Magic and Moral Choice: Was: The key to Harry Potter; Soc Sci 101

[shihtouji]

No: HPFGUIDX 60346

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pennylin" <pennylin at s...> 
wrote:
> My overall point though is that we don't know her authorial intent 
with respect to anything and certainly not with respect to religious 
interpretations that may be put on her works -- we don't know if she 
would claim or disavow a Christian message if given an opportunity.  
Therefore the commentaries by Christian authors such as Granger, 
Bridger, Killinger and Neal are *a* viable (though not the *only* 
viable) interpretation of Rowling's novels.  
> 

I'd like to try this out on this illustrious group, to see if my 
ideas are way off-base or not.

I think the temptation to put JKR in the company of Lewis and Tolkien 
is more wishful thinking, to answer the charges levelled at the books 
by right-wing Christian groups in the US, and to answer (to a lesser 
degree) the trashing the books have taken at the hands of people like 
Jack Zipes, who see Harry as an impossibly-perfect goody-goody who 
reinforces racist and sexist stereotypes.  I don't see Harry as a 
Christ figure: in fact, I will go out of my way to show up his 
considerable flaws (eg. the scene in PA when Snape catches him with 
evidence that he has been to Hogsmede--a Zonko's bag full of childish 
novelties.  Snape, for once, is right, and Harry looks for all the 
world like a cocky adolescent).  But I do see JKR developing a theme 
which (mostly) ignores religious parallels and looks more towards the 
idea of social and political justice from a secular standpoint.

The key to the Potter books (and JKR has said as much) is moral 
choice--that's what Harry has to learn.  The odd thing is, magic, at 
least the magic taught at Hogwarts, is utterly useless in helping one 
determine moral choices.  Magic is simply a means for manipulating 
Nature, and is very much like Muggle science in that regard.  Harry 
has to face a wizard who, both in his lust for power and his personal 
vendetta against Harry (for whatever reason), made morally wrong 
choice that led to his transformation into Lord Voldemort.  Harry is 
aware that he has potential to excel in the Dark Arts, but he is 
continually being directed (perhaps by Voldemort's and Draco's 
examples?) to reject this.  How much moral guidance Harry can 
continue to expect will, I think, become a major theme in the last 
three books, as Harry finds his world divided into camps at 
Voldemort's return.

The major scene for me is at the very end of GF, when Harry observes 
Fudge rejecting Dumbledore's news that LV has risen.  What bothers 
Harry is that the essentially benevolent, avuncular Fudge now appears 
before him as a blustering little fool, who doesn't want his safe 
world disrupted by this news.  At that moment, magic is useless, even 
irrelevant, and I think that whatever Harry learns in terms of his 
official school curriculum will be of lesser value than the skills he 
has developed for making sound moral choices.  In that respect, the 
Potter books are deeply moral books--but they don't need to be 
Christian allegory to be that.  

Therefore: if the books are a commentary on anything at all, they are 
a commentary on the danger of putting faith in magic (read Science) 
as the entirety of one's world-view, especially in moral choices.  
Consider how so many of the other sub-themes of the books--
the "racial purity" issue developed in CS, Harmione's campaigns to 
assist the house-elves, the wrongful conviction of Black, &c., all 
impinge on this.  This, to answer Zipes & Co., is what distinguishes 
the Potter books for me: I'd be disappointed to find out that we're 
dealing, yet again, with a Christian allegory, not because I dislike 
Christian allegories, but because JKR really would be treading a well-
worn path.

Replies welcome.

Red Inkstone