Posted on 11/09/2001 8:04:52 AM PST by jrherreid
A Time for Harry Potter By Thomas S. Hibbs, associate professor of philosophy at Boston College and the author, most recently, of Shows About Nothing. |
|
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:
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? |
Where did I say that? Or did you just assume, like you assume things about the books you are discussing?
Therefore, on a deep level you do not comprehend the mistrust parents have for books about witchcraft aimed at their impressionable eight-year-olds, or the contempt parents hold for those who would corrupt their kids under the guise of "literacy."
I see a lot of parents on this thread who do not hold these paranoid objections that you do. I thought because they had children they were experts on Child Behavior and Development?
Read whatever you want. Just don't tell me you understand anything about the mind of a four-year-old, except what you remember from your own childhood, what you've seen on TV, or what you've read in the Child Psychology 101 syllabus.
Hmmm... If I recall my under-grad work in psychology, Intro to Psych was 101, Child Psych was 211, Behavioral Development was 345, and Patterns of Learning and Memory was 440. Of course, if I don't have children, education about development is nonsense; almost like magic, huh?
Because that's not proof enough for most parents that you know what you're talking about, especially those parents who've read Rowling for themselves and find H.P. vapid, derivative and dangerous.
Declaring Rowlings "vapid" and "derivative" shows that either you have not read her writings or you have no ability to recognize good writing. Good Doctor, please quit trying to change the debate when you are losing. I answered your challenges in full and instead of a rebuttal, I recieve a reply full of indignation that I can't understand children. Bad form.
Why am I not surprised?
I've read all H.P. books, and you have no idea of my literary qualifications. Unfortunately, you've shown yourself to be what so many parents fear -- an 'expert' on other people's children.
After you've raised a few kids, we'll talk some more.
That is your position that I rebutted. Now defend it. You call yourself a parent, but you argue like a child. You won't defend your position, you merely assume that I don't have children and therefore can't understand children. Obviously, good doctor, any doctorate you hold cannot be in a scientific field. Your debating skills are laughable. I don't want to hear again how I am unqualified to understand children, you don't know my qualifications, I want to hear your defense of the above assertions in light of the rebuttal I have given. Anything less is diversion and distraction. Now, do you have the intellectual ability to do so, or are you going to continue to disqualify me based upon assumption?
Aquanisfan, we agree about a lot, a whole lot, but we disagree about this issue. I respect your position and respect your ability to rationally discuss it. This is the type of "defense" of your position though that I have repeatedly stood up against. Please understand why so many get frustrated about this issue from my side. It is the lack of any ability to do anything but say "I'm right, you're wrong, and you are unqualified to speak about it."
OWK, we disagree on a lot, a whole lot, we even disagree a bit on this issue. I implore you however, to take note that Aquanisfan does indeed defend his position and stick to the topics raised during rebuttal. He does not run on a tangent nor try to disqualify anybody from discourse. With the movies coming out in the next few days, I see a pick up in these threads. Let us all agree that we will conduct ourselves in good faith towards defending what we believe and in furthering thought upon this issue.
You're not one of those types, and I don't consider myself one of those types, but you have to admit that the pro-Harry side certainly does its share of religion (i.e. Christain) baiting. You can form your own judgement regarding which side is worse.
Soon, however, the focus of the Hollywood propaganda machine will focus on LoTR and away from Harry Potter, and we can all relax a bit.
I'll just let this one hang out there in the breeze a bit.
Cheers Tony
I think that would eliminate about 90% of the posts! Anyway, sometimes the flames are good for a laugh.
This one's been around for about a week, and was beginning to die out...
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.