Posted on 07/18/2005 9:57:30 PM PDT by Eurotwit
What accounts for the success of the Harry Potter series, as well as the "Star Wars" films whence they derive? The answer, I think, is their appeal to complacency and narcissism. "Use the Force," Obi-Wan tells the young Luke Skywalker, while the master wizard Dumbledore instructs Harry to draw from his inner well of familial emotions. No one likes to imagine that he is Frodo Baggins, an ordinary fellow who has quite a rough time of it in Tolkien's story. But everyone likes to imagine that he possesses inborn powers that make him a master of magic as well as a hero at games. Harry Potter merely needs to tap his inner feelings to conjure up the needful spell.
"Tonstant Weader fwowed up," Dorothy Parker reviewed A A Milne's "Pooh" stories in the New Yorker, and I am sad to report that reverse peristalsis cut short my own efforts to read J K Rowling's latest effort, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. In any event I am less interested in reviewing the book than in reviewing the reader.
It may seem counter-intuitive, but complacency is the secret attraction of J K Rowling’s magical world. It lets the reader imagine that he is something different, while remaining just what he is. Harry (like young Skywalker) draws his superhuman powers out of the well of his "inner feelings". In this respect Rowling has much in common with the legion of self-help writers who advise the anxious denizens of the West. She also has much in common with writers of pop spirituality, who promise the reader the secret of inner discovery in a few easy lessons.
The spiritual tradition of the West, which begins with classic tragedy and continues through St Augustine's Confessions, tells us just the contrary, namely, that one's inner feelings are the problem, not the solution. The West is a construct, the result of a millennium of war against the inner feelings of the barbarian invaders whom Christianity turned into Europeans. Paganism exults in its unchanging, autochthonous character, and glorifies the native impulses of its people; Christianity despises these impulses and attempts to root them out. Western tradition demands that the individual must draw upon something better than one's inner feelings. Narcissism where one's innermost feelings are concerned therefore is the supreme hallmark of decadence.
A culture may be called decadent when its members exult in what they are, rather than strive to become what they should be. As God tells Mephistopheles in Goethe's Faust, Man all too easily grows lax and mellow, He soon elects repose at any price; And so I like to pair him with a fellow To play the deuce, to stir, and to entice. [1] What characterizes the protagonists of great fiction in an ascendant culture? It is that they are not yet what they should be. The characters of Western literature in its time of flowering either must overcome defining flaws, or come to grief. Austen's Elizabeth Bennet must give up her pride; Dickens' Pip must look past the will-o'-the-wisp of his expectations; Mann's Hans Castorp must confront mortality; Tolstoy's Pierre must learn to love; Cervantes' Don Quixote must learn to help ordinary people rather than the personages of romance; Goethe's Wilhelm Meister must act in the real world rather than the stage. Goethe's Faust I have long considered the definitive masterwork of Western literature, first of all because its explicit subject is the transformation of character. As Faust tells Mephisto, Should ever I take ease upon a bed of leisure, May that same moment mark my end! When first by flattery you lull me Into a smug complacency, When with indulgence you can gull me, Let that day be the last for me! That is my wager! [2] Failure to correct defining flaws, of course, leads to a tragic outcome, as in Dostoyevsky or Flaubert. More consideration is required to portray characters who change rather than fail, to be sure; that is why the late Leo Strauss thought Jane Austen a better novelist than Dostoyevesky. Finding the right partner in marriage, after all, is the most important decision most of us will make in our lives. Whatever good we otherwise might do has little meaning unless another generation draws its benefit, and that character of the next generation depends on the character of the families we might form. If we take inventory of all the married couples we know, how many of them can be said to have done this with due consideration? Courtship is a high drama that should keep our teeth on edge. Instead, we relegate the subject to the genre of romantic comedy, and to the consoling familiarity of Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks.
The more one wallows in one's inner feelings, of course, the more anxious one becomes. Permit me to state without equivocation that your innermost feelings, whoever you might be, are commonplace, dull, and tawdry. Thrown back upon one's feelings, one does not become a Harry Potter or Luke Skywalker, but a petulant, self-indulgent bore with an aversion to mirrors. To compensate for this ennui one demands stimulus. That is the other ingredient in J K Rowlings' success formula. Magical devices distract us from the boredom inherent in the characters, and one cannot gainsay the fecundity of the author's imaginative powers. She manufactures new enchantments as fast as Industrial Light and Magic churns out new computer-generated graphics for the "Star Wars" films, or amusement parks erect faster roller coasters.
Pointy hats, it should be remembered, were made to fit on pointy heads. Rowling's fiction stands in relation to real literature the way that a roller coaster stands in relation to a real adventure. The thrills are cheap precisely because they could not possibly be real. The "boy's own" sort of adventure writing popular in Victorian England had a good deal more merit.
When we put ourselves in the hands of a masterful writer, we undertake a perilous journey that puts our soul at risk. Empathy with the protagonist exposes us to all the spiritual dangers that beset the personages of fiction. In emulation of the ancient tale in which a seven days' sojourn among the fairies turns out to be an absence of seven years, Thomas Mann sends Hans Castorp to the magic mountain of a tuberculosis sanitarium - but it is the reader is captured and transformed.
We are too complacent to wish upon ourselves such a transformation, and too lazy to attempt it. We find tiresome the old religions of the West that preach repentance and redemption, and instead wish to hear reassurance that God loves us and that everything is all right. We have lost the burning thirst for truth - for inner change - that drives men to learn ancient languages, pore over mathematical proofs, master musical instruments, or disappear into the wild. We want our thrills pre-packaged and micro-waveable. Above all we want our political leaders, our pastors, our artists and our partners in life to validate our innermost feelings, loathsome as they may be. I do not know you, dear reader; the only thing I know about you with certainty is that your innermost feelings would bore me.
Western literature, along with all great Western art, is Christian in character, including the product of a putative heathen like Goethe, whom Franz Rosenzweig correctly called the prototype of a modern Christian.[3] It is Christian precisely because it deals with overcoming one's "inner self". A jejune Manichaeanism pervades the Potter books as well as the “Star Wars” films, and I suppose a case could be made that such a crude apposition of Good and Evil corresponds in some fashion to the emotional narcissism of the protagonists.
In that sense, Christian leaders who disapprove of the whole Potter business simply are doing their job. According to some news reports, Pope Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Ratzinger, disparaged Rowling's books in a private letter written two years ago. But according to NZ City on July 18, "New Zealand Catholic Church spokeswoman Lyndsay Freer says there is some question over the validity of the letter. She says more importantly, Vatican cultural advisors feel the book is not a theological work and is just plain children's literature. Ms Freer says it's wonderful children are being encouraged to read, and the Potter books are no different from the likes of Grimms' Fairy Tales and Star Wars." How reassuring it is that the ecclesiastical authorities of Auckland have taken the initiative to correct the pope on this matter.
So you haven't read the books, then? You cannot have read the books, and yet you are posting as if you are an authority on their content.
Most of the books take place in a school. Why would the wimpy little twit in question have to attend a school? He's got all the shortcuts, right?
I have no problem with discussing controversial aspects of the books, but when it comes to discussing the actual content, it sure helps to discuss it with someone who has read them, not merely assumed them.
I scarfed LoTR down at 15 -- all three books -- in less than a month. I ripped through all 12 of E.R. Burroughs Mars novels in about a semester when I was 17. I recently picked up LoTR and one of the Mars novels at a bookstore and found that, at the ripe old age of 40, I simply could not read what I've taken to referring to as "stultifyingly thick" prose.
"So you haven't read the books, then? You cannot have read the books, and yet you are posting as if you are an authority on their content."
You Potter apologists always level that accusation at us Potter poopers. What is it, just a desperate attempt to deny that intelligent, educated people could possibly disagree with you?
"Most of the books take place in a school. Why would the wimpy little twit in question have to attend a school? He's got all the shortcuts, right?"
He's got special powers that the school is merely refining and developing. And along the way, we see him breaking school rules, disobeying teachers, lying, and doing things that the dumb old teachers couldn't get done. Those things completely undermine your argument.
"I have no problem with discussing controversial aspects of the books"
Yeah, you do. This is like arguing with Apple computer true believers.
"but when it comes to discussing the actual content, it sure helps to discuss it with someone who has read them, not merely assumed them."
Nah, you can just assume that the Potter poopers haven't read any part of any HP book, and use that as an excuse to give any real thought to the "controversial issues."
By the way, how many times did you see Farenheit 9/11?
I would have to call ERB mostly a writer for young adolescents.
But you might download "The Mucker" and see what you think. I'd be interested to hear if you think it's any better than the Barsoom books.
Well, the downside is that it might make kids have unreasonable and grandiose occult expectations about the abilities of ectomorphic nerdy dorks with glasses.
I think that is the real issue. We homeschool so of course we are very involved with our kids in every facet of life. We talk about and verify everything before our children read or see it. Unfortunately that's not true for many families, but as you said, we cannot hold literature responsible for bad parenting.
Parenting the right way is a job that requires a lot of work. Since kids are our legacy we do what we think is best, no matter how much work it is or how inconvenient that makes our lives. For us we don't really see any difference between Harry Potter and the 1971 movie Bedknobs and Broomsticks.
We try to be open to instruction in all ways. That is, we try to remain teachable in case we're wrong somewhere. But... If there are valid arguments against letting children watch Harry Potter than I haven't yet seen them.
Zinger! The media has chosen to blow up a personal opinion expressed by Cardinal Ratzinger into a "ruling by the Pope." It's hogwash.
So do the other students. Indeed, HP comes across as a pretty piss-poor pupil (say that five times fast) when it comes to the magical arts.
LOL! My daughter could write that, only she's too young to remember Buddy Holly!
His glasses are certainly reminiscent of Clark Kent.
"I think you overstate the case."
That would be nice.
"To an element of our society, as illustrated by Hollyweird today and the gangsta-rap bling-bling culture, those schmoes are heroes. But only to an element of our society."
It's easy for a person to get a distorted picture, but I work with a bunch of younger people, all college graduates, some Americans, Australians, Englanders, Gaynadians...trying to have a discussion with them is like talking with people who have lived their lives in caves.
Just this morning we were talking about the Sopranos, and I brought up Hannah Arendt (blank looks) describing Adolf Eichmann (blank looks) as representing "the Banality of Evil" (looks so blank I wondered if I had given them a hernia of the frontal lobes).
I mentioned Walter Mitty (blank looks). I used the phrase "hoist with my own petard" (blank looks). I mentioned that the movie "10 Things I Hate About You" was a ripoff of "Taming of the Shrew" (never heard of it).
I said to one of them, "Do you bite your thumb at me, sir?" (Do what?) Fulda Gap (never heard of it). Bay of Pigs (heard of it, but no idea what it was about or what happened). Douglas MacArthur's father Arthur (never heard of him). The Spanish didn't completely throw the mooselimbs out of Spain until 1492 (amazement). American Indians practiced slavery (No!). Audie Murphy? Never heard of him.
Casablanca? 12 O'Clock High? High Noon? Treasure of the Sierra Madre? From Here to Eternity? Fergit it. And don't even get me started on the books they never even heard of.
Their schools may have taught them to think, though I doubt it, but their schools certainly didn't give them anything to think *about*.
They don't know how many people there are in congress. They don't know how many Supreme Court justices there are, nor do they recognize their names when I bring them up.
I passed around the book, "Cultural Literacy," and the only response I got was, "Man, I don't know *any* of that stuff."
They are functional morons, and yet they are convinced that they are among the best and the brightest. The frightening thing is that they may be.
"So do the other students."
Who are a tiny fraction of the population.
Most of all, they are not "muggles." They are *special.*
He could be a nuclear engineer with a secret identity as a rock star who saves the world from George Soros.
"He didn't wear pants either, so he was clearly some kind of swinger."
How could I miss that? It's even worse than I thought.
And most are completely lost when dealing with the real (muggle) world. Mr. Weasely's fondest dream is figuring out how airplanes fly.
Actually Egon's Ghostbuster laser might work well on the Soros types. [irony]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.