Re: Harry Potter–A Worthwhile series??

[blpurdom]

No: HPFGUIDX 33852

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" <lucky_kari at y...> wrote:
> --- 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.

I think you are referring to grammar more than anything else when 
you are speaking of "writing abilities," but I would propose that 
there are many elements in the writing of the above authors that 
must be considered.  In addition to simple mechanics (vocabulary, 
grammar, syntax), one must also consider plotting, contemporary 
relevance of the plot/characters/dialogue, and enduring appeal of 
the writing.  Because I believe the Lion, the Witch and the 
Wardrobe, as well as the Harry Potter books, are written in a style 
and with cultural references that make them works very much of their 
own time, I think they are best enjoyed by people who are 
contemporaneous with the time in which they are written.  

I forced myself to read the Narnia books past the first one, which I 
liked fine (although it plodded).  Reading these additional books 
felt like torture, frankly.  The extent to which Lewis forced his 
plot to adhere to his allegory made it quite unexciting, and the 
writing style further bogged it down in anachronistic (to an 
American child in the 1970s) language and syntax (especially the 
stilted dialogue).  The Harry Potter books are fresh and 
contemporary now, and I think they will continue to seem so for some 
time, but in a couple of hundred years, I suspect that it is the 
Hobbit that will still be read on a regular basis, while the books 
written for "contemporary" audiences of today and of fifty years ago 
languish unread on the shelves.  However, I think the Narnia ship 
has already sailed, while it will take quite some time for JKR's 
work to seem dated.  This is the trade-off, I suspect, in creating 
something that is appealing to young people at the time it is 
written.

> > 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.) 

Glorified?  Malfoy puts a hex on Hermione that turns her teeth in 
virtual tusks and he is not punished.  Ron has detention and must 
clean everything in the trophy room using Muggle methods.  It is a 
cruel fact of life that sometimes when we break the rules, we are 
inordinately punished, and sometimes people whom we dislike break 
the rules and get away with it.  You don't mention these things.  
JKR runs the gamut of depicting rule-breaking and punishment, and in 
the end, it is working for the good which is glorified, not rule-
breaking.  It is rigid adherence to rules which is criticized (not 
seeing forest for trees) and seeing the big picture which is 
lauded.  Why do I feel the above analysis is suffering from the same 
thing?  It doesn't help, I suppose, that it's based on the first 
book only, when there is so much more development in the subsequent 
books.

> 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. 

If you want to hark back to the Hobbit, the cardinal rule of being a 
Hobbit which Bilbo breaks is that a Hobbit DOES NOT HAVE 
ADVENTURES.  There are obviously many rules which Harry 
unintentionally breaks when he lives with the Dursleys, but this is 
in part because the Dursleys have imposed ridiculous rules on Harry, 
the chief one being YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE YOURSELF.  Rather hard 
to cope with that one, isn't it?  The second rule for them seems to 
be YOU MUST MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO FORGET YOU EXIST AS MUCH AS 
POSSIBLE.  Of course, every time he breaks the first rule, he 
automatically breaks the second....

I can only imagine that this comparison was written without reading 
much (if any) Roald Dahl, wherein the children live almost 
exclusively with quite evil adults who impose ridiculous and 
impossible rules, which the children must endeavor to break at every 
opportunity.  I'm not sure I'd want to know your opinion of Roald 
Dahl...

[snipped comparison with LOTR, which, while good, is still about 
LOTR, not The Hobbit, which the original writer was using for 
comparison]

> 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....)

I believe PoA starts to set us up for Harry's guilt over Cedric at 
the end of GoF.  Like Sirius, when Sirius switches the identity of 
the Secret Keeper to Pettigrew, Harry does something quite well-
intentioned (sharing the cup with Cedric) which has disastrous 
results.  The guilt felt by Sirius and by Harry has nothing to do 
with rule-breaking.  Harry could have felt guilty over sharing the 
information with Cedric about the dragons; if Cedric had been out at 
the first task, he never would have been in a position to share the 
cup with Harry.  In the end, Sirius and Harry are both feeling 
guilty because they simply weren't prescient enough to know what 
would ensue from their good intentions.  This is something we have 
to cope with all the time, and something children should learn 
about.  Even good deeds can have bad results, and we have to go on 
after that and not give up.  This is far more complicated and close 
to real life than C.S. Lewis, IMO, in whose work good deeds have 
good results, and bad deeds have bad results.  I cannot think of a 
single case of the opposite happening.  Sadly, life doesn't always 
work that way, so to say categorically that JKR "glorifies" rule-
breaking is simply to ignore the way the real world works.  Good 
people often get screwed.  Bad people often get elected to public 
office or become the millionaire CEOs of multinational corporations.

> > 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.)

It's not even necessary to get into Holocaust comparisons.  I live 
in Philadelphia, which was a stop on the Underground Railroad.  Many 
Quakers, who prided themselves on not lying, lied quite liberally to 
anyone trying to discern whether they were hiding runaway slaves in 
their houses.  Criticizing JKR for depicting Harry considering 
whether to give information to an evil person which could have 
disastrous results is specious; there are too many possible 
scenarios I could cite to show that this is the preferred behavior 
in this circumstance.  This just starts to sound like criticism for 
the sake of criticism.  If you were hiding in a closet and someone 
who wanted to kill you asked me whether you were hiding in there, 
would you want me to adhere slavishly to the truth for its own sake?

> > Rowling sometimes glorifies lying, and other times doesn't  
> > consider it as an option. 

Again, JKR is depicting quite believable characters (I'd love to 
know whether a person 11-15 years old could even begin to estimate 
how many times a day they lie <g>).  Lying is something people do, 
like breathing.

> > Rowling appears confused on the issue of lying.
> 
> 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. 

A very funny episode involving Gandalf is the Troll episode; did 
Gandalf do the wrong thing here, to impersonate the Trolls to save 
the lives of Bilbo and his companions?  This is more properly 
labeled deception, rather than lying, but in the end, he did not 
strictly speak the truth, either, and by doing so, he saved the 
day.  I don't see accusations of Tolkien "glorifying lying."

> > 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. 

Sorry, you're just plain wrong about that.  I'm not going to mince 
words when such a gross misstatement is being made.  McGonagall, 
Dumbledore, Flitwick, Hooch, Pomfrey and Sprout are all excellent 
role models and adults whom Harry respects.  Mr. and Mrs. Weasley 
are also positive adults.  (Again, it helps to read beyond the first 
book.)  In fact, I think JKR has given far more depth to the HP 
universe than Dahl has given to his.  In books like "James and the 
Giant Peach" and "Matilda," the only "good" adults are parental 
figures whose heyday is past and will never return (James) or who 
are potentional parental figures once the protagonist tweaks reality 
a bit (Matilda).  The "good" parental figures are helpless and weak, 
whereas we feel that Dumbledore is anything but, along with the 
others mentioned above.  Again, JKR's adherence to a good bit of 
reality is the reason for this.  Harry encounters both adults that 
are worthy of his respect and those who are not.  We must deal with 
all kinds of people in life, and Harry is learning this.  In finding 
out about Snape's spying and the truth of Sirius' "crimes," he is 
also learning not to judge people by appearances or reputation 
(which may or may not be earned or accurate).

> >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?  

Here you are simply revealing ignorance of British idiom.  In 
Britain, "rude" is not used solely as an antonym for "polite."  Do 
your homework before raising criticisms of this sort.

> >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?

See the above.  And, it should go without saying, do not read Roald 
Dahl if you do not wish to encounter far more of this than with JKR.

> > 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.

As noted above, Tolkien does in fact NOT present a world of this 
sort.  Lewis does, and his stories suffer from the simplicity and 
the distorting of reality.  I have already said why JKR's depiction 
of good deeds resulting in bad and bad deeds going unpunished is 
both preferable and more realistic.  

> > 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."  

Respect for order is part of a Judeo-Christian world view?  Apart 
from how patently offensive this is as a blanket statement that 
covers far too many creeds and belief systems, I beg you to look to 
various Hebrew prophets and Jesus of Nazareth as people who not only 
had no respect for order, but whose actions were usually designed to 
shake up the establishment.  I will not go into detail or this will 
turn into a religious diatribe, but I am very, very baffled as to 
how anyone could make this statement.

> >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. 

Amen.  But I don't think Harry is learning this by "submitting to 
those who have gone before."  He is blazing his own trail, but that 
is to be expected from someone who is the only known survivor of the 
killing curse.
  
 
> > 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. :-) 

The joke, I believe, is that he can threaten Dudley with the use of 
magic and even mouth nonsense words that aren't really spells.  For 
once he has some small power, the ability to really make the 
Dursleys nervous about what he might do.  Of course, this evaporates 
the moment the letter from the MoM arrives, but for a little while, 
Harry feels like he isn't completely powerless.  This reveling in a 
small bit of power is natural; remember, at the end of book one he's 
only about to turn twelve.  To expect him to behave with the 
maturity of a thirty-year-old is unrealistic.

> > 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.

What is the basis for this statement?  Harry lives in something a 
lot closer to the real world than Lewis' or Tolkien's characters.  
You still seem to want everything to be black and white ("true 
consequences").  In Lewis, I think it is unlikely that someone who 
was not guilty of betrayal and murder, only bad judgment, would have 
gone to prison for twelve years (Sirius).  But it is Sirius' 
inherent feeling of guilt that prompts this, in part.  He FEELS as 
though he is to blame.  Nuances of this sort are missing from 
Lewis.  In the real world, innocent people do go to jail.

> 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! 

Amen again.

> >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. 

Most of JKR's "errors" occur in dialogue, which is contemporary.  
What's next, "correcting" Huckleberry Finn or other books written in 
dialect?

> If you want to see "poorly written", check out R.L. Stine. 

Thanks for the warning.

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

See original complaint about "Judeo-Christian" as a blanket term.

> > 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.

Disagreeing all over the place.  I think my children are learning 
excellent values from reading HP.  My own minister is a fan and 
brings up elements from the books at church.  As for producing 
readers, my kids weren't much into reading until HP, and now my son 
is in fourth grade reading at a sixth grade level, and in addition 
to reading HP, he reads Roald Dahl, Scott O'Dell, The Indian in the 
Cupboard Books, Jean Craighead George....And my daughter!  She's 
only in second grade and reading at an eighth grade level.  She's 
gone through all four HP books five or six times, The Phantom 
Tollbooth, all of the Little House books, The Secret Garden and The 
Little Princess several times each, and is rereading Jane Langton's 
series about the Hall family for the umpteenth time.  I have to keep 
building more bookshelves for her room.  It's a good thing I have my 
own power tools.  (One thing I'm still waiting for JKR to do more of 
is showing women in non-traditional roles, but you can't have 
everything, I guess.)

--Barb

(with thanks to Eileen for many of her wise insights)