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.
Wasn't that "Arnold" from "Happy Days" as the karate instructor? That may have contributed to undermining the plausibility structures.
You would still have property in the form of land, spaceships, etc.. Who controls property? Ah, the "Federation".
Picard's statement "We have eliminated the need for money, we seek to better ourselves", and the idea of global government is marxism.
Star Trek is Marxist utopia.
"I sure hope that the F/11 crack was uncharacteristic on your part."
I had a point.
I assume that you didn't see it, as I didn't, and yet we have both read a good deal about it and heard it discussed, and think that we have enough information about it to have an opinion.
I'm quite willing to extend that assumption to you with regard to Moore's filth, yet you are unwilling to extend it to Potter poopers. If the subject is HP, one must have actually read the books before one can have a valid opinion.
"There are a few spells which Harry cannot successfully cast"
Being able to cast *any* spells is a short-cut to power.
"--if you were familiar with the book, we could discuss what that says about the kind of boy Harry is."
See my "F/11 crack."
"Most of the actions that you have cited are not glorified at all."
They turn out well in the end. That is sufficient glorification.
"And no, he does not go unpunished or unscathed for his digressions."
In the end, he is the victorious hero.
"You are trying to convince me that you're right and I'm wrong. Different goals."
The essence of debate is to present one's case as strongly as one can, consistent with truth. There have been several times that people have convinced me that I was wrong in such discussions, and I am grateful to them.
My goal is to arrive at the truth; if you can show me that the opinion I now hold is incorrect, I will be in your debt. But for that to happen, both parties have to take their best shots.
"When it comes to specific content of the book, however, having read it helps when arguing a point."
Only true when you are quibbling over irrelevant trivia. Otherwise, as with Farenheit 9/11, knowledge gained from reading about and discussing the work suffices.
"can't say that I agree with you there. Hogwarts (the Wizardry school the characters attend) is a very intense seven-year school."
But they have to have magical powers just to get in to the school. Muggles aren't admitted. And therein lies the parallel to Karate Kid.
Ahem,
The likes of "Orlando Furioso", "Amadis" and the Arthur myths are chock full of superhuman characters fulfilling their destinies.
These sorts of things were the fiction best-sellers right out of the gate when printing was invented. These are the books ordinary people wanted to have read out loud - see "Don Quixote" for an idea of their impact.
I think the questionable thing is that the "skill" in question is very powerful - but not particularly morally dependent. In reality, this is true of any skill, be it "magic" or "science."
Personally, I think the books are a good read, sort of on the "Five Children and It" level (famous British kids' book). But I have heard that the latest one is much more about the conflict between good and evil, and evokes Arturian (as in King Arthur) images relating to Britain. I
The Pope, btw, was simply responding to somebody's letter and obviously had never read the books himself. He simply said that a belief in magic - without morality - can corrupt, which is true. Look at the New Agers, who are firm believers in magic, ranging from crystals to thetans, but have absolutely no moral compass.
If what I have read about this latest book is true, however, this may take HP out of the magic, harmless or otherwise, category and move him into something much more significant.
"Yes, yes, I know. I'm a curmudgeon, a party pooper, and likely a mugwup."
That's "Potter pooper."
Been a Bloom fan since "The Closing of the American Mind."
Guffaw!
Just lost some beer. Maybe...Rowling is hinting at her secret Ophite snake worship leanings, eh? [silly sarcasm alert]
I think I may be with Prof. Bloom on this - that we are dealing with kitsch and a sort of P.T. Barnum culture phenomenon which could be nailed down by casting John Goodman in the next film. Willy Wonka meets the Addams Family. Do any kids really "read" these books in their entirety?
"Tonstant Weader Fwowed Up" is one of my favorite lines - although I thought the Pooh books were OK and read them to my kids. I liked Wind in the Willows better, but the kids did not.
Asimov was a much better writer than Hubbard.
I'm going to be 30 in two weeks and would really like it if I still counted as a kid to at least someone!! LMAO
That might require a lot more than 4 hours a day!
"But they have to have magical powers just to get in to the school. Muggles aren't admitted. And therein lies the parallel to Karate Kid."
So students who get admitted to MIT or Cal Poly-Tech are just like the Karate Kid because they went to schools where you actually have to be smart?
That's damning with faint praise.
"Wasn't that "Arnold" from "Happy Days" as the karate instructor?"
Guy's name is Morita. I've seen him in a million things, but during his time on Happy Days was mostly on ships at sea, so that didn't enter into it for me.
Theres no religion in "Potter", and the magic in it is treated as a technology, however advanced, not spirituality.
God bless you. LMBO
"So students who get admitted to MIT or Cal Poly-Tech are just like the Karate Kid because they went to schools where you actually have to be smart?"
I'd appreciate it if you'd make an effort to avoid leaps of illogic.
A parallel with the KK would be a D student with a 98 IQ who went to a special SAT prep school for six months and came out with a 165 IQ and a score of 1590.
A kid who gets admitted to those schools is not only smart, but has been demonstrating it for some years. In addition, unlike sudden Karate skills or magical powers, intelligence is real.
This always happens when I try to be creative.
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.