[HPforGrownups] Harry Potter a worthwhile series

[Alexander]

No: HPFGUIDX 33737

  Greetings!

  The history of my reply to Kevin's letter is amusing.
First of all, when I was writing first version of it, all
electricity was turned off in the house. Then again, when I
was in the middle of my work. That frustrated me a lot, and
I forgot about it...

  Until Catherine letter came. I had suddenly found that
there was at least one person who was really interested by
Kevin's letter and even considered it worth reading. Hmm...
maybe it's not that bad after all? I dug into my archives,
found Kevin's letter and studied it. Still, no sense was
found there. Still, I wrote a reply. And sent it.

  It was lost. It never came to the Yahoogroups. Damn.

  Finding out what had happened took almost 2 days. It was a
flux at my ISP mail server.

  Hence my reply is in fact late for 3-4 days already. So I
don't think there's any sense in sending it completely, as
it is quite big and detailed (more than twice the size of
the original letter). And anyway too many points were
already answered by other people, often better than I did
that.

  So I only left the topics which either were left
unanswered (don't think there are any) or the ones where my
reply differs from already presented ones. My worldview is
quite different, of course. So far nobody has positioned
himself as a pure materialist when replying to Kimball's
letter, though there was a lot of Christians. I think my
letter should fix that... :)

  All right, without further ado...

> MS. ROWLING'S WORLD VIEW:

> Rowling presents an arbitrary world in which good and evil are
> simply two sides of the same sorcery--the "Dark Side" and the
> other side, although no name is ever given for it.

  I can do nothing but add something to this. Not only "of
the same sorcery", but just "of the same world". Anything in
JKR books has two sides - and there's always choice. You can
select your side without applying sorcery at all - it's just
a handy tool to make a fairy tale, not the central concept
in the book.
  Of course, characters will often say that Voldemort has
gone on the Dark Side, but this has no direct connection
with sorcery. Just like muggle-world firearms, sorcery is
just a tool - and nothing more.

> Harry and his
> friends must choose which side they're on, but of course the line
> between the two is always moving.

  I must put the idea of the "line" under strong suspect. It
just so happens that I cannot imagine any "line" that would
help us to say that "this is Good, and that is Evil". Again,
the problem is that we live in Real world (some would say
"unfortunately", I will disagree). As Dumbledore used to
say, "the consequences of our actions are too complex...".
That's that.
  In late Soviet fiction, there was an excellent character,
an almost omnipotent wizard, who has said that he cannot
imagine a miracle, that would cause no harm, direct or
undirect, to a human or other species, here or in other part
of the Universe, in present or in the future. IMHO anybody
who claims that he knows the Line, must first refute this
one simple statement.
  (Interesting that the novel I'm talking about is perhaps
the most close one to JKR's series. Only Rowling has a magic
school, while the novel has magic research institute in the
"best" Soviet style...).

> Determining where the line
> is between good and evil becomes an individual choice, leaving
> the reader wondering why something is okay for this person and
> not the other.

  Perhaps that left _you_ wondering, but please avoid making
over-generalised statements about all readers. For my part,
I usually have no trouble identifying the reasons. Maybe I'm
overconfident, of course. Still...

> Sometimes breaking rules is honorable,
> sometimes it must be punished.  Sometimes a lie is bad,
> sometimes it is good.

  First we must identify what the "lie" is. It's not as
simple as one might think.
  With the Rules, I think you confuse the End and the Means.
Never have I seen the rules that were the End. Much more
often they are just the Means to achieve something - for
example, some resemblance of order in an initially chaotic
society. I will not go into depths on whether this is good
or bad, but will say simply that there will always be
situations, where following the Rules will achieve a
completely opposite result than the one intended.
  And indeed, "to break or not to break" becomes the subject
of individual choice. There's simply no other way around.
  The only question that remains is: why humans are so naive
as to constantly confuse the End and the Means, again and
again throughout the centuries? :)

> And finally, adult authority is attacked
> harshly, leaving ultimate authority in the hands of the kid who
> can grab the most power.

  Leaving ultimate authority in the hands of the kid, yes.
Simply because the tale is about kids who are adult enough
to make adult decisions. My sister is only 13, but I trust
her common sense much more than common sense of many adults
I know personally and who are still psychological teenagers.
In fact, I can recommend the books to all kids, no matter of
what age, for that very reason - for study on how to make
their individual decisions.
  I won't even comment the end of the sentence. It has no
direct or indirect connection with the book in question, and
only serves to emotionally strengthen author's point.

> Second, Rowling leaves the option of lying up to the individual,
> and even glorifies it.

  Leaves the option, yes. Glorifies? No comments.

> 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.

  Again, no comments. You have seemingly missed the entire
situation. But please answer the single simple question:
what would happen if YOU was there instead of Harry? Would
you tell the truth and handle the Stone to Dark Lord?
  When one of the Apostols has betrayed the Christ, he was
following the Rules - he was ordered to do that by the
Church. Anyone wants to object? Especially Kevin Kimball?
  (I cannot guarantee the correct spelling - I'm not good in
English religious terms - and don't know how that bastard's
name is spelled in English - only in Russian).

> Rowling sometimes
> glorifies lying, and other times doesn't  consider it as an option.
> Rowling appears confused on the issue of lying.

  The fact that she does not give a single simple answer
applicable in every case does not mean she is confused. You
run into self-contradiction here: first you say that Rowling
has no fixed views about lying, and then you say that
because of that she is confused. She would be if she had
your moral system and made that choices. But that's not the
case.
  (Aren't you confused by my reply to Kevin's confusion? I
hope there's no confusion out there, though I'm myself quite
confused by my answer... 8)

> Finally, concerning the adult world, or those who would be in
> authority, there is only derision.  Fred tells his mother, "Honestly,
> woman, you call yourself our mother?"   And another time, "All
> right, keep your hair on."

  This was already commented. Again, just quoting a single
phrase without it's context perverts it's meaning entirely.
Or should I provide some exerpts from the Bible to make the
Book look similarly stupid? I don't think that's worth the
effort (and anyway, it's not the Bible discussion list :).

> "Honestly, Hermione, you
> think all teachers are saints or something..."

  And do YOU think all teachers are saints or something?
I don't.

> and when referring
> to late notices for library books, Rowling writes:  "He [Harry]
> didn't belong to the library, so he'd never even got rude notes
> asking for books back."  Is it really `rude' to remind a person of a
> commitment he has made?

  Being slightly familiar with the subject, I can do nothing
but say that the reminders are usually just that - rude. Not
because it's "rude to remind", but because of their style
and composition. Librarians are usually very frustrated with
people who don't return the books in time, so...

> Rowling's characters twist truth into their own desires--breaking
> whatever rules necessary to get whatever they want,--become
> quite adept at lying, and see themselves as the final authority, far
> superior to any adult wisdom.

  My conclusion is as follows: instead of relying on the
rules that might prove to be wrong in critical situations,
Rowling's characters rely on their own conscience and common
sense and see themselves as the final authority, just like
any normal human does.

> C.S. LEWIS'S AND J.R.R. TOLKIEN'S WORLD VIEW:
>
> In contrast, Lewis and Tolkien present a world where truth is
> absolute and transcends the individual.  Because the world has
> absolute truth, it is also a world in which order is upheld as an
> honorable characteristic for which to strive.  Good and evil are
> two distinct things, with the rewards and consequences for the
> characters' choices reflecting absolute values.  And finally,
> adults can be good or evil, and the good are presented with
> nobility of character.

  Well, that proves that both CSL and JRRT worlds are
idealistic ones. There a character will never face a moral
dilemma. The only choice a character has is between the
simple and the right way to choose. Instead of a multi-
dimensional characters, we have single-dimensional ones. If
you really think that lack of dimensions (in fact lack of
personal freedom) is an advantage, maybe I'm simply wasting
time answering this letter.
  Both CSL and JRRT worlds are excellent places, and IMHO
would be far more interesting if there was no absolute Good
and Evil.

> First, C.S. Lewis presents truth as absolute and transcendent.
> Even Aslan and the Witch are bound by the ancient laws.  When
> seeking what she claims is rightfully hers, the witch says to
> Aslan:  "You at least know the magic which the Emperor put into
> Narnia at the very beginning.  You know that every traitor belongs
> to me as my lawful prey and that for every treachery I have a right
> to a kill."  When Susan begs Aslan to work against the `Deep
> Magic,' C.S. Lewis writes: "`Work against the Emperor's magic?'
> said Aslan turning to her with something like a frown on his face.
> And nobody ever made that suggestion to him again."  Even
> Aslan and the Witch are bound by the laws of the Emperor.

  What you are talking about is not Absolute Truth, but
Physical Law. Both in CSL and JRRT worlds there are limits
of what one can do. Even Aslan is bound by the laws of
nature.
  But isn't the situation in Potterverse the same? Limits of
what Rowling characters can do are even more strong than
that of Lewis heroes.

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

  Respect for order is a general characteristic of
biological species known as "homo sapiens".

> Even in the midst of battle there is order.

  The sentence has the least meaning for me. Being a
military history fan I am, I can do nothing but advice you
to visit a midst of a battle some day.
  I'm serious here.

> Tolkien also recognizes the role of order in a Judeo-Christian
> world view. In The Hobbit the goblins "hated everyone and
> everything, and particularly the orderly and prosperous...."
> Chaos versus order.  Which one draws out the best in us?

  I can say little about goblins. If you was hunted by
everyone you would certainly hate everyone around. Somehow I
cannot remember a case where _anybody_ in LOTR would
approach an orc or a goblin with the forgiveness that Bible
advocates...
  And anyway, goblin society is much more promising from the
point of view of technological progress...

> Thirdly, good and evil are distinct.  When Edmund first heard the
> name Aslan, he "felt a sensation of mysterious horror."  It was
> evil coming face to face with good.

  The Evil that shudders in horror when facing the Good
deserves nothing but pity... Man, you haven't read books
about _real_ Evil... ;)

> Good and evil choices also have rewards and consequences.
> Edmund chooses evil when he decides to serve the White Witch,
> resulting in a curse that affects all around him, including Aslan,
> the one who would save him.  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.

  Edmund was following your advices: he was obedient to an
adult, and he was following the rules of the place he got
into. His brother and sisters, however, were violating that
very rules.
  Here we come to a very important conclusion: not all rules
are good, and not all rules are always good. This conclusion
of course contradicts your earlier statements, but it's
based on an example you provided _yourself_.

> In The Hobbit , Bilbo struggles against the pull of evil, sensing
> the outcome of his decisions.  When he slips the coveted
> Arkenstone into his pocket, he knows that he is giving in to his
> greedy desires:  "All the same he had an uncomfortable feeling
> that the picking and choosing had not really been meant to
> included this marvellous gem, and that trouble would yet come
> of it."  Later Bilbo gives up the Arkenstone for the sake of peace,
> but "not without a shudder, not without a glance of longing, [he]
> handed the marvellous stone to Bard...."   Gandalf cheers his
> decision:  "`Well done!  Mr. Baggins!' he said, clapping Bilbo on
> the back.  `There is always more about you than anyone
> expects!'"  The internal struggle has been great, yet Bilbo
> eventually chooses the good and right.

  Despite the fact that everything turned into a good
result, this must not overshadow the truth that Bilbo was
nothing more but a thief. Why don't you blame him for that?
Isn't he defying the ideas you are trying to protect?
Where's your logic, after all?
  And I must say here that his theft achieved NOTHING. No
matter would he steal or not, dwarves would ally with elves
and humans after all, due to pure military necessity. Hence,
not only his theft is NOT punished, it doesn't even bring
any good...

> There is a vast difference between Dumbledore's
> foolishness and Aslan's nobility.

  Never confuse humour with foolishness - you may end up
with a reputation of a man with no sense of humour.

> At the beginning of Harry Potter, Harry hates his family, laughing
> at their stupidity and dreaming of revenge - "...the largest snake
> in the place.  It could have wrapped its body twice around Uncle
> Vernon's car and crushed it into a trash can...."

  The words about the snake are not Harry's thoughts. Please
avoid misquoting the original text - it leaves the
impression that you have no real arguments and have to make
fake ones...

> Contrast that with Edmund and Bilbo.  At the beginning of The
> Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Edmund is truly a spiteful,
> mean-spirited brother:  "When Peter suddenly asked him
> [Edmund] the question he decided all at once to do the meanest
> and most spiteful thing he could think of.  He decided to let Lucy
> down."  Yet by the end of the story, he's a new person:  "When at
> last she was free to come back to Edmund she found him
> standing on his feet and not only healed of his wounds but
> looking better than she had seen him look--oh, for ages; ... He
> had become his real old self again and could look you in the
> face.   And there on the field of battle Aslan made him a knight."

  Instead of Edmund, please take Lucy. How much growth is
_there_? Little to none, indeed. Your comparison is
incorrect because in the beginning Harry is not a spiteful
and mean-spirited like Edmund.

> 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.

  I would prefer to see not a truth be instilled in the
child, but inner ability to discern the truth from untruth.
IMHO that's much more important. Anyway nobody knows the
Truth, so the thing you instill in your child may as well be
a Lie... Not trying to insult, just analysing the
possibilities.

> MS. ROWLING'S WORLD VIEW APPARENT IN HER LITERARY
> STYLE:
>
> Ms. Rowling's world view of no absolutes and the flaunting of all
> authority and rules carries over into her writing.  Either she does
> not have a basic understanding of grammar and writing, or she
> purposely writes this way in keeping with her world view.
> Although it can be appropriate to read books with varying world
> views, encouraging the reading of poorly written books is at best
> unwise.

  Shakespeare's language is clearly incorrect by modern
grammar rules. Would you recommend his sonets to a child?
  (P.S. Someone has already used Shakespeare as an example).

  I will neither cite nor comment the part of your letter
that concerns grammar. I'm not an English language
professor, or even a student, to be so bold. :)

> When I give my children a book to read, I also give them a pencil
> and ask them to mark anything that stands out to them:  clues as
> to the author's world view, the hero's words or actions that
> inspire them, sentences or paragraphs that are well written,
> vocabulary that peaks their interest, etc.  My copy of Harry Potter
> is well marked and even dog-eared, but not because of
> inspiring passages or quality writing.

  Instead of doing that, try just reading. I know of no
author who intended his books to be marked like this. IMHO
this shows nothing but disrespect to the author.

> 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.

  Have you ever tried doing that? No? Then how can you judge
that?

  No more comments.

Sincerely yours,
Alexander Lomski,
(Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed),
always happy to throw weird ideas into the community.