Re: Harry Potter–A Worthwhile series??

[mdartagnan]

No: HPFGUIDX 33592

Good evening,

Kevin Kimball wrote:

> After reading the first book in the Potter 
> series, reading The Hobbit, and brushing up on The Lion, the 
> Witch and the Wardrobe, I see a tremendous gulf between 
> Rowling and the other two writers.  

Undoubtely, there are many differences between Rowling, 
Tolkien and Lewis. Anyway, personally I don't think *any* writer or 
literary series should be judged on its first volume alone. Most of 
the times, the first volume is quite "simpler" (for lack of a better 
word) than those that will follow it. A real analysis should be 
based on all the series books... but of course, that's just my 
opinion.

> First, breaking rules is glorified

It all depends on the purpose of the action. For example...

At one point 
> Harry is told not to ride on his broom.  When he does, instead 
of 
> any punishment, he is rewarded with a berth on the Quidditch 
> team.  

I wonder why there's all a commotion about Harry getting a place 
on the Quidditch team after breaking a rule and there is not one 
about Draco not getting punished for breaking that rule before or 
for taking Neville's remembrall. After all, Harry just wanted to 
help.
And, as it's been pointed before, one of the best points of 
Rowling's work is that they're "morally realistic"; in real life, I 
don't doubt some teachers would have given a child a place on 
the football/soccer/whatever team on a similar situation.

> (Actually, it is not honorable for Malfoy to break the rules, only 
> Hermione and Harry--if they feel the need.) 

Most of the times, Malfoy breaks the rules to harm or tease 
others, while Hermione and Harry break the rules to help others. 
Maybe there lies the difference between why it's sometimes 
honorable and sometimes not. 

> Yet later, when he asks 
> Headmaster Dumbledore questions, Dumbledore says, "...I 
> shall answer your questions unless I have a very good reason 
> not to, in which case I beg you'll forgive me.  I shall not, or 
> course, lie."  My immediate response was, why not?  It works 
for 
> Harry.

Harry lied to protect the Stone. Some behaviors, like lying, are not 
good per se, but are necessary —even in real life. If Harry hadn't 
lied, Voldemort would have gotten the Stone and the series 
would have probably ended in book One.
On the other hand, remember that Dumbledore knows more 
about the Potters, Voldemort and what happenned that 
Halloween night than Harry. He obviously thinks Harry must 
know the truth, but in that moment, he's not yet ready to learn it. 
Would it be better to lie to him and them, four or five years later, 
tell him "Remember Harry, that I told you that Voldemort couldn't 
kill you because yadda yadda yadda? Well, I lied."? 

> Rowling appears confused on the issue of lying.

Maybe because the issue of lying is confussing in the real world.


> When presenting the adult human 
> world, Ms. Rowling presents it in such a ridiculously negative 
> light that it becomes completely unrealistic and even offensive.  
> All adults are foolish, bungling, stupid and boringly 
> unimaginative.  Why would a child ever look up to them or need 
> them in any way?

Well, Muggles might be like that (though I really enjoy the scenes 
with the Dursleys). In the wizarding world, not "all" adults are as 
you describe them (what about Molly, or Dumbledore, or Remus, 
or even Snape in his best moments?).
Anyway, in any HP analysis you must remember we see 
everything from Harry's perspective. That, obviously, won't give 
us the same images we would get from a third person PoV,


> Second, respect for order is a part of a Judeo-Christian world 
> view.  Consider the general anarchy encouraged at Hogwarts, 
> when the students sing the school song

First of all, we're never told the Wizarding World is a 
Judeo-Christian world. Nor Middle Earth, BTW, or as far as I can 
remember. 
And where you see anarchy, I see freedom and creativity and 
how both are encouraged. You see, my sister is a kindergarten 
teacher. Sometimes "anarchy", as you call it, must be 
encouraged to let the kids be creative and develop their 
personalities. And as long as the important rules (like discipline, 
or grades, or classes, or respect to teachers and peers) are 
kept, I can't see any evil in allowing some freedom while singing 
or drawing or writing (or in any artistic activity). 

> Chaos versus order.  Which one draws out the best in us?

With all due respect, last year I saw many persons who showed 
the best of them amidst the chaos. ^_^
After all, real life is not Black and White. 


> Payment is always necessary for 
> disobedience, and Edmund realizes the extent of his selfish 
> actions when Aslan sacrifices himself to the witch in place of 
> Edmund.  His evil choices have painful consequences.

I know you only compared the first books of each series, and yet, 
the best example I can think of, from the HP series, comes in the 
third book. Harry uses the Invisibility Cloak and the Marauder's 
Map to visit Hogsmeade even if he has been forbidden to do so. 
It's not an evil choice, but a selfish one (just like Edmund's. The 
White Queen was evil, but he was merely selfish IMO). Harry 
meets the painful consequences of his choice, just as Edmund. 
No, nobody died for him, but he was reminded that his parents 
died for him and that he was foolishly wasting their sacrifice. It's 
the worst scold Harry has ever recieved, IMO.


> There is no ambiguity in their integrity or lack thereof.  
> Consider the difference between how Dumbledore, 
Headmaster 
> of Hogwarts School, and Aslan, ruler of Narnia, present 
> themselves in their first appearance before the children. 

I don't think there's a valid comparison here. Aslan is a symbol 
of Christ, so Lewis  treats him with respect (and caution, again 
IMO). But Dumbledore is not a symbol, but a character. You can't 
place them on the same league.
And with all due respect, as a child, I would have been terrified by 
Aslan but felt a sort of bond with Dumbledore after such 
introduction. I prefer people with a good sense of humor.


> At the beginning of Harry Potter, Harry hates his family, 
laughing 
> at their stupidity and dreaming of revenge

Maybe because he's been mistreaten by them all his life? 
And personally, I can see a difference between the Harry of the 
beginning and the Harry of the end, even though the real change 
will become obvious until Book Seven is published. Harry, at the 
end, is more confident and happy than before, has recovered his 
past (or at least part of it) and has friends. And now he's smiling 
more, which is sometimes more important than being brave or 
strong. ^^

>In handing any book to a 
> child, one must know if the child can discern the world views 
and 
> not be swept into a view that is counter to the truth being 
instilled 
> in him.

Aren't that what parents are there for? To check whatever their 
kids are reading/seeing/hearing and guiding them using the 
books/tv shows/whatever as tools? 
I clearly remember my mother used to watch TV with me and we 
would discuss what we saw. She didn't check what I read, 
though, and fantasy has been with me since I was very young. 
And now, many years after that, the  "contrast" between what I 
read and what I learned at home has only given me a wider 
perspective of life and human beings.

> Lewis and Tolkien both write with an impeccable 
understanding 
> of and a rightful submission to the English language.   

But weren't they scholars? Wasn't that their job? 
And, with a sincere apology to Tolkien fans, I HAD to jump some 
paragraphs that were becoming a bit too boring for my tastes. 
The same happenned with Victor Hugo, though. ^^UU
Oh well, I confess. I couldn't care less about language. English 
is not my first language and the first copies I had of The Hobbit 
and The Philosopher's Stone were in Spanish. 

What draws me to a book are storylines and characters and 
settings, and the desire to be swept into another world for the 
time I hold a book in my lap. I enjoyed LotR, I'm enjoying HP and 
I'm barely in the second book of Narnia. I'm not looking for 
grammar nor for moral lessons, since I learn about those in real 
life. I want to enjoy a well-told tale. And from that perspective, I 
can't say Tolkien is better than Rowling, nor than Lewis is better 
than Tolkien. I can only say that I love Rowling's characters, that 
Tolkien's world is flawless and that I'd wish Lewis would have 
tuned a bit down the allegories, even if his story is quite 
enjoyable.


> Rowling's world view is 
> not one to immerse a child in if you are seeking to raise him in 
a 
> Judeo-Christian ethic. 

Three questions:
a) What if I don't want to give the HP books to a child, but buy 
them for me? 
b) What if I prefer to raise a child in a Judeo-Christian ethic by 
using real-life examples and with my own behavior and decide 
that books, specially when you're young, are to be enjoyed?
c) What if a person couldn't care less about a Judeo-Christian 
ethic? 


 Beyond that, encouraging a child to read 
> poorly written yet "sensational" literature may produce a child 
> who can read Harry Potter stories, but it will not produce a 
> reader.

Oh, my... 
I know I'm not a child, but know of a lot of children who were 
drawn to other books after reading the first HP volume (you 
know, while we wait for Book 5). 
I was drawn into literature after reading Little Women, which 
might have been a HP-styled novel on its time.  (Don't kill me)
I've learned of many persons that read HP and now are reading 
LotR, or viceversa (like my case). Many of them are reading other 
kind of books, or read them first and then included HP on their 
lists much later.
Aren't we being a bit, er... exaggerated? ^^UU



Take care,
Altair aka MJ
Sorry about typos, bad grammar, etc... it's late and I should be 
sleeping.