way, I think they are just in their own environment, they have their own interests, including the story about “the boy who survived”, in fact, this can also be attributed to other hobbies. Everyone has their own world, everyone in their own world.
Those who watched were less educated and less quick-witted. Commercial “art” is intended for the consumer and can only be evaluated based on the profit received by the rights holders. This is a shameful phenomenon that has nothing to do with culture.
In the cluster of people who watched and read Harry Potter, we would find a predominance of geeks. After all, this film is practically one of the main elements of the geek society.�
Of course, for many SOEs, it was the reason for becoming a geek. Personally, if it weren't for the GP, I wouldn't have read The Lord of the Rings, the Sword of Truth, … in my thirst for fantasy content . Well, no matter how much it might seem out of line for someone, I wouldn't have read Twilight, The Hunger Games, and earlier Tanya Grotter, Artemis Fowl.
In the same cluster, there were people born in the era of books and films, because the SOE had a significant impact on that society. There wasn't a single book that sold as well (have you ever seen children queuing for books instead of iPhones or sneakers?) since that time. At the same time, it is very difficult to call the GP a conveyor pop song, because the plot is more than high-quality (a brilliant liner to “always”, which is 8 years long). I think people were lucky to get into the world of magic back then, to grow and evolve with the Harry Potter story.
No matter how snobbish it is that Rowling is not a great author, in fact, she wrote a masterpiece that was able to unite children and teenagers once. She put very strong ideas there, gave a vivid picture of the world, and this directly affected society. In fact, the virtuoso creation of the world in general made it independent for cognition (read between the lines, if you like). As a consequence, I believe that the cluster of those who read or watched the GP would be dominated by people with modern views on society (equality and tolerance). Like thanks to the strong images of Hermione, Snape, Palumna, Dolores Umbridge, …
And of course, it should be noted that at least the SOE society is not Muggle. Many people have knowledge of what house they would have ended up in at Hogwarts. And of course, they can use Lumos and Alohomora, and sometimes shout AVADA KEDAVRA in everyday life.
Probably “People who watched Potter” and “People who didn't watch Potter”. There's no other way. This is not so much a cult fantasy and not a classic to draw any conclusions from this fact.
I watched films about Harry Potter and no such effect of transformation, radical (even not very) changes in my thinking, joining a group of favorites, etc. �I didn't feel it.
� �If I didn't watch these movies, I wouldn't have lost anything at all, so I, who watch them, am no different from myself, who don't watch them ;))
So, based on my little empirical experience, I conclude that J. K. Rowling did not particularly divide humanity into any noticeably defined groups of people. Well, except that she “gave birth” to a group of her fans, but fanaticism is inherent in everything in the world and of course fans are different somehow probably-well, they wear sticks, throw parties or do something similar like this group of the same initiates, but from another very close team ;DD
http://www.youtube.com/embed/GVvaGvOB7wE?wmode=opaque
They would differ quite significantly.
Many people have seen some of the films. Many of them watched all the movies. Some of them tried to read. Some of them have read everything. Some of them understood.
On the one hand, books are accessible to the understanding of a teenager. On the other hand, many ideas are too complex even for adults, despite the simple language of presentation.
I haven't watched or read any of Rowling's movies or books. (only tried) But I don't consider myself a defining voice. it's just that this reading-smotrilovo didn't give ME anything. there's nothing to catch on to. but someone builds their worldview on this. The flag is in their hands. I feel sorry for them, apparently, the best examples of the genre passed them by. okay. it doesn't affect your life…