People Prefer Spoilers? No Way

Here’s a fascinating tidbit. According to a recent study by psychologists, humans enjoy movies, television, books, and even sporting events more when they are given spoilers exposing twists and giving away the ending before they start to watch/read. I don't buy it. Let’s see what you think.

This particular study involved a small group (30 students) reading some classic short stories. Some were told the ending in advance, other weren’t, and then they were asked how much they enjoyed the stories. The ones who were told the endings rated the stories higher. Hence, the study concluded, spoilers help us enjoy entertainment more. Indeed, the study authors reason that people enjoy entertainment more when they are given spoilers because that frees brainpower that would otherwise be needed to anticipate the ending. In other words, it makes it easier to understand and digest what is happening and gives you a chance to enjoy the show/book on its own merits without having to spend your time trying to solve what is going on, i.e. it lets you “think more deeply about the entertainment as a whole.”

Uh... no.

For starters, a sample of 30 people is way too small to be meaningful. Not to mention that testing only college students is too homogenous a sample to extrapolate to the public at large. Nor is testing short stories in any way equivalent to testing films, television, sports, or even longer stories. And in any event, this just doesn’t make sense given human experience.

Human behavior generally conforms to human psychology. In other words, over thousands of years, we learn what works and what doesn’t and we act accordingly. We may not know why we do it, but we do it. And our behavior is completely opposed to the results of this “study.” For example, 3000 years of recorded storytelling tell us that storytellers around the globe have learned that the best way to grab and hold an audience’s attention is to wait to spring the surprises. Thus, endings to stories are almost always where “the reveal” happens and it’s rare for a storyteller to give away an ending or surprise early on.

For another example, now that we have the internet and we can ruin each other’s lives, people get truly irate if you don’t post a spoiler warning before blurting out some tidbit (no matter how minor) about a film they haven’t seen or a book they haven’t read. Are we to believe everyone is just deluded?

And here’s another: if this is true, then why don't ratings improve for reruns? Shouldn’t we enjoy reruns more than the original since we are no longer perplexed, waiting to see what happens? And why don’t people tape sporting events and watch them once they know the results? To the contrary, sports don’t even go into re-runs because almost no one will watch a sporting event when they already know who won.

The fact is that people get a great deal more enjoyment out of the shocks, the twists and turns, the surprises and the unexpected moments in a story or sporting event than they do from watching “the craft” of the writer or director or actor or athletes.

Moreover, something else about the study should be pointed out. The example they used when releasing this study to back up their conclusion was Columbo. They claimed their study explains why Columbo was so popular, i.e. because it told you right away who committed the crime. Hence, people like the spoilers. But that misses the point. What made Columbo enjoyable was not the mystery of who did the crime, but how Columbo would go about solving the crime. Columbo was not about solving the crime, it was about the cat and mouse game between the seemingly-overmatched bumbling detective and the arrogant killers. And in that cat and mouse game, the twists and turns were not spoiled. So even their example is wrong.

It seems obvious to me this study is just wrong. It logically makes little sense and human experience contradicts it. I’d say this study is bunk.


FYI, My next article posts at BH tomorrow morning. It will post here as well. This one is about Hollywood and actresses.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

TV Review: Is It Real (2005-2007)

If you’re looking for a great show that debunks a variety of supernatural, paranormal and just plain crazy theories, then Is It Real is for you. Produced by the National Geographic Channel, Is It Real is a 28 episode documentary series that examines everything from ghosts to alien abductions to Atlantis to exorcisms to human superpowers. It’s honest, it’s fair, it’s snarky and it’s well worth your time.

For some time now, claims of the paranormal have been gaining credibility because books like Erich von Däniken’s “Chariots of the Gods” and “Ancient Aliens” on the History Channel are ramming these ideas into the public consciousness. And since humans love to believe the inexplicable and are easily fooled by false logic, these ideas are catching fire within our culture. Unfortunately, the evidence presented to support these claims ranges from the paranoid or conspiratorial to the just plain stupid. But often it’s not clear just how fraudulent these claims are until someone does a critical analysis of the claim.

That’s where Is It Real comes in. Is It Real gives both proponents of these theories and skeptics a fair chance to present their arguments -- though, when I say “fair,” I mean precisely that: “fair” not “unchallenged.” Indeed, unlike so many of these shows (both pro/con) which typically just accept one side's presentation at face value, the Is It Real crew will interview witnesses, will stage experiments, and will consult actual scientists to examine claims. This makes the show a valuable resource for anyone who wishes to understand the issues being addresses. For example, they interview the man who claims to have worn the Big Foot costume in the famous Big Foot Photo. They show how insects will cause the precise conditions that cattle mutilation enthusiasts claim can only be made by alien surgeons. They explain the psychological reasons people would want to believe they are possessed. They show how the description of aliens varies by culture and explain the reason for this, and how alien abduction stories are the result of sleep paralysis. Etc.

Many believers object that the show favors the skeptics, but it’s hard to agree with their point. Certainly the show lands on the side of skepticism, but that is because the skeptics are making arguments that are logically sound, backed by evidence, and consistent with human experience; the believers have nothing similar to offer. Moreover, Is It Real always acknowledges the limits of the skeptic's case, and has at times found some credibility in the claims of paranormal activity, such as when they examine sleep-walking murders, where they note both that sleep walkers are capable of performing highly complex tests and that people awoken from such states are often intensely violent.

I highly recommend this series. Not only does it give you the basics upon which these beliefs arise, i.e. the history of their development and a discussion of the most famous cases, but it carefully dispels what can be dispelled and it exposes the charlatans who seek to profit from pushing these beliefs. And it does so with both a snarky sense of humor and a fair examination of the evidence. All of which makes for an enjoyable and educational experience.

It also just so happens that Is It Real can be watched instantly on Netflix at the moment. Check it out. . . do it for Nessie!

So, what’s your favorite paranormal phenomena/supernatural creature?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Why Hollywood Doesn't Care About American Consumers

In a recent film discussion, a question was asked how it could be true both that Hollywood is highly consumer oriented (as they are) yet also pays no attention to the opinions of Middle America (which they don’t). The answer is simple: Hollywood doesn’t view Middle America as its consumer market. I’ve been saying this for a while, and now The Economist offers proof.

Most Americans assume Hollywood should strive to please Middle America, because they believe the American public is where Hollywood earns its money. But that’s not true. Starting around 2001, Hollywood began making more money overseas than it made in the US. Last year, foreign box office receipts more than doubled US receipts -- $10 billion in US ticket sales versus $22 billion in ticket sales overseas. Moreover, while the US market hasn’t grown since 2005, the foreign market doubled between 2003 and 2010, and shows no signs of slowing. Indeed, consider that, Hollywood made $1.5 billion in China last year even though China currently allows only 20 US films to be shown each year.

As a result of this, according to The Economist, “the studios are careful to seed films with actors, locations and, occasionally, languages that are well-known in target countries.” In other words, Hollywood is learning what works in target countries and is changing its films accordingly. For example, the Chinese want “films that reflect China’s central place in the world.” Thus, films like Kung Fu Panda play well because they show China’s influence over the West. Japanese audiences love Japanese locations and characters. And most of the world prefers European villains.

More insidiously, these markets don’t like films that contain pro-American messages or American cultural elements. Thus, these are now being removed from films. For example, “G.I. Joe” was changed from a team of American special forces to an international team with an international cast. Captain America is being renamed “The First Avenger” overseas and his American-flag costume has been largely de-Americanized. Also, says the director, the character will downplay American patriotism because “this is not about America so much as it is about the spirit of doing the right thing.”

The studios are quite open about this. Says Rob Moore of Paramount Pictures: “We need to make movies that have the ability to break out internationally. That's the only way to make the economic puzzle of film production work today.” Disney studios execs say the same thing: "I can tell you that no studio head is going to make a big expensive movie that cost $150 million or $200 million unless it has worldwide appeal. You can't pay back that production cost on the domestic model alone."

This means Hollywood is letting its marketing concerns make its artistic decisions. And those marketing concerns say (1) include foreign characters and locations from target areas, (2) remove traces of American culture, (3) dumb dialog and plots down to make them easier to translate, and (4) add plenty of special effects filler. It also influences the types of films that will be made. Don’t expect many films based on American history, events or persons. And don’t expect may new comedies. Says Brad Grey, the head of Paramount Pictures, “You won’t see us doing a lot of comedies, because comedy doesn’t travel well.”

This is why Hollywood can be both consumer oriented and still ignore the American consumer, because it doesn’t see American consumers as important anymore. And that’s why you’re seeing such a change in films lately. I would also say, it’s no coincidence that Hollywood’s current low quality period began right around the time foreign markets first surpassed American markets in value.

Welcome to the future.

*******

And if that doesn't give you something to think about, then let me ask you this. . . is it possible that Star Wars was a rip off of The Wizard of Oz?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Hollywood Stumbles. . . Actually, No

Hollywood profits were down slightly this year and ticket sales were off by a whopping 6%. Suddenly, a great many articles are being written announcing Hollywood's demise: they don’t know how to make good films, they have alienated their audiences, 3D has turned out to be a bust, and the sky is falling. The truth, however, is rather different. Indeed, no matter how much I wish their business model would fail so they would need to change the way they do business, the truth is that everything is fine for them.

Let’s start with my grievances. For those of you who've been reading my discussions of films, you will know that I think Hollywood has entered a dead period, where they are making nothing but poor, throw-away, formulaic junk. Indeed, if you compare the extraordinary number of top films that came out of the 1990s against the total lack of good films in this past decade, it’s obvious that something’s gone wrong:

Some of the Best of the 1990s. . .	The "Best" I Could Find in the 2000s. . .
The Matrix	Lord of the Rings
Ghost	300
Men In Black	The Dark Knight
The Sixth Sense	Pirates of the Caribbean
Jurassic Park	Up
Independence Day	Harry Potter
The Lion King
Pulp Fiction
L.A. Confidential
Terminator 2
Saving Private Ryan
True Lies
Basic Instinct
Schinder's List
The Usual Suspects
Fargo
Titanic
Trainspotting
Goodfellas
Unforgiven
Toy Story

But Hollywood isn’t about art, no matter what they say, it’s about profit. And when you look at profit, you quickly understand why they don’t care about my complaints.

Last year ticket sales fell 6%. And in the past decade, ticket sales fell six out of ten years, which compares poorly to the 1990s when sales rose six out of ten years or the 1980s when sales rose seven out of ten years. And when you compare the number of tickets sold during the decade with the population of America during that decade you find a drop in the number of tickets sold per person from the 1990s to the 2000s. In the 1990s, there were on average 5.2 tickets sold per person per year. In the 2000s, this number fell to 5.1 per year. So the studios must be freaking out right?

Actually no. When you look at the 1980s, you find that the number of tickets sold was only 4.9 per person per year. Thus, while the 2000s saw a loss of 0.1 tickets per person per year compared to the 1990s, it was still 0.2 tickets per person higher than in the 1980s. In other words, the studios sell more tickets per person today than they did 20 years ago. That’s hardly a reason to panic.

And don’t forget, this is despite the massive explosion of alternatives -- cable television, the internet, video games, video on demand, home theaters, etc. These same changes are killing network television and the old media, but Hollywood hasn't missed a step.

Moreover, despite somewhat falling tickets sales, profits are soaring. In 2010 and 2009, the studios made more than $10.5 and $10.6 billion in ticket sales. By comparison, the best year in the 1990s was only $7.5 billion, and the early 1990s saw sales below $4.9 billion. So in 20 years, the studio has more than doubled its income, and it’s on a nearly straight-line curve. That’s not an unhealthy business model.

If there is a problem, it’s the increasing costs the studios are facing, with the average cost of movies going up from $11.3 million per film in 1980 to $26.8 million in 1990 to $54.8 million in 2000. That poses a problem because that appears to mean that costs are doubling every decade, whereas profits are only doubling every two decades. But the answer to increasing costs is to cut those costs, not to hope for better sales. Consequently, Hollywood has begun shipping its productions overseas to low-cost places like India and non-union locations.

What all of this means is that the studios have no reason whatsoever to change what they are doing. Despite dramatic increases in ticket prices and all of the complaints we can level against the industry, people continue to buy tickets at about the same rate they’ve bought them for the last 30 years and dollar-value sales continue to double every decade. If there is a problem, it’s on the cost end, not the sales end, and that is not going to get them to worry more about story. Thus, no matter how much we may wish that Hollywood would listen to our complaints, they have no economic reason to listen or to change anything they do. Ug.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Why Hollywood Loves Corporate Bad Guys

Ever notice that almost all bad guys in Hollywood these days are corporations? I know a lot of people on the right think this is an expression of socialism, an anti-capitalist instinct, but it’s really not. You’re reading too much into this. What it is, is lazy writing. Corporate villains are a crutch for unimaginative writers.

Corporations Are Not Your Friends

Before we delve into the reason Hollywood uses corporations as villains, let me point something out: there is nothing inherently “conservative” about corporations. In fact, the opposite is true. Conservatives believe in free markets economics. That means that we trust the decisions of millions of buyers and sellers to allocate resources. Thus, conservatives oppose anything that separates buyers or sellers from their natural incentives, because those separators distort the incentive system that makes markets work. Government support is a classic example of this because it reduces the risk to the person receiving the support and therefore distorts their incentives in favor of taking risks they otherwise wouldn’t.

Corporations are a form of distortion. Corporations separate owners from the costs of their actions, because of their limited liability feature. A normal person will bear the full cost of any harm they cause. But an owner of a corporation doesn’t. They are only liable up to the value of their investment. Moreover, the corporate structure, which provides decision making power to concentrated management teams, distorts decision making because managers and owners do not share the same incentives. Thus, corporations are not acting in the owners’ interests so much as they are acting in the managers’ interests.

Therefore, conservatives should be wary of corporations and should not be knee-jerk defending them. But that is neither here nor there when it comes to Hollywood because Hollywood doesn’t grasp anything about corporations or incentives, and it doesn’t care. Its only interest in corporations is that they are easy to use as villains.

Why Hollywood Writers Love Corporations

Hollywood uses corporations as villains because corporations have certain built-in traits that make them ideal for hack writers to use as villains. Consider this:

1. Inoffensive Villains. If there is one thing film producers don’t want in a blockbuster, it’s something offensive. They want everyone to see their “masterpiece.” Corporate villains are not offense. Why? Because corporations don’t instill loyalty in the public like countries, governments, ideologies, or even people do. If I make the United States the villain, then Americans will be angry. If I make the Pope the villain, then Catholics will be angry. If I make The Happy Bunny Munitions Company the villain, nobody gets bent out of shape. Indeed, the use of corporations is the easiest way to avoid offending anyone in the selection of your villain.

2. Easy Motives. Corporations also let you avoid the whole messy motive thing. Why does your villain want to blow up the moon again? If you choose religion or ideology, you’ll offend people. If you choose “because” or something that makes no sense, you’ll lose your audience. The use of corporations as villains lets you skip this problem. All corporations are motivated by money, everyone accepts that. So if you can somehow mumble enough words to make people think the plan will result in an improvement on the corporation’s bottom line, then you’re good to go.

3. No Troubling Back Stories. Best of all, corporations are born fully formed; they require no back story to explain how they got the things they have. Where exactly did Goldfinger (a noted sole proprietor) find all those henchmen? Heck, make him a corporation and you don’t need to worry about it. We all know that corporations all have military contracts, which will put them in contact with ex-military killers and give them access to high tech stuff. Right? Seriously, all the hack writer has to do is make the villain a corporation and they suddenly no longer need to explain (1) how the conspiracy formed, (2) how they got their facilities, (3) where they get their henchmen, (4) where they get their money, or (5) how they get all that cool stuff they use throughout the movie.

Indeed, because all corporations have secret “military divisions,” they can have access to the same sophisticated military hardware that the US military has and no one thinks twice about this. In fact, we’re even ready to believe they have stuff that even the military hasn’t seen before because they are developing it for the government. Problem solved without a word of explanation.

4. Easy Twists. Corporations have murky structures, thus they are rife for twists. Because corporate structure are malleable, it’s easy to create conspiracies within corporations where some people are aware of the evil activities and others aren’t. That lets the writer pick and choose who in the corporation is part of the plan and who is an innocent pawn. This allows the writer to place an unsuspecting person inside the organization who can help the hero at a critical time (usually with a computer code) without having to explain why one of the henchmen would suddenly change their minds and help the hero.

This also allows the writer to pull the old cliché of having people run to the boss, only to discover too late that the boss is in on it! Oh my, didn’t see that coming! Or it allows the cliché twist that the boss really is unaware of the evil under their nose and will now work to stop the bad guys. Again, no explanation of any sort is needed to explain the boss’s motivations in either direction except to note that they did or did not know about the conspiracy. Heck, this here movie almost writes itself!

5. Ease of Destruction. Finally, even a hack writer will need to end their movie. Sadly, this can be very difficult when you don’t know jack about the world and your characters are a mess. But using a corporate villain can solve this problem because anything can kill a corporation. Indeed, using a corporate bad guy gives you a maximum range of solutions from killing the right person, to exposing the entire corporation, to exposing just the right person, to bankrupting the corporation, or even just hitting the right delete key (because people never back up computers).

This comes in very helpful when you don’t have a clue how to plot your way from the initial discovery to an actual ending. Instead, after you blow some time, you just arrange a quick scene where the hero does the thing that will defeat the bad guy(s) and then let the credits role. Basically, by making the villain a corporation, the writer can tack on any sort of mindless ending and people will believe it.

Conclusion

Those are the real reasons Hollywood loves corporate villains, not ideological opposition to corporations. Corporate villains are nothing more than a fool proof crutch for hack writers that allow a movie to run from beginning to ending in 98 minutes with little or no depth or explanation, but with easy believability. Corporate villains don’t offend, they require no back story, they require little discussion of motive, and they are rife with ready-made clichés, not to mention that they require no careful plotting to be undone. It’s like a hack-writer’s dream!

It’s not about ideology, it’s about lack of imagination.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Harry Potter: Conservative Hero

Whenever a new Harry Potter movie rolls into theaters, conservative political pundits whip out the long knives and go after the books. Strawman after strawman is torn asunder in a veritable strawbath of ill-informed and poorly-reasoned diatribes of the type that can only come from the poisoned pens of people who have never read the books. So let’s cut through some of the garbage, and reintroduce you to this unfairly maligned series.

At its core, the Harry Potter series is a truly conservative, i.e. classical liberal, work. Seriously. It imparts excellent values, values that should make conservatives giddy. But before we detail those values, let us dispatch the complaints of the unread punditocracy.

And Although I Know It’s Strictly Taboo. . .

The complaints of these “conservative” pundits generally come in three flavors of stupid: gays, witchcraft and rewarding misbehavior.

The gay complaint holds that Harry Potter promotes homosexuality because Dumbledore is gay. Oh my! But when did being gay become inconsistent with being conservative? It’s not. And if the complaint is that no book that includes a gay character can be conservative, then one wonders what is left for these pundits to read. . . assuming they can read. Hence, a few of the more clever pundits, will assure you that they aren’t opposed to gays, it’s just that Dumbledore promotes the gay lifestyle. Really? Does he take a lover? Does he attend a parade? Hand out pamphlets? Shower the crowd in condoms? Take Harry to a Turkish bathhouse? No, this issue is never mentioned in the books. In fact, Dumbledore’s sexuality was never brought up until after the books were all published.

The complaint that Harry Potter promotes witchcraft is almost too stupid to mention, except we saw this once before. . . during the the great Dungeons & Dragons crisis of 1983, when millions of young children sold their souls to the devil and disappeared in a fiery poof. Tragic. In any event, it is worth pointing out that (1) this silly complaint would apply equally to the entire fantasy genre, so put down that copy of The Lord of the Rings you Satanist, and (2) unlike The Golden Compass, which truly is anti-Christian, Harry Potter makes no attacks on any religious figures, principles, or beliefs.

The third complaint usually involves some moment where Harry “does not pay” for his “bad behavior.” But these complaints are typically made by people who have not read the books. For example, in a silly recent diatribe, one shrill conservative pundit proclaimed that Rowling “ignores ethics and encourages dishonorable behavior” when Harry “cheats” by using “a textbook that has all the answers in the margins,” and he’s not even punished for it! For shame! Thus whines said critic: “Rowling’s readers will conclude it’s OK to go on eBay and buy a teacher’s edition of a textbook.” Or critique a book they haven’t read! The horror, the horror. What this whiner misses is that the “answers” written in the text book are not “answers” to test questions, they are the work of a rather genius young wizard who invented dozens of new spells, most of which have nothing to do with the class itself. A more accurate conclusion would be “Rowling’s readers will conclude it’s OK to go on eBay and buy an independent study guide!” But that doesn’t have the same ring to it.

Moreover, in terms of not getting busted, some of these spells prove to be quite dangerous, and when Harry injures a fellow student using one of these spells, he gets showered with disdain and ostracized by his fellow students. Indeed, most of the series is about Harry making mistakes, for which he pays and from which he learns.

But enough of sweeping away straw. Let’s talk about what makes the Harry Potter books conservative books.

What Makes Harry Potter Conservative

I will save for another day what it takes to consider a particular film or book to be a conservative work. Suffice it for now to say, that we should not consider a work conservative unless it promotes themes that are philosophically conservative, and it does so consistently. In that regard, the Harry Potter series delivers time and time again.

Consider, for example, that the bad guys throughout the series read like a who’s who of things conservatives despise:

• Government. A common theme throughout the books is that the government not only cannot help you, but will actually abuse its power to harm you. The Ministry of Magic is hopelessly bureaucratic, and ultra-intrusive. It regulates every aspect of Wizards’ lives, right down to how caldrons are measured -- regulations which are usually mentioned derisively. And when Dumbledore begins to warn the world that Voldemort has returned, the MOM demonstrates the evil to which it can sink. It tries to discredit Dumbledore, just as it tries to discredit Harry. When this proves ineffective, it tries to drive Harry from the magic world through a Soviet-style show trial. It then drums up fake charges against Dumbledore (something about a Turkish bathhouse), and chases him from Hogwarts, where he is replaced with a woman who sets about imposing an educational agenda that seeks to lower all children to the lowest common denominator. The government seizes key industries, denies the truth, and locks up its opponents. Sounds like somebody read Ayn Rand.

• Elitists. The Malfoy family and their allies are the epitome of hereditary peers, if you’re English, or establishment elitists, if you’re American. They are out of touch, they despise ordinary people, and they are corrupt, inbred and non-productive -- think John Kerry.

• The Cult of Personality. The Death Eaters, Voldemort’s followers, worship him and fear him in a strange cult of personality. They do as they are told without question. “Yes we can, my master.” Nothing is more classically liberal than thinking for yourself. Nothing is more modern liberal than believing what you are told by your betters.

• Evil. Voldemort represents something rarely seen in liberal thinking, an evil man. He is evil to the core. He is not misunderstood, nor was he driven to evil. And while he claims various motivations, the series never once hints that we should sympathize with him or that his past excuses his present. If you put the second book to your ear, you can actually hear an ACLU lawyer weeping.

Consider also the multiple conservative themes that run throughout the series. For example:

• Rejection of Moral Relativism. Unlike much of modern liberal thinking, Rowling does not accept the shades of gray theory. The good guys are good and the bad guys are bad. It’s black and white. Readers are told repeatedly that you cannot do evil and remain good, even where evil seems to offer an easy solution. We are also never asked to consider root causes. And whenever good characters suggest that an evil character might only be evil because they feel pressured (like Dumbledore suggests about Malfoy or Tom Riddle), those characters always prove that people who do rotten things tend to be rotten people.

• The Value of Hard Work/Self-Reliance. Unlike heroes in most modern stories, Harry is actually nothing special. He doesn’t have super powers. He’s not smarter or wiser or stronger or faster than the other kids. What Harry does have going for him, is a group of people who care about him and who drive him to work harder. When he does, he succeeds. When he doesn’t, he fails. It’s that simple. In the Harry Potter world anyone can succeed if they work hard; hard work gets rewarded. Education gets rewarded. Having something handed to you, or waiting for someone to hand it to you, gets punished. What could be more conservative than that?

• Belief in Traditional Families. The series repeatedly stresses the importance of the traditional family. Harry’s mother and father died to protect him, and in so doing, put a charm on him, that protects him so long as he has family, even when that family is nasty to him, i.e. the family bond survives good times and bad. The happiest people in the series are the Weasley family, who impart invaluable lessons about love, responsibility and all the other things your parents taught you, even though the Weasleys are poor. By comparison, the messed up kids, from Neville Longbottom to Luna Lovegood, come from single parent homes. Even Malfoy, who does have both parents, is raised in an unbalanced family where the father dominates the mother. The implication is clear throughout the book: a strong family is the best foundation. Love your parents, love your kids, and think more about them than yourself. Indeed, the greatest moments in the book involve self-sacrifice to save family members.

• Pro Capitalism. Harry Potter is also unabashedly pro-capitalism. Time and time again, it is the private sector, not the government, that is shown to be superior. This is true from the pro-commerce Diagon Alley, to the way The Quibbler (a tabloid) rises to meet consumer demand for the truth when the main paper falls under the influence of the government, to the Weasley brothers being a walking advertisement for the joys of starting your own business. Whereas the government world is seen ad drab and oppressive, the private sector world is always vibrant and active.

I don’t know about you, but those seem like pretty conservative values to me.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...