Re: Harry Potter–A Worthwhile series??

[rycar007]

No: HPFGUIDX 33646

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kimballs6" <kevinkimball at h...> wrote:
>Sometimes breaking rules is honorable, 
> sometimes it must be punished.  Sometimes a lie is bad, 
> sometimes it is good.  

and

> First, breaking rules is glorified:  "Hermione had become a bit 
> more relaxed about breaking rules since Harry and Ron had 
> saved her from the mountain troll, and she was much nicer for 
> it."  But when Malfoy or other "Slytherins" break rules, they are 
> punished--to the cheers of Harry and his gang.  

and

> Second, Rowling leaves the option of lying up to the individual, 
> and even glorifies it.  If Harry needs to lie, he simply 
> will:  "When 
> facing a magic mirror, Harry thinks desperately, `I must lie,..I 
> must look and lie about what I see, that's all.'"  And yes, he is 
> rewarded with the Sorcerer's Stone.  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."  

I happen to disagree with almost all of this paper (except the praise 
of Lewis and Tolkien's storytelling abilities, with which I heartily 
agree) First, the paper completely ignores the motivation behind any 
of Harry or Dumbledore's actions. The author considers the act of 
lying to be wrong without considering the circumstances, much like 
those who consider magic to be wrong, thus plainly inserting his/her 
own beliefs into a paper that begins by sounding objective.
Let's look at the circumstances the author mentioned, rule breaking 
for starters. Harry, Ron, and Hermione (HRH) break rules generally 
for altruistic reasons: ie, returning Norbert to the wild, 
preventing a theft - a sensitive person would most likely also 
forgive Harry's desire to see his murdered parents for the first time 
in his life. 
The Slytherins' motivations, however, are fueled primarily by 
dislike. Malfoy breaks the rules in order to get Hagrid fired and 
HRH expelled, simply because he dislikes them both. 
When Harry says to himself, "I must lie,..I must look and lie about 
what I see," consider the motivation for this too. He's speaking to 
Lord Voldemort, the most evil wizard the world has known in ages, 
who teeters on the brink of immortality - Harry is the only one who 
can prevent this. Does the author seriously expect Harry to tell 
Voldemort that he now possesses the stone, just so he won't commit 
the "sin" of lying? To do so would doom the wizarding world! When 
Dumbledore, however, has no reason to lie to Harry; no good would 
come of it, and it would adversely affect a good person. There must 
be a distinction between lying to Voldemort and lying to Harry; one 
cannot expect to conclude that the "lie" is itself a bad thing, but 
the motivation behind it determines is goodness.
 
 
> Finally, concerning the adult world, or those who would be in 
> authority, there is only derision.  

and

> All the teachers at Hogwarts are either 
> dirty, deranged, deceitful, or all three.  

and

>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?
 

While this may be a failing of only having read the first book, and 
also with the plain intent of criticism, it seems the author has 
ignored several points. Let's look at some examples of the good 
teachers at Hogwarts, and the good wizarding people all around: Molly 
Weasley, Albus Dumbledore, Professor McGonagall, Hagrid, Madame 
Hooch, Madame Pomfrey, and perhaps more, but since the author seems 
to base his/her assumptions purely on the first book, I wouldn't want 
to ruin any surpises. Now let's look at the bad adults in the book: 
Voldemort, Snape, Quirrel, Madame Pince, The Dursleys...and, oh, look 
at that, that's all. The author seems to believe that position and 
age are the basis for respect, that one should not care what the 
person is if he is in a position of power. Does the author want Harry 
to pay blind devotion to an order that is "dirty, deranged, 
deceitful, or all three?" The Dursleys do not deserve respect from 
Harry just because they are older than him.


> Second, respect for order is a part of a Judeo-Christian world > > 
view.  

This and many other parts of the essay plainly show that to the 
author is speaking within the context of the Judeo-Christian 
worldview and would define what is good literature by this. (Not that 
I in any way would say anything bad about Lewis or Tolkien, on the 
contrary, Narnia was the driving factor behind my becoming a writer, 
although I admit it did leave a bad taste in my mouth, still not 
quite driven out, when I realized the allegory)

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

Hmm, that last one is quite arguable. Millions of people followed 
Hitler because he was higher up on the scale, and look what 
happened? Order is important of course, but never when it props up an 
unjust system just because it's orderly.

> Not much growth  in maturity has occurred between the first 
chapter 
>and the last 
> paragraph.  When the other `witchlings' feel sorry for Harry as he 
> goes back to his nasty family, Harry smiles and says, "They  
> don't know we're not allowed to use magic at home.  I'm going 
> to have a lot of fun with Dudley this summer...." 


In this way, I suppose the author means that since Harry has not 
accepted child-abuse as the right of his aunt and uncle because of 
their position and age that he has not grown. If anything, I believe 
the fact that he has grown more defiant of an unjust patriarch means 
that he has become stronger.

> 
> Although there are many more avenues that can be explored--
> including witchcraft versus mythology--the preceding points are 
> enough to show that yes, there is quite a world view gulf 
> between Rowling and Lewis/Tolkien.  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.

Is the truth instilled or trancendental?


--I won't remark upon the grammer, I happen to feel that,
that speaking as a writer, grammer comes second - after the 
expression of the story.--

> Rowling's world view is 
> not one to immerse a child in if you are seeking to raise him in a  
> Judeo-Christian ethic.  
 
Which is exactly why, when I have a child, I will give it Harry 
Potter. I would want my child to embrace freedom, to take stand 
against things that are wrong, not caring whether that injustice is 
done by an adult or a child or a god, to realize that an action is 
not wrong, it is the circumstances that determine it - and to 
realize that this does not make good and evil relative either. 
 
-Rycar, who edited this from a much angrier version :)