>"My worry is that the ease of putting such horrid things in children's
>books desensitizes little readers.  As a whole, we should be moving
>to fight things like this....
>
>Even though many will say it is just a course of nature - some animals
>eat other animals - could you imagine if Buckbeak ate dogs?  And Hermione
>was throwing dead dogs to him?  That would be seen as distasteful and
>would not be accepted by the public.
>
>In all, it is hard for many (me included) to read and even harder to see
>animals treated in such a manner.  I can't imagine how heartbreaking and
>scary it would be to a child who has a ferret in the family.  However, I
>still love the books and will continue to read them. "
 
First of all, Buckbeak probably would not eat dogs as they are, on the
whole, too big for him to break up and swallow seeing as he has a beak.
Second of all, I don't think this scene you guys are "up in a twist"
about is at all treating animals "carelessly and malevolently."  So
Buckbeak eats animals (dead ones, by the way).  How, out of curiousity,
do you think pet ferrets get their protein from?  Just because the meat
in pet food is more removed from, say, eating an actual dead mouse does
not mean animals aren't killed so our ferrets can eat.  Ferrets need
protein from *animals* in order to grow properly.  Animals eating other
animals (and we too are an animal) is *nature* and it is *okay* for
children to see this.  I think it is harmful for children to not
understand and accept we are part of the food chain on this planet.
And when I say children, I do mean the K-12 variety that obviously has
different maturity levels.  But I don't think it is wise to shield
children from the facts of life -- from what animals have to do to
survive.  It breeds arrogance and disrespect for nature and for the
animals that live in it.  And as far as how children view animals, if
you are thinking of the kids out there that amuse themselves by blowing
up birds (both dead and alive) that has very little to do with violence
in movies and way more to do with how supportively and lovingly the
child is brought up in their own home.
 
And third...if anything, or anyone, is treated malevolently in this
series, it's Harry Potter.  He does get tortured by the Dark Lord in Book
4, with absolutely no way to defend himself.  The Dark Lord basically
shoots a gun at him (in the form of his wand and the death spell).  Think
about that when you guys continue your debate about whether the depiction
of animals in these books in any way "desensitizes" children.  At the end
of book 5 it is revealed that, basically, Harry either has to die or be
killed.  He is only 15 at that point.  How appropriate is that for a
child on the younger end of the age spectrum?  I have read all these
books, I am an adult, and my child is only 3, and I do wonder sometimes
what the author's intention was behind these books...they are written at
a 4 to 6 grade level, and it appears that perhaps she wanted her audience
to grow with the books.  Harry gets more emotionally complex with each
year he gets older (and whinier, in some people's opinions).
 
Anyway, I apologize for writing so much, and I am sure I annoyed several
people.  I think there is a balance that should be sought and it appears
this Harry Potter "tangent" is, well, not so balanced.  It was one thing
to complain about the comments Ben Stiller made regarding his experience
with the ferret in "Along Came Polly" (a live ferret, by the way).  This,
well, it's just not the same thing.
 
Minta
[Posted in FML issue 4540]