Re: Harry Potter–A Worthwhile series??

[lucky_kari]

No: HPFGUIDX 33833

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kimballs6" <kevinkimball at h...> wrote:
> Much debate is swirling around the Harry Potter books versus 
> C.S. Lewis's and Tolkien's stories.  Many argue that these 
> books are all similar--just fantasy, pure and simple.  I disagree.  
> They are fantasies (Lewis going into allegory), but that is where 
> the similarity ends.  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.  This paper discusses the 
> difference between their world views and the incredible gulf 
> between writing abilities.

Thanks for your interesting paper. This is, actually, the real reason 
I spend so much time talking and writing about HP. In fact, I'm 
working on an article which I hope I can get published on the whole 
"world view" question, in relation to Tolkien primarily (but with 
reference to Lewis.)
 
> 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 think the Star Wars analogy is rather imprecice. In Star Wars, there 
is ONE "force", of which there is a dark side, and a light side. In 
HP, there is no comparable "force". Magic is not a "force, energy 
etc." (all the keywords used in Star Wars-like phenomenomen(sp?)) 
Magic is another one of the laws of nature, like gravity, conservation 
of energy etc. Therefore, good and evil are not, in Harry Potter, two 
sides of magic. Magic has no moral attributes in itself, just as 
gravity has none. It is tool with which bad and good things can be 
done. I can use gravity to push someone off a building or to drop food 
parcels into a starving country, but no-one would therefore say, 
"Eileen presents an arbitrary world in which good and evil are simply 
two sides of the same gravity." Harry's reference to the "dark side" 
was colloquial. That phrase is now part of the population's 
vocabulary. I hear people talking about "going over to the dark side" 
at least once a week in non-Star Wars related discussions. It means 
"becoming evil". 

Anyway, other people have all ready written excellent responses. I 
especially was interested in Kimberly's post, with her reference to 
Rahab, something I had missed, I must admit, in the Old Testament's 
attitude to lying. 

But being a major Tolkien fan, I'd like to adress your points in light 
of his work. I'm wondering if you've read much Tolkien, if you're 
basing your analysis on "The Hobbit". And, of course, you're only 
familiar with the first HP book. So, what I have to say may not strike 
you as particularily interesting...... But, bear with me. 

> 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.  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.  Somehow it is a terrible thing for Hagrid to break the rules 
> and raise a forbidden dragon, yet honorable for the students to 
> break the rules and explore the forbidden areas of the school.  
> (Actually, it is not honorable for Malfoy to break the rules, only 
> Hermione and Harry--if they feel the need.) 

Let's look at this in light of Tolkien. The success of the quest 
depends again and again (and this is heavily emphasized) on 
rule-breaking. Eomer breaks the law of his king, and almost pays for 
it with his life, to aid Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas. Then, the 
doorwarden breaks the law against carrying weapons into the Golden 
Hall, by letting Gandalf take his staff. I particularly like this 
passage, because it emphasizes that laws and rules must bend to 
discretion. The doorwarden pronounces that he does not think they mean 
evil, and lets them in, to the detriment of Wormtongue, but to the 
salvation of Theoden, Eomer, Eowyn, Rohan, and eventually, Gondor. 
Meanwhile, Frodo and Sam are detained by Faramir, and they discover 
there is a law demanding he either kill them, or take them as 
prisoners to Minas Tirith. He makes his own choice, however, and lets 
them go on to Mordor, to great personal cost in his relationship with 
his father. Eowyn and Merry disregard direct orders to ride to Minas 
Tirith, and though a case could be made that Eowyn shouldn't have (she 
was, after all, in command at Dunharrow, and she was technically 
deserting her post), there seems to be no reason for Merry not to 
sneak around, and neither are reproached for doing so. Instead, they 
become the great heroine and hero of the day! While the battle is 
going on, Pippin and Beregond defy the highest authority in the city, 
and Beregond kills innocent people who blindly follow Denethor's 
orders to bring fire for his pyre. In the Hobbit, Bilbo negotiates for 
peace by stealing Thorin's most prized heirloom, lying about it, and 
giving it to Thorin's enemies. No wonder Thorin wanted to throw him 
off the battlement, but we are obviously meant to agree with Bilbo. 

On the other hand, rule-breaking can be bad, as one look at Sauron 
will tell you......... 

Then, there is other rule-breaking which is not EVIL, but which is not 
really good. You haven't got far enough in the Prisoner of Azkaban to 
realize that Rowling is beginning to come down very hard on Harry's 
unnecessary lying and rule-breaking, just as Tolkien comes down on 
Bilbo's lies about the Ring to his friends (and, please, no-one say it 
wasn't Bilbo's fault. The whole question of how much Tolkien's 
characters are at fault for their actions is already tricky enough.... 
)
 
> 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.'"  

This is an old classic, but it always clarifies thought. (We have a 
policy against Holocaust comparisons, right? But this isn't really a 
comparison, it's a standard out of young peoples' theology and 
philosophy textbooks.)

"You are hiding Jews in your house. The Gestapo come in and say, "Are 
you hiding Jews here?" "Yes" or "No." Do you lie? "Yes" would be 
despicable. Keeping silence would be practically the same as, "Yes." 
and "No" would be lying. Which do you choose? 

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

But it's like that in Tolkien too. Deception and lying are sometimes 
honoured. Beren and Finrod Felagund disguise themselves as orcs, and 
pass themselves off as such to Sauron. They only drop the deception 
when Sauron asks for them to deny everything they love and believe in. 
This is a good example of where lying and can be "glorified" vs. "not 
considered as an option". It was praiseworthy of Tolkien's heroes to 
engage in the deception, but they would not "blaspheme". 

Other liars include Gandalf, who insists his staff is just a stick, 
when it's a dangerous weapon, and he's about to use it. Merry and 
Pippin, who save their own lives, by lying about having the Ring. 
 
> Finally, concerning the adult world, or those who would be in 
> authority, there is only derision.  

No. I think you would have to look hard to find any derision regarding 
McGonagall and Dumbledore. Later on, the series becomes more about the 
adult world (to the point now where the child's world almost seems to 
be crowded out) and we are seeing adults and authority from the points 
of respect, pity, and repulsion (for example, the slavery issue in 
Book IV). 

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

Dirty? As in "dirty jokes" or "with mud on their clothes"? Can't see 
much evidence for the first, and I'm not against people gardening 
either. What you use to wash your hair is your own business, even if 
the results aren't good. (/me thinks of Snape) Quirrel is definitely 
deranged and deceitful, being the bad guy, but I can't see any 
evidence for the other teachers being so. 

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

Are all teachers saints, from your experience? Are all figures of 
authority good? Do politicians come clothed in immaculate white? 
Tolkien understood this well, and his books include many figures of 
authority who are not "saints." Denethor, equivalent in his world to 
the President of the United States, has to be defied (even before he 
becomes completely unhinged), just as Harry is going to defy Fudge, 
the Minister of Magic.

>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?  

You must have a nice library where you live. Ours is incredibly rude. 
They insinuate you are trying to steal the books if they're a day 
overdue, they install beepers which go off at your textbooks etc. The 
rudeness is a strategy employed to make sure people don't let their 
commitments lapse, so it is understandable (sort of) but imho, morally 
questionable. "Who gives libraries the right to treat people like 
dirt?" OTOH, our public library is very polite, probably b/c they've 
figured out that my fines are a valuable source of their income! 

>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?

Not all adults in HP. But the portrayal of figures in a derisive 
fashion is not at odds with Tolkien, for one thing. What about Lotho 
"Pimple" Sackville-Baggins. And don't you think it hurt Grima's 
feelings to be referred to as "Wormtongue"? After all, he is Theoden's 
chief advisor. Shouldn't the people of Rohan respect him because of 
that? Instead, Eomer comes in and calls him "vile names" and, when we 
hear of it, we cheer him on. 

> 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.

I don't see this differs from HP, actually. The difficulty in 
discerning truth does not mean truth is not absolute and transcendent. 
 
> 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.

Which are the laws of human life. How are Harry Potter and the 
the others not bound by them, as well? In fact, as a human, you are 
intrinsically bound by them. The background behind this Narnia 
passage, is that Aslan is an allegorized Jesus, and it corresponds to 
the temptations of Christ. 

> 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:  "`Everyone pick their 
> favorite tune,' said Dumbledore, `and off we go!'..... Everybody 
> finished the song at different times... and when they had 
> finished, he [Dumbledore] was one of those who clapped 
> loudest."  Compare this to Aslan's words after Peter kills the 
> White Witch's Wolf:  "`Hand it [Peter's sword] to me and kneel, 
> Son of Adam,' said Aslan.  And when Peter had done so he 
> struck him with the flat of the blade and said, `Rise up, Sir Peter 
> Fenris-Bane.  And, whatever happens, never forget to wipe your 
> sword.'  Even in the midst of battle there is order.

A battle to be compared to a party? Perhaps, you should pick up the 
Hobbit again for the general anarchy encouraged by Gandalf in Bilbo's 
house (against that hobbit's will). 

>Payment is always necessary for 
> disobedience, 

In Lewis, maybe, but not in Tolkien, witness Eowyn, Merry, and Pippin. 
It's one of the reasons why I prefer Tolkien. He's more nuanced and 
realistic. 

> 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.

Stealing something that belonged to Thorin, lying about it, betraying 
his friends, and handing it over to Bard? Bilbo's motives in first 
taking it were not very noble, but Tolkien's attitude towards all his 
other actions can be summed up with "Well done! Mr. Baggins!" Wouldn't 
a more moral ending have been for Bilbo to apologize to Thorin and 
hand back Thorin's property. I think that Bilbo eventually chooses the 
good and the right too, but you must admit that it looks more like 
evil, if you don't know the ins and outs of the situation. There is 
nothing in Harry Potter, imho, as dubious as this. 

> Finally, in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, the adults 
> either have integrity and nobleness, or they stoop to deceit and 
> treachery.  There is no ambiguity in their integrity or lack 
thereof.  

In Narnia, what about Tumnus, Koriakin, Caspian (in the Dawn Treader), 
or Trumpkin? But I promised myself not to get sidetracked on Lewis. 
Some-one has already posted a delightful comparison of the "Silver 
Chair" (my favourite Narnia book, not as heavy on the allegory as 
some of them) and "Harry Potter". 

I've already shown that ambiguity is Tolkien's middle name, so I'll 
just throw in a few more names: Smeagol-Gollum, Boromir, even 
Wormtongue and Saruman. And then, Frodo ends the story by making the 
most EVIL choice available (though it wasn't his fault). I doubt we'll 
see Harry Potter in such an ambiguous situation. 

>And learning from 
> and submitting to those who have gone before is honored as a 
> right way to gain wisdom.  

Harry is learning both, btw. I really think you need to read past 
PS/SS. 
 

> 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...."  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...." 

It's a joke. He doesn't. :-) 
 

> In The Hobbit, even Bilbo grows from a timid, somewhat 
> cowardly Hobbit to a humble yet wise warrior.  "Already he was a 
> very different hobbit from the one that had run out without a 
> pocket-handkerchief from Bag-End long ago.  He had not had a 
> pocket-handkerchief for ages.  He loosened his dagger in its 
> sheath, tightened his belt, and went on." 

By Book IV, Harry is a very different person than in Book I. To 
criticize him for not having changed very much would be like 
criticizing Bilbo for not having changed very much by the end of the 
second chapter. And, it must be noted, that neither beginning state is 
 "bad". Bilbo after the quest is better than Bilbo before, but he's 
the same likeable person. I think the same holds for Harry over the 
length of the series. 

> All the characters--
> Harry, Bilbo and the children--are presented as heroes, yet only 
> Lewis's and Tolkien's live in a world that has true 
> consequences for right and wrong, and thus only they can truly 
> grow in excellence.

HP has true consequences for right and wrong. But they're not always 
the simple, easy consequences which Lewis offers up. That's one of the 
reasons why I don't like Lewis as much as Tolkien. In Book IV, 
Dumbledore makes a speech to the students urging them to stand up for 
what is right and good, and the motivation he offers them? Remember a 
certain character who was killed at the age of 17/18 because he was 
good, and pure, and innocent! There's no "Do right and you'll become a 
king or queen of Narnia" at the end. It's "Do right and you may die 
horribly sometime soon!" in Tolkien it's "Do right and you'll have 
destroyed everything that you love about life." At times, Lewis gets 
it, as when Aslan gives the marching orders to Jill about rescuing 
Prince Rillian, but, except in the Last Battle, the characters never 
lose anything by doing right. That's why I've never felt many of 
Lewis's characters were "growing in excellence". It's all way too easy 
for them, with the exception of Jill, Eustace, and Puddleglum in the 
"Silver Chair" and, the apocalyptic scenario of "The Last Battle." 
However, even when there is a threat that things aren't going to turn 
out well, they still turn out well. HP and Tolkien have moved past 
this simplistic view and I salute them for it! 

> 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. 

They certainly aren't enough. So while I agree with you that 
monitoring your child's reading is extremely important, I'll continue 
introducing children to Rowling, along with Lewis and Tolkien. 

>Ms. Rowling's world view of no absolutes and the flaunting of all 
> authority and rules carries over into her writing.  

My mother has gone through our "Prisoner of Azkaban" book, and marked 
all grammatical errors. Unlike Lewis, whose hold on grammar continues 
to astonish me, Rowling's grammar is not that good, in fact, it can be 
down right bad, as you can tell from our "POA" copy. But language 
changes. One of the places it changes is the singular "they", "their". 
In fact, in Jane Austen's time, the singular "they", "their" was very 
common, but grammar purists destroyed it. Again, I salute Rowling for 
bringing it back again. It's much nicer than having to say "he or her" 
or "one" all the time. But as for the really bad grammar, is it fair 
to construct world views out the fact that most of us weren't educated 
well enough to not mess up the English language? It's not very poorly 
written. It just has more problems than Lewis. If you want to see 
"poorly written", check out R.L. Stine. 

>  My copy of Harry Potter 
> is well marked and even dog-eared, but not because of  
> inspiring passages or quality writing. 

Mine is. I especially love Dumbledore's words before the Mirror of 
Erisd. 

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

Harry Potter has made readers of quite a few people I know. After 
years of reading nothing but Star Wars books, a good friend read Harry 
Potter, and has now read "The Hobbit", "The Lord of the Rings" and is 
working on "The Silmarillion". The first two had been read to him when 
he was VERY young, but he had forgotten completely about them, and 
never took our hints to try them. 

I found an ethic in HP, similar to Tolkien. Although the second is 
more powerful than the first, imho, the same spirit drives both 
(quoting from memory):

"Remember, Harry. It is our choices far more than our abilities that 
determine who we are."

and

"So do all who live in such times. But that is not their choice. All 
they can do is choose what to do with the times they are given." 

Eileen