A Time for Harry Potter

National Review ^ | 10/27/01 | Thomas Hibbs

[jrherreid]

A Time for Harry Potter
Hollywood sets to contribute to our post-September 11 culture.

By Thomas S. Hibbs, associate professor of philosophy at Boston College and the author, most recently, of Shows About Nothing.
October 27-28, 2001

 

n the wake of the atrocities of September 11, Hollywood has engaged in the sort of self-scrutiny typical of Hollywood: trivial self-absorption. Various studios have pulled or delayed projects now deemed too sensitive for the viewing public; there has even been talk of removing the Twin Towers from scenes shot in Manhattan, as if their absence would make it easier on viewers. Hollywood narcissism peaked with the director Robert Altman's insistence that the terrorist plots had to have been inspired by Hollywood films. Yet, almost in spite of itself, Hollywood may in the coming months make significant contributions to our post-September 11 culture. Hollywood will soon release two films, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone and The Lord of the Rings, that, if they attain anything close to the dramatic excellence of the novels, will have much to say about good and evil and the necessity and nobility of fighting evil for the sake of justice.

Although there is a settled consensus about Tolkien's artistic and ethical success in depicting a cosmic battle between good and evil, some, notably Christians, have voiced severe reservations about J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter series, especially about the role of magic in the books. To my mind, these objections are absurdly wide of the mark and none of the critics that I have encountered gives evidence of having read the books with care. (A thoughtful response to these criticisms can be found in Alan Jacob's essay, "Harry Potter's Magic" in the January 2000 issue of First Things.) In fact, I would argue that Rowling's series is not only not part of the problem, its is part of the solution to what ails our popular culture, especially our youth culture. In the aftermath of September 11, the books are remarkably timely, offering precisely the sort of lessons and examples young persons need to prepare them for life in a nation at war with the evil of terrorism.

Over the past 20 years or so, our popular culture has been preoccupied with a) destructive evil as a form of entertainment, b) freedom as a form of adolescent self-expression, and c) narcissistic individualism as characteristic of ordinary American life. By contrast, Harry Potter insists a) on the clear distinction between good and evil and between both of these and mere entertainment, b) on the importance of the responsible or virtuous use of freedom, and c) on the nobility of sacrifice for the common good.

In a culture where demonic evil is reduced either to a pointy-headed comic-book figure (think Jon Lovitz as Satan on Saturday Night Live) or to a sinister but ultimately playful aesthete (think Hannibal Lecter), Harry Potter offers a credible figure of diabolical evil: Lord Voldemort, traitor, murderer of Harry's parents, and Harry's enduring nemesis. As is true in our world, so too in Harry's world, evil often seems more attractive and complex than goodness. As Quirrell, one of Voldemort's faithful followers, makes clear, the logical term of the pursuit of evil is a raw will to power. Quirrell recalls the first time he met Voldemort : "A foolish young man I was then, full of ridiculous ideas about good and evil. Lord Voldemort showed me how wrong I was. There is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it."

But for all their ability to wreak havoc, to spread a culture of death (Voldemort's very name means "death wish"), evildoers in the Potter universe are either pathetic, weak sycophants or malevolent beings who rule through fear, hatred, and preying upon the innocent. Indeed, the very act of attempting to kill the infant Harry (an attack that left Harry with his trademark, lightning bolt scar) backfires on Voldemort, rendering him impotent, barely alive, forced to lead a vicarious, parasitic life, feeding off of and inhabiting the very bodies of others, hoping desperately to regain his power.

Although the books are always clear about the difference between good and evil, the contrast is never simplistic. There are a rich spectrum of character types, embodying a host of virtues and vices. Even those who are on the side of good can find themselves tempted by vice, momentarily uncertain whether their path is the right one. So struck is Harry by certain unsettling similarities between himself and Voldemort that he begins to doubt his destiny. As he often does in times of trouble, Harry turns to Dumbledore, the wise headmaster at Hogwarts, whose courage and force (he's repeatedly said to be the only wizard Voldemort fears) remains concealed behind his gentle, avuncular visage. Harry continues to be troubled by the fact that the Sorting Hat, a magical hat that in a public ritual assigns each student to a particular school within Hogwarts, at first wanted to put Harry into Slytherin, which produced Voldemort and many of his followers. Recalling this, Harry says to Dumbledore:

"So I should be in Slytherin," Harry said, looking desperately into Dumbledore's face. "The Sorting Hat could see Slytherin's power in me, and it--"

"Put you in Gryffindor," said Dumbledore calmly, "Listen to me Harry. You happen to have many qualities Salazar Slytherin Prized in his handpicked students. Resourcefulness … determination…a certain disregard for rules," he added, his moustache quivering again. "Yet the Sorting Hat placed you in Gryffindor. You know why that was. Think."

"It only put me in Gryffindor," said Harry in a defeated voice, "Because I asked not to go in Slytherin."

"Exactly," said Dumbledore, beaming once more. "Which makes you very different from [Voldemort]. It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." Harry sat motionless in his chair, stunned.

The books affirm in multiple ways the complex interconnections among choice, habit, character, and destiny. Indeed, those who criticize the presence of magic in the books fail to see the way the stories underscore the inherent limitations to magic. The strongest limitation concerns truth, which Dumbledore calls a "beautiful and terrible thing" that must be treated with "great caution." At one point, Dumbledore informs an astonished Harry, who had expected Dumbledore to come up with a magical solution to a particularly vexing situation, that he has "no power to make others see the truth." Thus, those who stand with the truth will at times find themselves at a disadvantage in their battle against those who believe that the use of any means is justified so long as serves the end of their own aggrandizement and power. But this means that those who fight against dark forces must be ever vigilant in their exercise of the virtues of courage, loyalty, prudence, and justice. It also means that the virtuous must be willing to die in the service of the common good, especially to defend the innocent. In a marvelous passage at the end of the most recent entry in the series, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Dumbledore urges his students, "we are only as strong as we are united, as weak as are divided. Lord Voldemort's gift for spreading discord and enmity is very great. We can fight only by showing an equally strong bond of friendship and trust."

Is not this among the things that young readers find so attractive in the Harry Potter books, an invitation to participate in a series of quests, to find their proper place, their dramatic role, not alone but in friendship with others, in the battle between good and evil?

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

I know you are still reading The Lord of the Rings, so I don't want to give too much away, (the joy is in the discovery!), but this paragraph needs addressing.

In his great fantasy epic, The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien also portrays magic as deception. Supernatural powers that do not rightly belong to man are repeatedly shown as having a corrupting influence on man. While it is true that Gandalf, one of the central characters, is called a "wizard" throughout, he is not in fact a classical sorcerer. Tolkien maintains that Gandalf is rather a kind of moral guardian, similar to guardian angels but more incarnate. (Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, edited by Humphrey Carpenter and Christopher Tolkien, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1981) In letters 155, 156 and 228 he explains his depiction of matter and spirit, and the distinction between good magic and evil magic. In essence Tolkien's "good magic" is not in fact what we think of as magic in the real world. Gandalf's task is primarily to advise, instruct, and arouse to resistance the minds and hearts of those threatened by Sauron, the Dark Lord of this saga. Gandalf does not do the work for them; they must use their natural gifts-and in this we see an image of grace building on nature, never overwhelming nature or replacing it. Gandalf's gifts are used sparingly, and then only so far as they assist the other creatures in the exercise of their free will and their moral choices.

This is a very subtle and clever way for the author to make his point by slightly changing what is actually written by Tolkein.

First, understand this: In Middle-Earth magic is not considered evil by it's own existance. Since Tolkien "sub-created" Middle-Earth, he can make the rules of Middle-Earth. Some other rules of Middle-Earth include very little religious activity (only one scene which shows any form of ceremony and that is in the third book), a poly-Valaristic governship of Middle-Earth (Iluvatar, the Creator, created the Valar, or arch-angels, and gave them dominion over creation. Iluvatar rarely directly interacts with his creation.), and "evolution" (The hobbits themselves appear to have been a race of man, orcs are elves that Morgoth twisted, trolls are Ents that were twisted by Morgoth, Uruk-Hai are a cross breed of orcs and men created by Saruman, etc.). While Tolkien was a devout Catholic and a dedicated apologist for Christianity, these are the rules he created for Middle-Earth.

Second, Gandalf is a Wizard is the very traditional sense. He is a Maiar, lesser angel, rather than human, but he is in every way a wizard. The five Istari came to Middle-Earth to oppose Sauron, a Maiar that was devoted to Sauron, because the Valar had decided not to directly interfere with Middle-Earth anymore. Gandalf took on the physical body of an old man, although it was immortal like an elf's body. When he was at the doors to Moria (you may not be there yet, so I will try to be careful) he tried to cast every opening spell known to elves, men and orcs. Yep, he didn't use an internal power, or an inherent trait, he tried "spells" known to elves, men and orcs. Do elves have an inherent magic? Yes. But they also have spells. Do men have an inherent magic? No. But they also have spells.

Third, we turn to the magic of the elves. First, Elrond at Rivendell. Rivendell is a place where evil cannot come. When the dark riders attempt to cross the ford of the Bruinen, the river rises up at sweeps them away. Is this the power of the river? No, it is the power of Elrond, who holds one of the 3 rings of power given to the elves. By himself, he could not protect the Valley of Rivendell, but with the ring, he has the power to do so. The same with Galadriel and Lothlorien.

As we can see, Tolkien, as sub-creator, has created rules within his creation that would be witchcraft here in reality. What Rowlings has done is sub-create her world with rules that would be witchcraft in reality. But it's not reality, any more than Middle-Earth, or MacBeth, or 1001 Arabian Nights, or Cinderella.

[Cogadh na Sith]

"well, I got better...."

[Texas2step]

And, I can understand why. ;-) Like I said earlier, a topic for a separate thread. Good and evil go hand in hand. You don't have one without the other.

Gotta run. I'll drop in tonight for further discussion.

[OWK]

Gotta run. I'll drop in tonight for further discussion.

Look forward to picking it up when you have the time.

Regards.

[jrherreid]

Good post!

[Aquinasfan]

Here's the information you need to contact Fr. LeBar:

Fr. LeBar c/o
Archdiocese of New York
1011 First Avenue
New York NY 10022-4134

Or you can call the archdiocese at:
212-371-1000

[Alkhin]

We are ALL Hobbits Now

[Aquinasfan]

I have an idea. Why not have him videotape it, or do a web-cast? Or does he still believe that taking a picture of someone traps their soul in the camera?

Would you believe a videotape? I doubt it. A photograph? Nah. How about an audiotape of someone speaking in ancient Sumerian? That wouldn't work either.

I know, how about a 2000-year-old, pigment-free, burial cloth bearing the negative image of a crucified man, which also contains grayscale, topographic information showing a three dimensional figure when processed with specialized NASA terrain-mapping equipment?

At least that would be hard to fabricate, since scientists don't know how it was done.

[Aquinasfan]

How about Istar (Wise One)?

That would be good.

[Aquinasfan]

How many men cast spells in Rings? Or make magic potions? Or exact revenge through occult means?

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Well miruval (sp?) is the only potion mentioned. It's an elixer from the house of Elrond. The Witch-King and the other 8 Nazgul, they were described as great and mighty kings and queens, powerful in magic. Elrond causes the river to rise up, Galadriel masks the Golden Wood from the eyes of Sauron, Saruman bespells people with his voice, Gandalf uses magic to light a fire, to drive off dire wolves, to provide light in Moria, to open Moria's door, and to break Saruman's staff. Aragorn knows herblore and uses herbs in ways we would consider magical. The elves of Lorien give cloaks to the Fellowship that change color and allow them to blend into the landscape. Frodo and Sam use Galadriel's mirror as a scrying device. Saruman, Pippen, Denethor and Aragorn use the Palantir as a scrying device. Aragorn calls an army of the dead to fight for him. Frodo and Sam speak unbidden (they don't know why or what they are saying) the phrase Elbereth Githoniel (sp?) to drive off creatures of evil. Wow, just trying to think of all of the magic in the series. All of the elves gifts are magical; the waybread, the cloaks, the ropes, the boats, Galdriel's phial, the scabbard she gives Aragorn for Anduril, and the soil and nut she gives Sam.

[jrherreid]

What Aquinasfan is saying is true. Folks acting very strangely when possessed is a well documented phenomenon. I've seen articles on voodoo and possession in all sorts of legitimate publications (National Geographic, Time, etc) and they all have the same conclusion. People under the influence of demons (or whatever you want to call them) act in ways that defy scientific explanation.

[Aquinasfan]

From how you've described it, it sounds like Rings is much more ambiguous than Narnia and should be reserved for older, formed Christians.

Still, Rings does seem to be significantly different from Potter. The primary difference seems to be that Harry uses wizardry to pursue his own ends, whereas Gandalf and Frodo are self-sacrificing and use their supernatural gifts in order to do good and avoid evil.

That's the most I can say without having read the book and having read various synopses.

[Aquinasfan]

At least that would be hard to fabricate, since scientists don't know how it was done.

That's the point.

Huh?

How did the forger, 2000 years ago, create a negative image of a man, without pigment? And how did he also know how to create a grayscale, topographic map that reveals a 3D image when analyzed with sophisticated terrain-mapping equipment?

Either the "forger" was more intelligent than the combined minds of the world's greatest scientists, or the shroud was created supernaturally.

Which position requires more "faith"?

Some people don't believe because believing would cramp their lifestyle, if you know what I mean. Would that be true in your case?

[jrherreid]

Well, if you are interested, you can start with these two: "The African Roots of Voodoo" from National Geographic (August 1995), and also "Haiti's Voodoo Pilgrimages: Of Spirits and Saints." National Geographic (March 1985). You can probably get these at your local library.

[Aquinasfan]

Here is the official The Official Shroud Site. Check out the facial image in the upper left corner. It's quite striking.

The point, since it wasn't clear, is that first you state scientific readings, however debatable they may be, to support your claim on the authenticity of the shroud,

Yes. Conclusive scientific findings that the Shroud is a negative image and that when the image is analyzed with terrain-mapping equipment the three-dimensional image of a man appears.

...and then you blithely state that 'scientists don't know how it was done'.

Blithely? It's a fact. No one has offered a scientific explanation for the creatin of the image. There is no pigment on the cloth, for example. And the image wasn't caused by scorching. The point is that it seems rather strange that a team of many modern scientists can't replicate what a supposed 2000-year-old forger did.

The evidence doesn't hold up, however much you may like to pitch it that way, enough to state one way or the other how it came to be. You can't have it both ways.

OK, how was the image created?

[BMCDA]

Which position requires more "faith"?

That it was created supernaturally, I'd say ;-D