Talisman returns...

[Tim Regan]

Hi All,

Carolyn recommended:
>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/25335 <<<

Anne replied:
>>> Fortunately I read it before; unfortunately it's disappeared <<<

Carolyn postulated:
>>> I suppose the Elves thought it was libellous or something. [
] 
wish I'd copied it to my hard drive <<<

I don't think so. I'm not the most observant elf but I have not seen 
any notice or discussion about removing that post on any of the 
elves' lists. I did save it in my mail-file, so here's a copy for 
those who missed it :-)

Cheers,

Dumbledad.

--------------------------------------------------

From: Talisman [mailto:talisman22457 at yahoo.com]
Sent: Tue 14/12/2004 18:35 
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com 
Subject: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Books about Harry Potter

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "elady25" <imamommy at s...> 
wrote:
 I was at Borders today and saw a book entitled "Harry Potter and 
Philosophy (If Aristotle ran Hogwarts) edited by David Bagget and 
Shawn E. Klein. I was wondering if anyone out there had read it (or 
written it!) and if you thought it was any good. Also, are there any 
other books *about* the Harry Potter series that deserve a good read 
(other than those by Galadriel Waters). Thanks! > > imamommy

Talisman, shaking off a layer of dust, responds:

If you found any of the Waters books meaningful, which I have not, 
then I cannot speak to how you would enjoy _Harry Potter and 
Philosophy_ . 

FWIW, based on the excert available at Amazon.com, I'd call it a 
mediocre effort, put out by academics of questionable talent, who, 
feeling the old professorial pressure to publish, decided to ride 
the HP train and slapped together some slop, garnished, of course, 
with notable names in philosophy.

The Amazon site offers a "look inside" where a good bit of an essay 
entitled "The Courageous Harry Potter," by Tom Morris (whoever he 
may be, is available for review.

I found the ideas expressed in this "teaser" rather tepid. If it 
were an freshman essay, and I were feeling sympathetic, I might give 
it a "C minus," adding some advice on how to do better next time. 
Otherwise I'd chuck it in the trash.

The premise itself is such a snore that it's tiresome to read the 
title. We all know how important bravery is to Rowling and her 
series. We are quite well acquainted with the prerequisites of 
Gryffindor, and it would be difficult to find readers who do not 
think Harry exhibits courage on a routine basis. 

The tread-bare idea that courage is not equivalent to fearlessness, 
but rather entails the ability to move forward in spite of fear, is 
the stuff of Sesame Street skits, please wake me up when Mr. Morris 
is done talking about it.

Morris presses the point, in hopes of wedging Aristotle into the 
mix, and tries to make Harry an exemplar of the golden mean-- 
requiring that his courage be equipoise between fearlessness and 
recklessness. This is not a successful argument.

Now perhaps we could--if anyone actually thought it profitable-- 
argue about just where on the fearless/reckless continuum Harry 
belongs in any given situation. And I would allow that recklessness 
is a relative thing, acknowledging that one does not always have the 
luxury of prudent rumination when Dark Wizards are about. 
Nonetheless, Harry's "plan" usually consists of 1) grab wand 2) jump 
down dark gaping abyss.

Mistakenly believing that Aristotle has his back, Morris goes on to 
take an even more untenable stance, proposing what he calls 
Harry's "Recipe For Courage." 

At this point the moldering aroma of stale pop-psychology, gleaned 
from an old paper Mr. Morris had lying about in a dog-eared manila 
folder, begins to permeate the air. While we all hold our noses, he 
attempts to resuscitate the corpse with liberal sprinkles of Harry 
Potter juice. 

The Recipe requires that one:

1) Prepare for the challenge;  2) Surround one's self with support; 
3) Engage in positive self talk; 4) Focus on what is at stake; and 
then 5) Engage in appropriate action.

(I will not be at all surprised to find that Morris is some sort of 
wanky guidance counselor.)

Harry doesn't prepare for challenges. The fact that he has any 
preparation relevant to a challenge is attributable either to luck 
or DD's plan (depending on your theoretical stance). He thinks Snape 
has slipped past Fluffy, so he jumps through the trap door; he hears 
Ginny has been taken, so he jumps down the pipe; a big dog grabs his 
friend, so he gives chase.

 Morris tries to pin this together with quotes from GoF, where Harry 
is feeling more confident about the third challenge, having actually 
practiced some hexes and defensive spells. 

It's true that Harry did put more work into the third challenge--in 
stark contrast to the lackadaisical attitude he exhibited for number 
two-- but, he certainly didn't prepare to meet Voldemort in the 
graveyard. 

Moreover, the spell he used on Voldemort was not shown to be one he 
practiced particularly for the maze. In fact, I think it unlikely 
that he planned to use the Expelliarmus spell, at all, that night.  
And, once again, his salvation came from unexpected (at least to 
Harry) sources: Priori Incantatum and helpful shadow people.

Harry is closest to the reckless line in Book 5, where Hermione 
warns--what Snape has already cautioned Harry about, and what turns 
out to be true--that Voldmort is using the mind connection to 
manipulate Harry for his own ends. Harry only checks at Grimmauld 
place because Hermione insists, and even then, he is so hot-headed 
he relies on the taunt of a hostile house elf, forgets that Snape is 
in the Order, and takes off for the MoM as soon as he can, with no 
real idea what he will do when he gets there. 

The weakness of the argument follows on for Step 2: Surround one's 
self with support.

 Harry doesn't ask Ron and Hermione to follow him through the trap 
door, they insist. Ron goes with Harry in CoS because it's Ginny who 
has been taken. But, Ron is only helpful because Harry also asks 
Lockheart to come along--which turns out to be a rather bad idea. 
Ron's wand action effectively takes both of them out of the 
equation, and Harry proceeds into the CoS just as alone as if he 
hadn't started out with anyone at all. Etc., etc. Look at any of the 
books. Harry's courage simply is not shown to be the product of 
external influence.

Harry does engage in some (Step 3) positive self talk, but just as 
often his inner speech is fatalistic or even unnecessarily 
pessimistic.

Take for instance his mental process before dueling LV: "Harry 
crouched behind the headstone and knew the end had come. There was 
no hope . . . No help to be had. . . . He knew one thing only and it 
was beyond fear or reason (hmmm, sounds like Morris's definition of 
fearlessness, which HE considers the opposite of courage) 
 he was 
going to die trying to defend himself, even if no defense was 
possible." (GoF 662)

I just don't think Morris read the books.

As for Step 4, I'm sure Harry always focuses on what he thinks is a 
stake, so what?

Whether (Step 5) Harry's actions are always the appropriate ones can 
be debated, but, even if Morris finds adequate support for this 
point (which we won't know unless we read the actual book) his essay 
is without value. Morris's construct doesn't further the reader's 
understanding of the series. It simply isn't germane.

Morris's recipe is a recipe for a great big yawn.

All meaningful subtext emerges from philosophy. I would love to read 
a worthy examination of the philosophy undergirding the series. But, 
unless the rest of the book is of much higher caliber than what we 
are shown, this isn`t it. Personally, I advice waiting for the local 
library's copy. Or be one of those people who sit in Borders and 
read before you buy.

Eventually, I will probably leaf through it, though. After all, 
someone quotes Martha Nussbaum on pages 168-169, so there is a bit 
of hope . . .

And, it's only $12.95 plus S &H, so if your willing to blow a little 
mad money, go ahead. But, if it all turns out to be as lame as Mr. 
Morris's offering, don't say I didn't warn you.

Suggesting you contemplate the Hegelian dialectic, instead. At least 
until the library acquisition is complete.

Talisman