Harry Potter : a worthwhile series. (long)

[gte510i]

No: HPFGUIDX 33647

In a previous post I said that I would work on my response to Kevin 
Kimball over the weekend.  However, I couldn't stop thinking about 
it.  So-physics homework and microbiology studying be damned!  Here's 
my attempt at refuting Kimball.  I think he raised excellent points.  
Others have addressed some of them.  Here's my `stab' at it.   BTW, I 
think Kimberly did a wonderful job in her response.

In this response to Kimball's posting there are two points that I 
really want to get across.   I want to show that while they are not 
perfect, Rowling's work in many ways presents a more accurate 
Christian worldview than C.S. Lewis' or Tolkien's work.  I also want 
to get across that the Harry Potter series is a `multi-volume 
bildungsroman' its not fair to criticize Harry's development when you 
are only a couple hundred pages into his story.


Humanity isn't easy.   Distinction between good and evil isn't always 
evil either.  From the viewpoint of an omniscient and absolute holy 
being such as God, the division is obvious.  But when you are down in 
the muck and mire of human schemes and desires it's hard.  People 
sometimes think that what they are doing is good and that they have 
God's approval for them.   A prime example of this is the Pharisees.  
They believed Jesus to be a troublemaker and a rabble-rouser.  They 
had him executed.  Clearly executing the Son of God was evil, but 
these were upstanding members of the Church, evil from them?  The 
distinction blurs again when people who would later become Christians 
realize:  God intended for it to have happened.  And a much greater 
good came of it.    This of course leaves some Christians to 
ponder `how evil was Jesus' execution if it lead to something so 
wonderful came of it?'  Another example of upstanding adults who 
think they are acting for the good but aren't: Saul.   He held the 
cloaks for those who were stoning Stephen, the first martyr for 
Christ.  It took divine intervention to show him that he was in fact, 
wrong.

I bring up these examples from the Bible to show that 1) Goodness and 
Morality can only be absolute when one knows the whole picture.  
There is only one who knows the whole picture: God.  In Harry Potter, 
children are confronted with a battle between good and evil.  It 
isn't always apparent to them what's going on.  All through the 
Sorcerer's Stone the trio believes Professor Snape to be working for 
Voldemort, yet surprise!  He was working undercover to protect Harry 
and the Stone.   My point here is that in the Harry Potter the 
distinction between good and evil is vague because in real life it 
often is.   You say that when you are trying to raise your children 
with a Christian worldview Harry Potter should be avoided because of 
its lack of distinction between good and evil.  You praise Narnia 
because "good and evil are distinct things, with the rewards and 
consequences for the characters' choices reflecting absolute values?
the adults either have integrity and nobleness, or the stoop to 
deceit and treachery.  There is no ambiguity in their integrity or 
lack thereof".   Not to insult Lewis, I think that most of his works 
are wonderful (especially Screwtape letters), but I think you are 
doing your children a disservice by showing them only works that show 
good as distinct from evil.  As I have shown above real life is 
fraught with ambiguity.  Your children may get the impression that 
evil adults are obvious because they are `treacherous' and the good 
people are equally as obvious. This could be dangerous.  They may 
also have the idea that bad things only happen to bad people and vice 
versa, leaving them very confused when they see someone their age 
dies or cheaters get praised in school.
  
This is one of the reasons Harry Potter is wonderful.  Despite its 
whimsy (which I dearly love) it is more realistic that the absolute 
world of Middle-Earth or Narnia.  This is perhaps why the Harry 
Potter series is considered too `dark' for children, whereas LotR is 
not, despite much, much more bloodshed.  Harry Potter, in all its 
whimsical, wonderful glory pulls back the curtain and exposes to 
children that the real world isn't fair.  People die for no more 
reason than that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.  
Characters in these books deal with real concepts of grief and moving 
on. As Dumbledore so wisely instructs his students in the memorial/ 
leaving feast in Goblet of Fire:

Cedric was a person who exemplified many of the qualities that 
distinguish Hufflepuff house?He was a good and loyal friend, a hard 
worker, he valued fair play.  His death has affected you all, whether 
you knew him or not.  I think that you have the right to know how it 
came about?Cedric Diggory was murdered by Lord Voldemort. ?The 
ministry of magic?does not wish me to tell you this.  It is possible 
that some of your parents will be horrified that I have done so?
either because they will not believe that Lord Voldemort has 
returned, or because they will think I should not tell you so, young 
as you are.  It is my belief, however, that the truth is generally 
preferable to lies, and that any attempt to pretend that Cedric died 
as the result of an accident, or some sort of blunder of his own, is 
an insult to his memory?In the light of Lord Voldemort's return, we 
are only as strong as we are united, as weak as we are divided.  Lord 
Voldemort's gift for spreading discord and enmity is very great.  We 
can fight it only by showing an equally strong bond of friendship and 
trust?Remember Cedric.   Remember, if the time should ever come when 
you have to make a choice between what is right and what is easy, 
remember what happened to a boy who was good, and kind and brave, 
because he strayed in the path of Lord Voldemort.  Remember Cedric 
Diggory



This is the most powerful seen in the whole series to date.  
Dumbledore, (you don't think him so foolish now do you?)  has issued 
out his challenge to the student body and visitors: just because you 
are young doesn't mean you will be spared hardship.  Being good isn't 
easy or obvious. But if you should have to make a choice between what 
is right and what is easy remember the evil that happens when too 
many people choose the easy route.   

In Lord of the Rings, with few exceptions those that were evil are so 
because they were created that way.   That makes it so easy and 
safe.  That person is an Orc, they are evil.  It's comforting to 
think that those who are evil are so because they were preordained to 
be so.  Makes your choice obvious doesn't it: `should I side 
with `ugly orc' or the fair Galadrieal?'  Yet in Harry Potter, from 
the beginning readers and characters are faced with hard choices.  
The right route isn't so obvious.  In the second book, when Harry is 
taunted that he is like the boy who eventually became Lord Voldemort 
Dumbledore tells him: (I paraphrase) You have certain traits that 
Voldemort prized in his followers: brains, courage, drive and a 
certain disreaguard for rules.  You were not put in Slytherin for a 
important reason.  Do you know what that is?  Harry replies `because 
I asked not to placed in Slytherin?'  `Precisely.  It's our choices 
that determine what we become."  I think telling children that they 
must actively choose good presents a more accurate Christian 
worldview than middle-earth where the bad guys (with a few 
exceptions) were born evil.  

The Minister of Magic, Cornelius Fudge does evil by his choice to do 
nothing.  He doesn't mean to do evil.  He thinks he is doing the 
right thing.  That is a hard lesson for children: you cannot hope to 
remain good if you merely passively refrain from sin.  You must 
actively fight for the good.

You criticize Harry for not having undergone much growth and maturing 
going on during basically his 6th grade year.   You're right he 
hasn't.  But look at most 7th graders; other than size differences 
can you notice that much difference between them and 6th graders?  
Right.  It's hard to tell.  What about eighth graders and 6th 
graders?  9th graders (Harry at the end of the most recent book) and 
6th graders, you get my point.  It's hard to tell maturation over the 
span of one year because it's slight.  But judging over the span of 
two or three years you start to see a difference.  Bilbo  had 
reached `maturity' long before Gandalf had come looking for a 
burgler.  The change in him was due to his adventure and suffering.  
I think Harry is maturing faster than a lot of his classmates (which 
is more apparent in book 4) because he has been exposed to the 
hardships of the grownup world more so than his sheltered 
classmates.  But he is still on the early side of adolescence.   That 
is what makes Rowling an unbelievable writer.  In each book, Harry's 
view of the world gets a little wider.  Other characters take on more 
depth.  Harry's understanding of his past is a little clearer.   
Rowling writes about all the awkwardness of adolescence in first 
person.  That is extraordinarily hard to do.  In third person, its 
okay to laugh at 14 year olds attempts at flirtation.  Yet from first 
person you feel the blushes and tongue tying.  Harry doesn't realize 
what he sees is typical adolescent awkwardness.  To write that takes 
subtlety and knowledge of the age group.  
Contrast that to Tolkein, where the characters don't change much.  
They adjust to hardship, but Gollum was Gollum throughout.  Prof. 
Snape, on the other hand, starts out as a cartoonish character.  Yet 
as Harry matures, his understanding of him deepens.  Suddenly, Snape 
isn't this evil teacher out to get him, but someone who once chose 
poorly.   Yet despite this poor decision, Snape repented before it 
was too late and became trusted.  Yet we also learn that Snape still 
hasn't faced the ultimate consequences of siding with LV originally, 
and will do so soon.  Another interesting lesson for children: just 
because you say you're sorry, there are still consequences for our 
actions.   
I don't think you can say that Tolkien or Lewis created superior 
works.  They have surpassed Rowling in some areas.  But in others, 
Rowling leaves them far behind.  Tolkein takes the cake for the 
meticulous-ness and consistency of his world.  (By consistency I am 
referring to Rowling's occasional lapse in following her own rules 
she set up for the world).  Yet Rowling's characters are more 
realistic than Peter, Edmund, Susan and Lucy.  Harry is much more 
believable because he is more human.  Unlike Lucy, he is subject to 
jealousy, resentment, pettiness as well as good traits.

I noticed that as of this writing, you (Kevin) haven't responded to 
any of his essay's response.  I probably haven't convinced you that 
the Harry Potter books are wonderful.  But I hope that I have 
convinced you that in order to criticize them and be airtight in that 
criticism, you need to know the whole story.  Maybe you will think 
that the other 6 books should be read.   Maybe after reading the 
others, you might decide that these books are so bad for your 
children to read after all.  I hope that you didn't post that message 
just to anger fans.  I would really like to hear your opinion on our 
responses.

catherine