1. For the most part I think the books are pretty well written and are not an affront to Christianity. In many ways the books actually uphold a Christian worldview. They are filled with virtues like love, self-sacrifice, courage, and friendship. Rowling creates a fantasy world with a distinct contrast between good and evil. I have heard some Christians attack Rowling because they claim she blurs the line between good and evil, but I have no idea what they’re talking about. It is true that there are points in the books where Harry and other protagonists fail to do what is right, but the books never glorify their failure. Rowling uses such occasions as a means of revealing true goodness and allows her characters to repent of their wrong actions and recommit to what is right. Perhaps some Christians think that Rowling blurs the line between good and evil because they think that all magic is evil. I’ll address this view in the post below.
2. Despite my favorable opinion of the Potter books, I think the books fail in a number of areas, and I don’t think that they will go down as great works of literature. I really enjoyed the first three books, and if the rest of the books were more like the first three, I think the books would be highly regarded for years to come. There was an innocent charm about the early books. The world Rowling created was full of joy and delight. I thought the tone of the three books was in some ways similar to the tone of the Chronicles of Narnia, but books four, five, and six lose much of the joy and the delight. I know that Rowling wanted to develop her characters as they grow up through adolescents, but I have found that the coming-of-age elements really detract from the joy that was present in the first three books. Her characters repeatedly act like typical modern teenagers. While this may appeal to a vast number of her readers who are teenagers and can relate to adolescent behavior, I think that it strips the books of the timeless nature that most good fantasies possess. In books four and five, Harry Potter’s constant whining may be an accurate portrayal of a 14 or 15 year old kid, but I don’t really want the hero of the story to act like a typical kid. Books five and six focus way too much on teenage dating relationships, which includes numerous references to the main characters dating other characters, making-out with them, breaking up with them, etc… There were times when I thought I was reading a teen magazine, not a great work of fiction. I think Rowling could have included romantic elements if she really thought it was necessary, but the way she developed the teenage romances was simply tacky.
3. Two years ago, I made the comment on Sean’s blog that if I had kids, I would have no problems with them reading the Harry Potter books. After reading books four, five, and six, I would amend my previous statement. The later Harry Potter books are not children’s books! I don’t think I would let my kids read the books until they were teenagers and able to handle the darker and more mature elements of the later books. I think younger children could handle the first three books, but the later books are pretty serious and scary, not to mention all of the annoying relationship stuff that is geared much more for teenagers. I think Rowling wanted the children who read the books to grow up with the books, but now that kids won’t have to wait two years for the next book to be published, I don’t see how her objective will be accomplished. Would you purposefully read each of the Lord of the Rings books in three year intervals if you were able to read them all at once? I wouldn’t have much of a problem if I had a nine year old son who wanted to read the first Harry Potter book. The problem is that kids tend to be curious and would want to know how the story ends, and I think the later books are way too mature for a nine year old.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I haven’t read the books but I’ll be happy to share my opinion about them! (Somehow I have two of the books though even though I didn’t buy, steal, or receive them as gifts!??) I’ve seen all the movies which are cool and now I’ll probably never read the books unless I read them to my kids or get the books on tape for a long trip with them when they’re older.
Magic….White and black magic I think involve acquiring or trying to acquire preternatural powers or favors. It’s not always clear what is magic and what’s not though. Alchemy might be a good example. The goal was to change various metals to gold. Today, if a physicist tried to manipulate the fundamental particles (somehow) to turn iron into gold we wouldn’t think he or she was practicing magic. On the other hand, if the physicist prayed to Satan and recited an incantation with alleged alchemist powers (e.g. by saying the Lord’s Prayer backwards while upholding an iron chalice filled with pseudo-Eucharistic blood) in order to turn iron to gold we have a pretty clear case of magic. But there are lots of fuzzy cases and no clear distinction between using a natural recipe and a preternatural recipe (but I suppose if you use a pot as large as a caldron and throw in some frogs & spiders you may be in danger!).
Moreover both the physicist and the alchemist can sin in quite similar ways, by trying to acquire or use illicit power. One does this by natural means and the other by supernatural but both are sinful.
That’s the one thing about Lord of the Rings that makes the “magic” in it different from magic as seen in typical occult practices. Gandalf, the elves, etc. don’t call up spirits to give them power, they are just naturally the way they are. It’s never indicated that Gandalf is pulling from some supernatural source for his power—all of his power if it’s acquired (and it’s not clear that most of it was—it seems almost innate) is by natural wizardly means, where a wizard is almost a natural kind of thing, like a human, dwarf, or elf.
I’m not sure about the Potter books but I think there is something similar. Harry just can’t help having the powers that he does. And if he can’t help it, he does nothing immoral in having these powers. If he’s immoral it’s in the exercise of the powers given to him and in the acquiring of any new or dark powers, or perhaps he should give up the powers that he has (the kenotic theory of Harry Potter). Ya’ll that have read the books would know better about whether the books go wrong here.
Yeah, you're right about Harry Potter. Those who possess magical powers are born with them. They have to develop their magical skills at Hogwarts, but the ability to do magic is an innate quality. None of the muggles (non-magical people) can learn or perform any magic.
I agree with your comments about magic and the use thereof.
I have found as I have read the books and watched the movies (almost done with book 5) that if there is any sort of blur between good and evil, it has not been in the use of magic and power through the first 5 books, although it could change in the last 2. If you wanted to find a blur, perhaps Harry's lack of honesty, as the "good guy" is the best example.
Harry is repeatedly guilty of "white lies" in order to cover up things like bad dreams, or not studying for tests etc. However these lies usually have little consequence on the outcomes of the books. It might be said that his "white lies" often catch up with him anyway, and the truth comes out. At any rate, it's interesting what some populations of Christians chose to react to and chose to ignore. This is another example of the reactionary tendencies of evangelicals...something that I consider negative about the tradition I have grown up in.
Concerning HP's place in literary history, I think that it actually will go down as great literature. Not that I think its great (I'm holding my final judgement) but that has been such a huge worldwide phenomenom that I find it hard to believe that it wouldn't go down as great literature. Plus, it also is a tale of epic proportion, as is much of the great literature of the world.
Jannai,
Good point about the occasional moral failings of Harry Potter. I have actually heard a few evangelicals criticize the books because of this very point, but not nearly as many as those who criticize it for promoting magic. It’s hard for me to remember all of the occasions when Harry lies or uses immoral means to achieve some good end, but I do remember it happening rather often. It seems like there were a few times when Harry was busted for his “sins” and ended up repenting and learning from them, but there were also a number of times when no consequences or changes resulted from his moral failings.
Also, good point about HP’s place in literary history. By the sheer volume of books sold, it’s hard to not take HP seriously. Perhaps my doubts that HP will be remembered as fondly as the Lord of the Rings in history is simply wishful thinking.
By the way, I’m 2/3 of the way through the last book. It’s been pretty good so far. I still have a serious problem with book 6, and I’m not sure that it will be resolved. I’m looking forward to finishing up the series in the next day or so.
Post a Comment