Try Something New
Will it never die? Harry Potter is in the news again. Last week there was a regrettable post on some blog called Courageous Priest. Loath I am to bludgeon overmuch the priest responsible for this misinformed rant. A couple of weeks ago a priest from his community gave the annual Lenten mission in our parish and it freaking rocked, so in thanksgiving for that I will withhold my criticism.
This week, a Catholic satellite TV network that shall go nameless hosted the world’s most fraudulent Harry Potter critic on one of its talk shows. To his rants, no direct response will do. No rebuttal can adequately address his invincible ignorance.
Gilbert Magazine soldiers on. We are on record endorsing J.K. Rowling’s fiction as enduring, engaging literature, part of a tradition that extends back to Chesterton and runs through Hilaire Belloc, J.R.R. Tolkien, and C.S. Lewis (you may purchase the issue with our editorial here). So I’d like to address one criticism of the books, repeated often by fans of Lewis and Tolkien, that runs, basically, “In Tolkien and Lewis, humans and hobbits never use magic, only the Elves and wizards do.”
How misinformed is this claim? To begin with, in The Lord of the Rings, the mortal man Aragorn, by virtue of being descended from both Elves and the mortal Numenorean race, has a number of graces that could be called magical, including the grace to choose the time and place of his own death. Then there are the Palantiri, which bring destruction to “magical” characters who use them (Sauron; Saruman) but not to Aragorn, who alone can use them by right of being the heir of Elendil (unlike Denethor, whose use of a Palantir drives him to madness and suicide).
Then there are the gifts that Galadriel gave to the Fellowship, from Frodo’s phial to the lembas to the magical camouflage cloaks, to Sam’s rope and his box of earth from Galadriel’s garden. Boromir’s horn is apparently magical—it can be heard in Minas Tirith when he blows it at Parth Galen, hundreds of miles away. The Ent water that Pippin and Merry drink has magical qualities, as do the dwarf-made presents that Bilbo gave away at his birthday party. In fact, Tolkien specifically goes out of his way to say they were “beautiful and obvioiusly magical.” About the only magical objects forbidden to humans are the One Ring and the Rings of Power themselves. But then again they’re also forbidden to Elves, Dwarves, and Maia (except the Three, which are an exception).
Given this, have Harry-haters even read The Lord of the Rings? It is a fair question. Perhaps they should try The Silmarillion, which in addition to suicide has incest, treason, murder, diabolism, genocide, and dark hints of one character contemplating rape. Yet Tolkien gets a pass—as well he should, and if you don’t think so then you do not understand storytelling—and Rowling gets the grief.
Speaking of suicide and murder, in Harry Potter, Dumbledore’s death is problematic, but in context, it serves as an argument against consequentialism, not for it. Dumbledore’s grand and misguided scheme for Snape to gain mastery of the Elder Wand backfires when Draco gets there first and disarms Dumbledore. In the end, as Rowling herself said, it all came down to “a wrestling match between two teenage boys,” with Dumbledore’s elaborate plotting amounting to nothing. As with Frodo’s “failure” at Mt. Doom, it is instead a literary depiction of the unfathomable workings of Grace, as opposed to the shortcomings of mere human machinations. (Seriously, did Gandalf really think Frodo would have the strength to cast away the ring once he got to the Cracks of Doom?)
At this point, nearly four years after the publication of the last Harry Potter novel, Harry-haters are succumbing to self-parody. Quite literally, because all they do is repeat, ad nauseum, the same old talking points cribbed from Michael O’Brien or Fr. Gabriel Amorth, all of which have been refuted over and over again.
Enough is enough. And if you’ll forgive me yet aother cliche, the time has come to put up or shut up. I charitably invite Harry haters to try something really radical: read the books. Who knows? You might find a flaw or evil element that O’Brien and Fr. Amorth overlooked. Or, instead, you might find something even more exciting – a literary treasure that, to your surprise, is actually not morally objectionable. Even more, you might enjoy it. Read the books.
“Aragorn, who alone can use them by right of being the heir of Elendil (unlike Denethor, whose use of a Palantir drives him to madness and suicide).”
Sean, I hate to be a nitnoid, but since it actually helps your argument, I’ll do it anyway.
In strict point of fact, Denethor *did* have the authority to use the Minas Tirith palantir. He was the lawful ruler of Gondor, albeit a placeholder for the true King. It wasn’t the mere use of the palantir that drove Denethor mad–it was the fact that Sauron made sure that Denethor saw the worst possible information, leading the Steward to despair.
However, that’s still a man using magical means, so your point stands.
I never quite understood the arguement of Tolkien’s magic vs. Rowling’s magic. However, I would not place Rowling in the same class as Tolkien and Lewis. Both had a way of creating in your mind a world that you could smell, hear, and see. I never got that out of Rowling’s work. Also, I see the main character, Harry, as a disobiedant and arrogant, which is a lovely role model for today’s youth. I personally consider the Harry Potter series as mind candy, and has little depth of substance. They seem to fit nicely into our current educational system’s “read, read, read; comprehend nothing” attitude.
Dale, the impression I got from the books is that only the rightful king of Gondor, or his designee, had the right to use the Palantiri. However if being a Steward constitutes a lawful designee, then you may be right. In any case, thanks for your comment!
Sean
Maucher: “If the characters are not wicked, the book is.” –G.K. Chesterton.
Rowling would have been unfair to both her audience and to Harry if she had not made him a character who could grow and mature over the course of seven novels. And the onus is on you to explan how a series that explores the subime and profound consequenses of sacrificial love s mind candy, with little depth or substance.
And, if Harry Potter is just mind candy, or is an elaborate penny dreadful, the onus also is on you to explain why that is a bad thing. As Chesterton wrote, the penny dreadful “is always on the side of life.” And also, “The vast mass of humanity, with their vast mass of idle books and idle words, have never doubted and never will doubt that courage is splendid, that fidelity is noble, that distressed ladies should be rescued, and vanquished enemies spared.”
Cheers,
Sean Dailey
Mr. Dailey,
We’ve already had a discussion about the television show and the guests that are invited on it. They are also against “alternative medicine.” You may just yet sway me in my stance against Harry Potter.
God Bless You,
Dr. Eric Waltemate
Sean–yep, that’s the case. In the Appendix section in LOTR called “The Heirs of Anarion,” Tolkien mentions that the office of Steward is one that existed prior to the end of the Line of Anarion. Thus, it was rightful for the Steward to rule after Earnur was killed by the Witch King, albeit with the proviso that it was only until the Heir returned.
If I’m not mistaken, Elessar makes the same point about the ancient value of the office of Steward when he appoints Faramir as Prince of Ithilien.
Yes, Heaven help me, the Tolkien minutiae I’ve absorbed over the years. I may be drooling in 25 years and not remember my name, but I’ll be able to give an accurate account of the Kin-Strife.
Whoa! I have certainly met my match in Tolkien geekdom, so I will happily defer to your superior knowledge, Dale.
Who is “we”?
In any case, Eric, the best thing you can do is take the advice in the column: give the books a try.
And God bless you too.
Bravo! I always wondered why so many religious people, particularly intelligent Catholics, would attack what is an enjoyable work of fiction that seems to be a fairly blatant Christian allegory.
As to the palantiri, any creature could in theory use them from my understanding, but you are right in that only the heirs of Elendil had any right to them. This is why Aragorn, though a mortal, was able to wrest control of the Orthanc stone from Sauron. The stones knew their master, but would also serve anyone with the will to See, and could be corrupted or dominated (as in the case of the stone Denethor took to his death).
We is you and me on Facebook.
I love these books, I grew up with them. I never, ever, understood people not reading them because of the magic. How can a series of novels that end with the hero sacrificing himself for the world, “dying”, coming back to life, vanquishing evil through his self sacrifice, and saving the world. It sounds suspiciously like the New Testament.
Technically I think the books have a lasting value, but they were books written for adolescents. It will last in the hearts of children are and in children that were, but I would not put it on the level of Dickens or Shakespeare, (and those two I do not put on the same level as Gilbert.) So I put JK on the third tier of writers. With Chesterton at at the top, the other masters on the second, the greats on the third, and the mediocre on the fourth.
Hope this isn’t too much of a digression since the topic here really deals with Magic in HP. But when referring to the HP stories I think that using words like “enduring” might be jumping the gun a little bit, although “engaging” is fair enough. The works that last have a high level of re-readability. When I re-read Tolkien or the Narnia stories for example I always come away with something I didn’t know from the last time – not just parts of the story but about the nature of God or our relationship to the world around us etc. Does HP rise to that level of artistry? I can only pose the question since I have only read part of the first (Full Disclosure – I ended up stopping around page 100 due to boredom with the story) but it is something to consider before we anoint it a timeless classic. Not to take anything away from Rowling, she came up with a good idea that has given happiness to millions of people around the world. That isn’t a bad thing but all generations have works that do that and then recede as time goes on. The Alan Quartermain stories were extremely popular for a time but are not read now.
Regards,
Time will tell, Jim.
Daniel and Evan, thank you for your comments. It is true that anyone *could* use a Palantir, but unless you had a right to, it was highly inadvisable. Just look at what happened to Pippin, for instance, to say nothing of Saruman.
Eric, I apologize, but I do not remember that conversation at all.
LOL, Dale, me too. Some days I can barely remember my own name, but I can recite by heart Beren’s reply to Thingol in Menegroth.
In my opinion, another positive effect of Ms. Rowlings’ books is to have managed to separate hundreds of kids from their electronic games and gadgets and entice them to actually read a book. In addition, a book store owner I met a few years ago said he had noticed that after young people had read Harry Potter stories, many of them actually began showing an interest in Tolkien’s books, and then continued reading! In our age of increasing dumbing down of the public through electronic entertainment, this may be a very posivite and ultimately useful result indeed.
Tolkien intended “The Hobbit” for younger readers and LOTR for a more mature audience. C.S. Lewis wrote the Narnian Chronicles for younger readers. One aspect of the Rowling series I found fascinating was her intention that the books be written for readers about the same age as Harry – so the first three are fairly simple with black and white morality and as the series progresses and Harry goes through the challenge of growing up, the books become increasingly complex. Shades of gray and ambiguity in the characters’ behavior replace the more childlike simplicity of the early books. I think this series will stand up to the test of time.
Speaking as one who does regard the Harry Potter series as diabolical, I would just like to point out that I have in fact read the books, formed my opinion of them only after reading them, and did so before my conversion to Catholicism. And I love Tolkien and Narnia.
Isn’t Dale on this same network?
….not a Potter fan…very much a Tolkien and Chesterton supporter…don’t even put them in the same class !!!!
Michael S.
Ginny, I am not sure what you mean by that question.
Thanks,
Sean Dailey
Sean,
In the midst of many, fast quips being sent back and forth thru the blogosphere, may I suggest that we consider our opinions in contrast to that of our present Holy Father’s? I consider his gifts of humility, wisdom, and charity to be above most people and therefore seek to think in line with our Church and Supreme Pontiff.
“It is good, that you enlighten people about Harry Potter, because those are subtle seductions, which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort Christianity in the soul, before it can grow properly.”
Read the entire article and Benedict’s original letter here:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2005/jul/05071301
Not only that, but Bishop Julian Porteous, Auxiliary Bishop and Exorcist of the Archdiocese of Sydney has also expressed serious moral problems with the books.
Let’s not be so hasty with the keyboard and one’s own opinions.
And the archbishop of Sidney, George Cardinal Pell, has praised the HP books, saying, “the series deserve to be widely read.” Sandra Miesel and I have already rebutted the bit about Pope Benedict and HP.
–Sean P. Dailey
If the “critic” mentioned above is Michael O’Brien, I would put credence in what he has to say, above everyone else’s opinions. This author/artist is one of the best today, and his novels are outstanding in my book. A psychiatrist friend who spent many years working with people who got sucked into the occult world agrees with him 100%. She knows first hand the damage done by Satan and his minions in the world today.
I’ve read all of the books discussed here, read the Courageous Priest blog entry, and watched the Women of Grace series this week. So I’m going to offer my critique, making general claims without offering specific examples, because this is, well, a combox.
Rowling is no Tolkien or Lewis. The magic used in LOTR and the Narnia series tends to have the sense of the miraculous when used by the good guys. Meaning that the results of the magic are, as Lewis describes miracles in his treatise on the subject, like nature accelerated. In the Potter series it more like alchemy.
The host of Women of Grace is painful to listen to. watching her is like watching The Church Lady from SNL without any of the comedy. The ‘reporter’ she had on regularly got her facts wrong on publication dates for Anne Rice’s books, which I have also read. Michael O’Brien seemed to focus more on the philosophical underpinnings and statements from Pope Benedict, than anything else. He seemed well reasoned.
Most Potter critics are shrill and strange. They are like fundamentalists who call the Pope the Antichrist. But there is a valid point to be made against the books.
Potter books have spawned a whole market of activities and products that encourage children to dabble in the occult. Books, games, even our local History Museum is offering a day- camp for children aged 8-12 on how to cast spells.
It is the influence of the books that causes concern. Yes, I’ve met people who speak Elvish, and the Silmarillion reads like a bible, but it never had the pervasive negative effect of causing children to dabble in magic.
That’s the crux of the argument. Thoughts lead to words, and words lead to actions.
Have any of you read any of the books written by Michael O’Brien? He is an excellent author and artist – and, a holy man. It truly saddens me to hear you label him as “the world’s most fraudulent Harry Potter critic” – it not only is an ungracious comment but it is, quite simply, not true.
Nicely done, Sean. I too am a Catholic fan of the Harry Potter series. I think the problem many people have with HP is more the witchcraft industry that’s sprung up in its aftermath. There are numerous witchcraft books aimed at the younger generation about which parents have a right to be concerned. As far as I know though, Rowling doesn’t have anything to do with them and never encouraged them. In fact, I find the whole HP saga to be quite Christian on occasion, even though it’s not overtly so. Thanks again for a well-argued defense of the Potter books.
Sometimes, I think we over reach in defense when someone over reaches in attack. At least I am often guilty of that. I’ve read the HP series twice. I’ve read LOTR about 4 or 5 times. I might have to put her in a class with Victor Hugo. They both lack personal interior virtue but are capable of articulating it as others might live it. Yet, in the end I find their work unsatisfactory to my soul. It is somewhat like playing a guitar with one string slightly out of tune. Most people who don’t play would hardly notice, but to the person with an ear, especially the player, it can drive them nuts.
Tolkien, Chesterton, and Lewis are in harmony with truth on a much deeper level than Rowling or Hugo. They have a relationship with Christ and the indwelling Holy Spirit which can’t help but come out in their work.
HP is certainly not “junk food” but perhaps a delicious Pizza Hut delux pizza. It will do some damage if you eat too much of it, unlike the true masters like GK that you can feast on for your own good.
There are thousands of worthy edifying books to be read, more than enough for a few dozen lifetimes. I can attest to the fact, as I have four deliciously inviting tall piles stacked precariously by my bedside, as well as a special bookcase for those treasures aching to be re-read. Why waste precious time with that which is less likely to lift one’s mind to God and to contemplation of life and man’s salvation? We are called to perfection; our time spent reading should be with that goal in mind. For those reasons, the Potter series is not in the teetering piles.
Sean,
I am a priest and an avid Tolkien and Chesterton fan. I have read all of the Harry Potter series as well and admit to finding these works entertaining. However, much in them I have found to run counter to Christian allegory. It seems in my humble opinion that some allegory does exist almost as cover for other motives. Perhaps I am reading too much into the works however. Certain problems which I have seen, which I do not believe discredit the books, are the complete lack of respect for authority, the ambiguity of good or evil magic, and the response of some youth who read the novels. As a priest, I have seen children overly fixated on magic after reading these books. This does not make the books evil in themselves. I think parental guidance is necessary. However, one thing of note which I have not seen commented on (if it has been I am sorry. I do not follow the Potter debate, but was sent this article as an email because I am a priest and was, in a former life, a Literature major) is a seemingly anti life agenda.of course, what comes to mind is the description of the mandrake roots from, I believe, the second novel. These ‘roots’ are pulled from the ground (the bosom of the earth) and have the appearance of children. One dies if they hear these childrens cries. So they wear earmuffs to prohibit the sound. The ‘roots’ are then killed and used to create potions or medicines. I still remember the first time I read this and thought Rowling was pushing for abortion and embryonic stem cell research. As I said, perhaps I am reading too much into this. This was an initial reaction. I have often commented on this to parents who ask about these novels. That is why I read them in the first place … To inform parents about potential dangers to their children. This was not used by Voldemort, but by the ‘good’ teachers of Hogwarts. Otherwise, it would not necessarily be as problematic.
Anyway, I apologize for this post if it is too long or if it has already been addressed in some other forum. I am merely commenting because this was brought to my attention, and I respect your opinions as a fellow Chestertonian.
Fr. Nile Gross
Sean: I laughed right out loud when I read the 1st 2 para of your blog.
Although I’ve not read any of the writers except Chesterton, I had the exact same reaction to the TV program series (it went on for several days) re HP. Something simply was out of kilter in the reasoning of the hostess and guests re the subject they pretended to have absolute theological insights into. Normally I avoid this particular program & this particular show. It often seems to me that they have a self satisfied sense of magisterial insights/wisdom which drives me away. I am speaking of the TV program itself and most of its shows. That’s why I laughed joyfully to find that I was not alone in my “madness”. While viewing this, I recalled that the Prefect of the Magisterium, aka Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger had some correspondence w/Ms. Rowling re the HP books. Surely if anything harmful was discovered by him, he would have declared it at some point. Researching this correspondence might prove relevant.
I have to say that I am surprised that Gilbert magazine endorses the Harry Potter series. Not only is it poorly written, but champions ideas directly contrary to our Catholic faith. For starters, J.K. Rowling has gone on record saying that Lewis’ portrayal of Narnia’s Lucy character is harmful for the modern woman, and it would be better if women today adopted Susan’s attitude, which I would argue is one of pride and defiance. Regarding magic, in The LOTR and in Narnia, magic is something that is meaningful and somehow connected to that character’s charism, while in the Potter series knowledge of magic is largely arbitrary and can be learned from books at the library at school. Tolkien and Lewis live in a world of meaning, of good and evil, while Rowling lives in a world of weak definitions and meaningless suffering. I would argue that the world of Potter is postmodern in its ideology.
For the record, I haven’t read O’Brien’s or Fr. Amorth’s commentaries on the Potter series. I am a huge LOTR and Narnia fan (of the books, not the movies).
I look forward to the next issue of Gilbert magazine.
I love fantasy literature and agree with your points, mostly. My favorite is the CS Lewis Space Trilogy, but still love LOTR. I’ve read all the HP series. It is a good, imaginative series, way below the quality of CSL or GKC. I’d just make sure kids know that magic is imaginary. The real problem with HP, I believe, is that Rowley doesn’t have the depth of formation and faith that Lewis and Chesterton both had. I never understood the hyperventilating. It’s a genre that you either like or don’t but I don’t think these merit being called demonic. AnneG in NC
It’s unfortunate that you use “freaking,” but otherwise the argument is reasonable. The Potter books, like Frances Hodgson Burnett’s unmagical world, are well-written, and teach children the virtues of love, loyalty, kindness, self-sacrifice, honesty, and honor. They have rich, entertaining vocabularies, wide-ranging themes, and are incredibly better than “young adult” books with a vocabulary of 150 words and a focus on sex!
Pardon my ignorance but I was under the impression that the biggest difference between Tolkein/Lewis and Rowling is that Rowling’s novels take place on earth whereas Tolkein/Lewis are in “fantasy” world. So in HP novels the “magic” that takes place is happening with humans on earth. I think that is an important point when comparing them.
As far as reading them, when I was young they taught us to ‘avoid near of occasions of sin’ which is what we would be exposed to if reading about spells taking place to humans on earth.
“but [Tolkien] never had the pervasive negative effect of causing children to dabble in magic.”
Suzanne, thank you for your comments, but that sentence is factually not true. Spend any time at all on any Tolkien fansite, and you will find dozens, hundreds, of people who credit Tolkien with getting them interested in the occult, Wicca, New Age, and anything you like. And fans Tolkien were inspired by the books into goo-goo New Ageisn within Tolkien’s own lifetime. It is patently unfair to blame Rowling because people misuse her books, especially if you turn a blind eye to fans of Tolkien and Lewis also misusing those authors’ books.
“Rowling is no Tolkien or Lewis. The magic used in LOTR and the Narnia series tends to have the sense of the miraculous when used by the good guys. Meaning that the results of the magic are, as Lewis describes miracles in his treatise on the subject, like nature accelerated. In the Potter series it more like alchemy.”
Actually, the “magic” in HP is more like technology, with the wands acting like remote controls. But since Rowling never claimed to want to try to be Lewis or Tolkien, I do not understand why people insist in criticizing her for not being them. Lewis and Tolkien have their respective imaginary worlds. Rowling has hers. She is permitted to structure it according to her wishes and tastes.
Sean:
“But since Rowling never claimed to want to try to be Lewis or Tolkien, I do not understand why people insist in criticizing her for not being them.”
If “Rowling never claimed to want to try to be Lewis or Tolkien” why are you trying to force us to believe she IS like them and belittling those who disagree with you?
Pope Benedict is right. That puts you on the opposite side from our Holy Father. Not a good idea.
Ike, no, I did not say she is like them. I said that in Tolkien, ordinary humans and hobbits use magical items and magic, contrary to the claims of HP critics who say they do not. Regarding Pope Benedict, read the comments of Sandra and myself, below.
-Sean Dailey
Suzanne:
Behold the Lord of the Rings Tarot Deck and the Lord of the Rings Oracle Gift Set.
Moral: Don’t judge a book by how quacks and cranks misuse it. The Gandersauce measure we use for LOTR applies to HP too.
Fr. Gross,
Thank you for visiting and thanks especially for your comments. Let me address your concerns about the mandrake plants first. I would respectfully suggest that you are reading too much into it. Mandrake plants are common in ancient folklore, with references in various sources, including the Old Testament (Genesis; Song of Songs), as well as in the histories of the Jewish historian Josephus. The properties that Rowling writes of—the screaming, that young mandrakes resemble babies, their use in medicines—can be found here as well as in the writings of Shakespeare, John Donne, John Webster, and Machiavelli, and more. Rowling did not invent mandrakes, but merely relied on a plot element whose roots (if you’ll forgive the pun) in Western literature extend back to Genesis.
Also, on your concern that they are “pulled from the ground,” well, they are roots and have to be harvested from the ground, same as carrots, onions, potatoes, and so forth. Plus, it was not the baby mandrakes that were cut up to make a healing potion, but fully grown, mature mandrakes. So while I still say that to see support for abortion or embryonic stem cell research in Rowling’s use of mandrakes is to read too much into it, if anything, this is more of a case for ADULT stem cell research, which the Church supports as perfectly legitimate and which, unlike ESCR, has proven health and medical benefits.
As for the HP books being anti-life, you have to balance the mandrakes, a subplot in the second book, against the the extreme pro-life themes that permeate all seven novels. Just look at everyone’s favorite HP family, for instance, the Weasleys. With their seven children and ramshackle house, they are the epitome of what St. Josemaria Escriva used to call the “large but poor Catholic family.” There are other large families as well, and when characters get married, not only to the waste no time having children of their own, but the announcements that a baby is coming are celebrated with great joy. When the main characters Harry, Ron, and Hermione grow up and get married, they have plenty of children of their own. Marital love is championed in Harry Potter as it is in almost no other modern children’s literature. Also, divorce is practically unknown in HP, even among the bad guys.
Not all families in HP are large. The status-conscious, materialistic, selfish Malfoys and Dursleys have just one child each.
What are the consequences of disordered love in Harry Potter? To start with, Merope Gaunt enslaved the muggle Tom Riddle either with a love potion or a curse (the books never make clear which) and the result of that union grew up to be Lord Voldemort. Severus Snape’s disordered love for another man’s wife, Lily Potter, resulted in the deaths of her and James Potter, leaving their son Harry an orphan. Most of all, there is young Albus Dumbledore’s disordered love for another man, Gellert Gryndewald, which leads to Dumbledore dabbling in Eugenics and propagandizing for muggle-torture, and which results in the death of his sister. Dumbledore’s remorse is so great he spends the rest of his life in penitential celibacy. Rowling’s ill-advised “Dumbledore is gay” admission shocked many, but Dumbledore is no gay lifestyle poster boy, and homosexuals know it.
Based on Rowling’s text, it is impossible to conclude anything else but that the Harry Potter books champion of fruitful, marital love.
I certainly agree with you on the need for proper parental guidance. HP may have started as a children’s series, but the themes get more mature as the series (and ages of the protagonists) progresses, particularly the (very Christian) bits about redemptive suffering and sacrificial love, and for Rowling’s publisher to continue to market the books to children was ill-advised. But, as I said in comments above, it is not Rowling’s fault that some readers misuse her fiction. People do the same with Tolkien’s work (and, I assume, Lewis’)
As for “the complete lack of respect for authority,” yes, Harry is petulant and defiant in the early books. In HP5 he keeps the rage on from page 1 practically to the end. However, characters in fiction must be allowed to grow and mature. Or, as Chesterton once wrote, “If the characters are not wicked, the book is.” In must post-modern literature, characters are slaves to their passions. They start that way, and they end that way. They are not free agents. But Rowling’s characters, good and bad, ARE free agents. Any saint in heaven would tell you that the struggle to live the virtues is a daily one, sometimes an hourly one. If Harry is to reach the climax of the seventh novel purified enough so that he has the strength to face his final trial, then he must endure trials all along the way, and he must also start out as something of an insufferable brat. And most important, he must not be a slave to his passions. He must be a free agent who can choose when given the opportunity to choose.
Furthermore, generations of readers have enjoyed Mark Twain’s books about defiant boys who misbehave and pull pranks. And then there are the books by the American Jesuit (sorry, forget his name) about Tom Playfair (available from Tan). Tom also starts out bad, but grows in virtue. Why is that okay, but Harry’s disobedience not okay?
I do not know what you mean by ambiguity of magic. I see none in the books. If you mean that good guys and bad guys use the same spells, I would counter that just because rape exists, does not make marital love immoral. Like all evil, rape is a negation, an abuse of a gift from God. Nor do gluttons make eating evil. In this, Rowling is perfectly consistent with Catholic moral theology, in that good and evil are oriented to the right and wrong use of the will, not to the thing itself. I hope this helps.
Please do not apologize for your long post. My reply was much longer! I thank you again for your thoughtful questions and comments, and thank you for visiting.
Pray for me,
Sean Dailey
I’ve been arguing with Michael O’Brien since he first began attacking HP. (Google our names together and see.) I’ve also been writing about Tolkien since 1968 and Wicca since 1983. Credentials out of the way, I defend the use of myth and magic in HP on the grounds that it has nothing to do with invoking gods or demons, which is why the Church condemned magic in the first place. In humans, the ability to do magic is an inherent power due to inheritance or spontaneous mutation. Witches and wizards in HP use it as a technology. It’s not supernatural. As in Tolkien, the distinction between good and evil magic lies in the intent, purpose, and means of the person working the magic–it’s all the same “energy.” This moral aspect is the only point of agreement between Rowling’s premise and that of neo-Pagan magic. The way HP characters cast spells is nothing at all like the way “ritual magicians,” village cunning-folk, or modern Wiccans do it. Nothing. Nada. I really wish people (eg: the courageous priest poster) would give that claim a rest! Rowling’s premise of a world where magic works has been used in genre fantasy and science fiction since the 1930s. I doubt she ever read Poul Anderson’s OPERATION CHAOS (which has a contemporary American setting) but the use of magic for everyday needs is much the same in both. Making assumptions contrary to fact is the very basis of fantasy fiction and it’s licit for Rowling to do so.
Strange as it may sound, neo-Pagans have reported for decades that LOTR was one of their favorite books and that it influenced them toward the Pagan way. They also like the Narnia books. On the other hand, some Fundamentalist critics vilify Tolkien and Lewis even more harshly than they do Rowling.
I don’t rate HP as highly as I do Tolkien. Yes, Rowling really could have used a good editor. But her plot structures and ability to embed thematic points are exceptional. At the risk of making friends wince, I enjoy studying HP more than reading HP.
I think the books should be banned. You all are obviously have too much time on your hands!
Another piece of evidence for the Tolkien influence on Pagans: in southern Indiana, the Elf Lore Family holds the oldest outdoor Pagan festival in the US. They own the woodland site themselves and call it Lothlorien.
Contrary to some postings above, Pope Benedict did not correspond with Rowling. He did send a boilerplate note to German writer Gabrielle Kuby thanking her for the gift of her book about HP in which wild charges are made about HP. Although this does not prove that the Pope actually read Kuby’s book, muchless HP, it was trumpeted as a papal condemnation. He did however ask an English-speaking member of the CDF staff, Msgr. Peter Fleetwood, to evaluate HP. Msgr. Fleetwood gave the HP books a public thumbs-up but this judgment was dismissed by those hostile to HP. Kuby never responded to his critique, either.
As the years go by, this whole business gets really, really tedious.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that a lot of Wiccans don’t care for Harry Potter. Something about being “too Christian” (objective morality, self-sacrificial love, etc.).
Yes, Sandra, it gets really tedious.
To augment what Sandra said, here is what really happened in the whole “Rowling vs. Pope Benedict” flap
http://www.hogwartsprofessor.com/rita-skeeter-covers-the-vatican/
Not only did Lifesite grossly misrepresent then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s reply to Kube, they omitted an important point: Cardinal Ratzinger directed her to submit the book to Msgr. Fleetwood for his evaluation. This Ms. Kube did. However, Msgr. Fleetwood sent Ms. Kube “a four-page letter explaining where he thought she may have misunderstood or read too much into the books.” Furthermore, “He said he never heard back from her.” So Kube’s book appears to have been deeply flawed. Additionally, we do not know if she made any of the corrections that Msgr. Fleetwood suggested she make. Do the Harry Haters see nothing wrong with this?
CNS covers this incident here: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0504069.htm
To date, the only verifiable commentary we have from any Vatican official on Harry Potter are those of Msgr. Fleetwood affirming the books’ Christian orientation and commending them for showing good triumphing over evil.
About Lifesite, one of two things is true: that they intentionally misrepresented the events in their coverage of the Kube-Pope Benedict-Harry Potter story, or they’re guilty of extremely sloppy reporting. Either way, the result is the same: betraying the trust of their readers (like Ike, above) and misleading thousands on the HP books and on their author, all for their sake of their own agenda.
A possible clarification:
The argument that “In Tolkien and Lewis, humans and hobbits never use magic, only the Elves and wizards do” may possibly derive from an argument originally made by me, though in a somewhat different form, in my 10-year-old essay “Harry Potter vs. Gandalf.” At least, I’m not aware of anyone raising this argument prior to my essay. While I’m gratified at the attention that my essay has received over the years, my arguments were never intended to condemn Harry Potter and have sometimes been misused by Harry’s more dogmatic critics.
The main points in my essay concern the literary depiction of the pursuit of magic as a safe and lawful occupation. Among other things, my essay observes that the fantasies of Lewis and Tolkien confine magic as a safe and lawful occupation to (a) imaginary worlds (b) where magic is an openly known reality, the pursuit of which is limited to (c) supporting characters who are (d) not human beings or otherwise ordinary mortals, though they may be human in appearance. I also note that (e) both Tolkien and Lewis include cautionary threads in which protagonists exposed to magical forces are corrupted by them.
This hopefully nuanced view more than allows for the counter-examples listed above. Whether the cloaks and the phial given by Galadriel are magical is at least open to question — the Elves seem to demur at that word — but at any rate the hobbits can only make use of them based on such properties as they have. That is, the hobbits themselves do not undertake to practice or learn magic; they do not create magic cloaks of their own, for instance. That still seems to me a not insignificant distinction. The case of Aragorn is considered in my essay.
Sorry, I will now have to give you a wedgie and take your lunch money. You have brought this upon yourself.
A wedgie? Wand at the ready Bill. LOL
–Sean Dailey
I wish to point out that while Ms. Rowling herself has gone on record as describing her books as Christian allegory, a great deal of fantasy and science fiction (Pullman, for example), not to mention so much of today’s “straight” fiction, especially European prize-winning fiction, is overtly atheistic and hostile to all things Catholic, as well as many aspects of Catholic morality. If you turn on the television, how many programs other than Sesame Street promote anything even remotely in accordance to Catholic teachings on morality, especially sexual morality? Given that so many other aspects of popular and intellectual culture are so much opposed to Catholic and Christian teaching, it seems as if fretting over Harry Potter is a lot like worrying about getting paper cuts when the nuclear bombs are falling over your house.
One fascinating fact that differentiate’s Rowling’s Potter from most heroic fiction: In most stories of this genre, the protagonist must overcome a series of tasks. Now examine Harry’s task of overcoming and/or destroying the horcruxes containing bits of Voldemort’s soul. One horcrux is destroyed by Harry in the Chamber of Secrets by using the basilisk’s fang. Another is destroyed by Sirius Black’s brother. Another is destroyed by Dumbledore. Another is destroyed by accident, by Draco Malfoy’s crony. Another horcrux is destroyed by Harry’s friends, using the magic Griffindor sword. Harry, realizing that HE has a horcrux in the scar on his forehead, allows Voldemort to kill him, thus destroying a horcrux; and Neville Longbottom, a comic figure for most of the series, wields a magic sword to destroy a horcrux in Voldemort’s pet serpent.
In sum, Rowling has distributed the task of destroying the horcruxes among a variety of characters, mostly good. This distribution of tasks or quests among heroes, some with flaws, renders the tale far more interesting than if Harry had been required to conquer each one.
In real life, each of us needs and depends on the prayers and assistance of others. Harry needing help from his friends for some tasks is not a bad role model.
TeaPot562
Why does Sean spend so much time defending Harry Potter, especially if it is so tedious? Is it really worth defending to such an extent?
Marc, the short answer is: yes. The long answer is: I love the books and I hate when they — their textual content; their meaning — is misrepresented.
–Sean Dailey
I’m so glad that Sandra Miesel stepped in with her insightful comment! I completely agree with her about Michael O’Brien’s criticisms of HP. O’Brien is an outstanding novelist, but as a critic he falls short. I would say that he has a tin ear. Perhaps partly because he himself is a realist novelist (even when imagining an apocalypse!), he misunderstands the fantasy genre. The magic in HP, as Sandra Miesel notes, is not at all like Satanism or the occult.
It is possible that a person who HAS been involved in the occult should avoid HP, just as an alcoholic should avoid the bar scene. But most people aren’t in that position.
As Bl. John Henry Newman, also a fiction writer, observed, people who write about human beings are writing about sinners. That’s human nature. Newman’s novels aren’t populated by the saintly but by people pretty much like ourselves and those whom we meet every day. Newman may well be an actual saint–we may know soon!–but he didn’t feel obligated to write only about characters who always showed only heroic sanctity.
The parables of Jesus are full of recognizable human sinners, such as the unjust judge and the prodigal son! And the parables are fiction, told as such and recognized as such by their listeners.
Steven, thank you for your comments and for clarifying that point. I appreciate it. I would ask you to clarify one thing about your essay (which I have not yet read): in comparing/contrasting HP to Lewis and Tolkien, do you rely on the movie Harry Potter or the book Harry Potter? Because it also is “a not insignificant distinction.” I don’t know how other Harry Potter fans feel, but I would say that not only are the movies not the books, but that they are a betrayal of the books.
Beyond that, I have just a few things to say. On your point (a), Tolkien (I am not a Lewis fan and will let others comment on his fiction) was very clear, especially in his letters, that Middle Earth was not an imaginary world, but was our world, lbiet our world in an ancient, pre-recorded history era. On your point (d), the books are explicit that the magical people are not humans, or at least, not quite the same as non-magical people. Although Rowling does not go into great detail, it is clear that they are two different races (see Sandra Meisel’s comments, above, on this too, in which she describes magical people as having some sort of genetic mutation). Magical folk have longer lifespans than non-magical folk, for instance.
Even more important, their “magical” abilities are not something they learn at Hogwarts (contrary to what Michael O’Brien would have you believe). They are born with their abilities. This is very significant, because it means that their abilities are part of their nature. They go to Hogwarts (oh, and some are homeschooled) not to learn magic so much, but how to use their abilities properly, especially the proper limits of their abilities, consistant with the natural law.
On your point (d), the Harry Potter series practically overflows with cautionary threads on the dangers of the misuse of magic.
Finally, the Elves demur at the word “magic” not so much because the properties of the things they made were not “magical,” but simply because it is an inadaquate word, also as Tolkien made clear in his letters. He also felt this way about the word “wizard.” It was the frustration that only a philologist could have at the inadequacy of English for stuff like this.
However, I grant you that, Aragorn aside, mortals themselves dabbled in “magic” at their peril. Much like in Harry Potter.
–Sean Dailey
SBG: Lewis’ space trilogy was definitely set in our world, and his Narnia series dealt with a kind of many-worlds idea, which included ours.
__
I do not see why it particularly matters whether or not magic is restricted to supporting/special characters. In Lewis and Tolkien, magic has a character of being somewhat divine/angelic/demonic in origin and effect. In much other fiction, it is more like advanced technology (to the point where the difference between some fantasy and some sci-fi is that sci-fi happens in space and uses longer words involving “quantum” to describe things). Whether the unseen force you’re accessing is the elctro-quantum vacuum force time field flowing from the 13.56th dimension and controlled by a special computer, or magic, makes little difference.
__
Remember: in reality we are forbidden from trying to use “magic” because the only possible results are a) nothing, b) you convince God to help you – better done by prayer and the sacraments, and unlikely as a response to some sort of spell, c) some demon starts messing with you. A) is the most likely, God gave us the Church, sacraments, and prayer so trying to do b) by magic is stupid, and c) is decidedly bad. But in fiction, this is no longer necessarily the case – there is typically an option d) “access super special force called magic” and often the other options don’t come up at all, or at least in a fictionalized way. This works because, amazingly enough, fiction does not correspond to reality. Adding this fourth option would only pose a danger to people who don’t or won’t understand that fiction is fake, and you can’t really expect authors to write for those people. Otherwise there’d be footnotes every third sentence – caution: you can’t really survive this in real life, danger: building a time machine in your basement is stupid, warning: while you may or may not have a revelation after hitting rock bottom, you shouldn’t work to put yourself there. Or maybe just a label that says “this is a toy” as kind of a counterpoint to what you see on plastic bags.
Dear Sean,
I appreciated your partial defence of the Harry Potter series. Magic in the Lord of the Rings plays such a positive role (see Gandalf!) for the plot that the very same idea that magic wasn’t practiced by humans and hobbits is to me a non-sense. I see magic as a parable, wherever I find it in the fantasy genre. Magic is a symbol for our talents. It’s not what your talents are, but how you get to use them, either for the good or for the worse (a typical teaching of Christ). In the Lord of the Rings, this is made clear by the comparison between Gandalf and Saruman. In the Harry Potter series, I think Dumbledore and Voldemort can show this difference. Even Snape is found to be superior to Voldemort, because “he loved”: love is the key to everything, a message Dumbledore conveys throughout the books.
That’s the main point. J.K. Rowling is a mediocre writer, whose main merit is to introduce the theme of Love to the youth. Pure love, which often means sacrifice. Harry TOOK INSPIRATION of Christ’s message and was ready to embrace death, his ultimate sacrifice being necessary to destroy the devilish Lord Voldemort. Another important message is that everyone has a chance to correct one’s behaviour for the good. Snape did it by his ultimate sacrifice. Even Draco wasn’t that bad, he was just corrupted by his father’s Weltanschauung. And if you look closely into the books, the evil of Lord Voldemort comes from the fact that he wasn’t born of love. He was the result of a love potion. He’s born in false love.
Even the fact that Dumbledore was thought of by Mrs. Rowling as gay has no reason to boycott her novels: Dumbledore’s homosexuality is never referenced in the books (though offering some background explanation for his temporary fall in the Dark Arts), and the fact that he was celibate after his departure from Grindelwald even offers a good model for gay people from a Christian point of view: lifelong chastity and a full denial of “gay pride” are good ways to overcome one’s undesirable passions.
So, reading the HP series isn’t that bad. Just take care your children be prepared. “See it as a parable. Magic is a parable for your talents”. That premise and the fact of reading HP with your children, side by side, rather then leaving the book in their unprepared hands. That should be a fundamental criterion for ALL novels we put in the hands of children. Even the most common fairy tales offer positive magical beings as characters: would anyone dare to forbid Cinderella because it contains a positive magical character (the fairy godmother)? I don’t think so.
In Christ,
Alessandro, a 27-year old Italian Catholic.
@ Sean & JS:
Since I wrote my essay 10 years ago, it was based on the books then available, before any of the movies had come out.
JS, if you read my essay, you will see that I begin by making essentially the same points you do about fiction, magic as technology, etc. I also begin with praise for HP as literature and for its positive moral dimension (though also criticism of its morally problematic side). (FWIW, as film critic for the National Catholic Register, I’ve given all the movies to date a B rating, except for the most recent one.) I am not a rabid HP basher and my argument is not the same as what you have encountered in O’Brien and Amorth, etc.
The overarching point of the distinctions I drew is that I see Tolkien and Lewis, informed by Christian morality regarding magic, deliberately seeking to remove the fictional depiction of the pursuit of magic as a safe and lawful occupation as far as possible from the reader’s own circumstances. If I may quote myself:
Middle-earth is an imaginary world in the sense that it is both unlocatable in and uncorrelatable to either secular or salvation history (while e.g. the Harry Potter stories, like Lewis’s space trilogy and the earthbound chapters of the Narnia stories, can all be more or less fixed in real time and space). Tolkien felt strongly that explicit entanglement with Christianity was seriously problematic for myth and fairy stories; for example, the Arthurian legends, he felt, were intrinsically compromised for being set in Catholic Britain. Gandalf might resemble Merlin, but for Tolkien it was vital that his wizard not coexist with the Christian religion.
Lewis took this very bull by the horns in That Hideous Strength by awakening Merlin in the 20th century. Here more than anywhere else, Lewis goes to great lengths to make clear just how dangerous and wrong, how incompatible with Christianity, any form of attempted magic in our world is. Ironically, in spite of Lewis’s efforts, O’Brien completely misread Lewis here and criticized him for apparently condoning magic when in fact he does the opposite.
Briefly, Lewis has Ransom explain that Merlin’s trafficking with ambiguous spiritual powers was in his own day not yet unambiguously condemned by Christian moral teaching, but since that time has been clearly revealed as “utterly unlawful,” and in fact “was never very lawful.” The beings with which Merlin trafficked have either withdrawn or else been revealed not to be so neutral after all. Either way, Merlin must work his earth-magic no more; Ransom repeatedly and sternly forbids Merlin to attempt or even suggest it.
Even in his own day, we learn, Merlin’s activities were dangerous and harmful, and have taken a terrible toll on him: There is “something deadly” about Merlin and his dreadful stillness, like a tree that appears strong but is rotten from within. He has lost a kind of metaphysical “virginity,” and has in the end become a fit instrument for certain terrible works of God that would be inappropriate for a purer vessel.
Ransom even suggests that Merlin’s ill-advised involvement with occult forces may actually have jeopardized his very soul, and that his return in the present day may have been ordained by God as much for his salvation as for his ultimate mission against a great evil.
Finally, when Merlin finally does come in power against the Hideous Strength, it is not with his old earth-spirit magic (this is one of the things O’Brien apparently misses), but with a purer power given to him from on high by the great oyeresu. Here Merlin is no longer a mere magician working dangerous and unlawful earth-magic, but has become in effect a wonder-working prophet like Elijah.
Genetic mutation or not, Rowling’s wizards are human beings; they are not a separate race from Muggles. Humans and Muggles share a common ancestry, and not only do they remain interfertile with one another, wizard parents can have Muggle offspring, and Muggle parents can (I think?) have magical offspring. That is quite different from Tolkien’s Istari and Lewis’s star-wizards, who are truly a separate order of beings with a genesis entirely separate from human lineage.
FWIW, JS, the Catechism of the Catholic Church gives a somewhat more robust interpretation of why magic is forbidden: Not only does it not work, but it is considered contrary to the first commandment and the virtue of religion.
SDG – I think we are more or less on the same page regarding Lewis and Tolkien. I do find Lewis’ treatment of Merlin slightly odd, but I think this comes from the similarity and differences between the Edil stuff and reality.
__
I had thought about the sin against the virtue of religion thing after posting my previous comment, but I do think it fits into the earlier characterization – the “best” possible intent the “sorcerer” (in reality) could have would be to use God’s power for something God does not want to accomplish. (If the person wanted to act in concert with God, there are the sacraments, prayer, etc.) This I’ll grant you is bad in it’s own right – not because of a desire to improve things, but a desire to do so in spite of God, which is not in fact possible even if it were less morally troubling.
__
I think the distinction to make is that it is occult forces that are prohibited. Attempting to tame natural forces is permitted, as God gave Adam permission to do so. My argument (and perhaps part of yours that I missed) is that fictional magic is often “natural” insofar as the question is raised – a created part of the ordered nature of reality, no more immoral to manipulate than unseen elctromagnetic fields. The occult’s nature is to be forbidden, but that nature may be absent from what is called magic in fiction. Which may be what you were saying anyway.
Thanks, JS, and Steven. I would add that the “magic” in the HP novels in no way resembles the “attempts to tame occult powers” that are forbidden by the Catechism. It functions as technology, or, as JS said, an attempt to tame natural forces. We point a remote control at a TV, push a button, and the TV turns on. A magical character in HP points a wand at a candle, mutters a Latin word, and the candle sprouts a flame.
Yes, there is a divination class at Hogwarts. However given the textual context, it is clear that its purpose in the story is to discredit divination – as at best an unreliable guide, and at worst as something highly dangerous.
Steven, I was probably stretching things to assert that the magical folk in HP are a different race. Yes, they intermarry with non-magical folk, they can have non-magical offspring, and non-magical folk can have magical offspring (hey, in a sense, all offspring are magical, eh?). But a main difference between magical and non-magical folk, aside from the ability to do magic, is that magical folk have longer lifespans (sort of like how Hobbits have longer lifespans than men, and Numenoreans have longer lifespans than non-Numenoreans). It may be a small difference, but it is a difference.
Finally, again, the magical folk in HP do not acquire the ability to work magic at Hogwarts. It is an ability they’re born with, and they go to Hogwarts to learn the proper uses and limits of their gifts. Conversely, going to Hogwarts won’t give a non-magical person the ability to do magic – a point Rowling makes very clear in the seventh book.
JS: Yes, in principle it can be legitimate to imagine fictional worlds, including fictionalized versions of our own world, that permit the pursuit of magic as a safe and lawful occupation. Such a fictional departure from reality can be managed more or less gracefully, and with greater or lesser moral danger to the vulnerable reader, depending on artistic choices made by the writer and of course the larger cultural context in which he or she writes.
My feeling about HP is that there is very little direct conflict with Christian teaching. (A humorous aside in one of the books about witch-burning in the Middle Ages does indicate, however glancingly, that in this world moral concerns about magic do exist, and that the historical persecution of witches known in our history exists in HP’s world, but that these concerns are apparently wrong in principle, even when witches have not been falsely so called.) There are, though, some indirect and relative areas of concern, which my essay aims to explore.
I think those of you who want to explore the Christian symbolism and themes in the Harry Potter series might want to read my blog. Here are a few posts that you might enjoy.
http://phoenixweasley.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/christmas-in-harry-potter-and-the-deathly-hallows/
http://phoenixweasley.wordpress.com/2010/09/26/the-deeper-meaning-of-the-quest-for-the-deathly-hallows/
http://phoenixweasley.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/weasley-is-our-king/
http://phoenixweasley.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/the-power-of-love-and-self-sacrifice-in-harry-potter-and-the-lord-of-the-rings/
I am the author of the book “The Lord of the Hallows: Christian Symbolism and Themes in J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter,” and I am a devout Roman Catholic, as well as a Tolkien and Lewis fan.
wow, thank you thank you thank you.
I’m glad I was directed to this site! This place is incredible!
Mr. Dailey,
I have not read Harry Potter, nor have I given much time to Tolkien’s or Lewis’ fantasy works; I have read some Chesterton. So, since this dramatic debate is being played out on a website dedicated to Chestertonian thought, what did the 20th century’s most poignant literary critic think of Warlock-like protagonists? In Orthodoxy, he says, “This is also why the new novels die so quickly, and why the old fairy tales endure forever. The old fairy tale makes the hero a normal human boy; it is his adventures that are startling; they startle him because he is normal. But in the modern psychological novel the hero is abnormal; the centre is not central. Hence the fiercest adventures fail to affect him adequately, and the book is monotonous. You can make a story out of a hero among dragons; but not out of a dragon among dragons. The fairy tale discusses what a sane man will do in a mad world. The sober realistic novel of to-day discusses what an essential lunatic will do in a dull world.” *Having not read much fantasy fiction, past or present, I will still take the liberty of addressing a common sense fallacy that I have come across here regarding the magic of Harry Potter and Tolkien’s characters. It may be put shortly thus: Harry is magic; The Hobbits used magic. Or, if you like, Harry has supernatural graces originating from within, whereas in Tolkien’s tales, the characters received supernatural graces. Harry commands his wand by his own hand, an active display of personal power. Tolkien’s characters are passive recipients of magic, as we are of Grace. Harry Potter is, indeed, abnormal. The Hobbit Frodo is humble and normal. These two characters are diametrically opposed.
*I concede (for the third time) the fact that I have not read either Harry Potter nor Lord of the Rings, and add that my commenting on either is taking a great liberty (and chance in making a complete fool of myself) for which I am grateful.
Mr. Robbins, thank you for visiting, and for commenting.
Were I inclined to be nasty, I would tell you that, having started your post with, “I have not read Harry Potter, nor have I given much time to Tolkien’s or Lewis’ fantasy works,” nothing that you write about Harry Potter or Tolkien after that has any relevancy whatsoever. That you “have read some Chesterton” cannot save you. You might want to take some time to read what Chesterton wrote about people who purport to criticize literary works they have not read.
But in honor of Mother’s Day, I’ll reply to you the best I can. First, whatever Chesterton may have about novels with “Warlike-like protagonists” does not apply to Harry Potter, since the HP series has none. In fact, Harry Potter’s chief characteristic is that its protagonist really is “a normal human boy” whose adventures “startlehim because he is normal.” Harry Potter is the quintessential “hero among dragons,” a sane man in a mad world.
As for the second half of your post, so far as I can tell you do not understand in the least the differences (or the similarities) between Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings, or how supernatural grace works in either work, or magic. Whatever else Frodo and Harry are, they are not diametrically opposed.
It is no great sin to make a fool of one’s self. We are all foolish. But we should not go out of our way to do so.
Cheers,
Sean Dailey
Mr. Dailey,
I apologize for not only acting as a fool, but also for taking your precious time on Mother’s Day. I admit that I was presumptive, and that I have no place in commenting on works I have not read. I suppose I could spend the next seven months getting to know old Harry, but that would detract from my main goal in getting to know Chesterton, “the only man I regularly read”.
Mr. Dailey,
I read your “Tom Jones and Morality” link, and found it to be most insightful, but purely inapplicable to the conversation. I was neither “showing up” Rowlings, nor was I interested in proving her an ignoramus or imposter. I was merely making a philosophical distinction between her highly acclaimed character Harry Potter, and Tolkien’s hobbit Frodo. Now, your link was inapplicable for this reason, that Harry Potter and Frodo Baggins are arguably two of most well known fantasy characters of the new millennium, and whose adapted appearances to film have made them all the more known. Therefore, the fact that I have not read either Tolkien or Rowlings is an incidental fact not worth mentioning three times, let alone dwelling on for a whole introduction in a reply. I wish only here to address your reply, or rather, your lack of one. The only way that you deal with my claims is to dismiss them, one by one, without reasonable cause. You do not say why Harry Potter isn’t a warlock; you simply say that he isn’t one. You do not say why he is not abnormal; you say that he is normal. As for the supernatural graces, you only say that I do not know what I am talking about (which is undoubtedly true, considering I doubt if you even know how magic or supernatural grace works, for as soon as you know how either work, they then become technology or a deterministic cause and effect relationship). Finally, I say Frodo and old Harry are diametrical opposites; you say they are not. Now, I may forgive you your lack of logical argumentation if it were for the honorable reason of bustling around being the editor-in-chief of my favorite magazine, or for being backed up on brewing your own beer(which is honorable, as well) for the imminent season of summer; but I cannot forgive it if you are operating on the erroneous notion that I may not speak of characters I have not found in a library, even though the whole world has been intimately acquainted via the theater, for over a decade. If my claims are dubious and foolish, prove them so: the onus is yours, sir.
Mr. Robbins, thank you for your kind words on Gilbert Magazine and on my brewing. Our latest issue just went to press so it should be arriving in your mailbox soon.
To respond to your main points…
“but purely inapplicable to the conversation”
It was applicable because of what Chesterton says about the importance of reading books you purport to criticize. He basically says, if you have not read it, then you have no right to criticize it.
“Harry Potter and Frodo Baggins are arguably two of most well known fantasy characters of the new millennium, and whose adapted appearances to film have made them all the more known.”
In neither case – LOTR or Harry Potter – does watching the movies count as reading the books. There are so many changes, in plotting, characters, themes, and storyline, that you cannot possibly learn about Frodo and Harry, as creations of Tolkien and Rowling, respectively, by merely watching the movies. Their “adapted appearances to film” have made them less known, not more.
“The only way that you deal with my claims is to dismiss them, one by one, without reasonable cause.”
I dismiss them for the very reasonable cause that you have not read the books. I hope I do not come off as rude. That is certainly not my intent. But it boils down to simply this: your objections have no merit because you have not read either LOTR or HP, and do not know either books’ characters. If you want to know why Harry is not a warlock, as that term is classically understood, I cannot tell you. You have to read HP. You would then have to read LOTR and contrast Harry, not with Frodo, but with an LOTR character who is a warlock, such as the Lord of the Nazgul or the Mouth of Sauron.
“I cannot forgive it if you are operating on the erroneous notion that I may not speak of characters I have not found in a library, even though the whole world has been intimately acquainted via the theater, for over a decade.”
Robert, it is not an erroneous notion. It is the height of arrogance to think you may criticize a book that you have not read. For instance, I have not read the Twilight series. I don’t care to. They don’t appeal to me in the least. But I won’t criticize them – because I haven’t read them. In the essay I linked to, Chesterton writes, “If [a man] is going to denounce, refute, and utterly expose Pindar, if he is going to show Pindar up as the utter ignoramus and outrageous impostor that he is, then I think it will be just as well perhaps—I think, at any rate, it would do no harm—if he did know a little Greek, and even had read a little Pindar.”
You cannot possibly be “intimately acquainted” with either Frodo or Harry if the sum of your knowledge of either character comes from the movies. Both are complex characters with heroic virtues – and real flaws. Both are orphans. Each is given a seemingly impossible quest. And only a superficial glossing of each character’s individual qualities is revealed in the movies.
I hope this helps. I am not dismissing you. I am merely telling you that, in order to make an informed criticism of HP, and an informed contrasting with LOTR, you have to read the books.
Cheers,
Sean Dailey