I have three critiques of Mr. O’Brian’s opinion of Harry Potter.
1. He never admits to having read them in their entirety. For me, this is a blow to his credibility when he criticizes the Harry Potter series.
2. His first large objection to HP is it’s use of magic. He says, “Most important, she [Rowling] has taken the paganization of children’s culture to the next step, in which sorcery and witchcraft—traditionally allied with supernatural evil—is now presented as morally neutral.” However, does not Tolkien do the same? Both Gandalf and Saruman are wizards that use magic, however, one is morally good and the other is morally evil. The magic itself is “morally neutral.” Like Tolkien, Rowling is using magic as a consistent axiom for her fantasy story.
3. His second large objection is the means by which Harry kills Voldemort. O’Brian says,
“The ultimate example is to be found in the seventh and final novel. Here, Harry is involved in a search for what are called “horcruxes.” The horcruxes contain a portion of Voldemort’s soul, since this archenemy has divided his soul into these mystical objects spread throughout the world. Harry and his friend Hermione seek to find the horcruxes and destroy them one-by-one, and they succeed in destroying some, which means they destroy part of Voldemort’s soul…The Elder Wand is a wand of ultimate power that totally destroys any opponent—it is like the ring in The Lord of the Rings. But now, because Harry has died and resurrected, the Elder Wand obeys him. The Wand is in Voldemort’s hand and he points it at Harry to absolutely annihilate him a second time, but because Harry is the Master Over Death, the wand obeys only Harry and the curse rebounds upon Voldemort, utterly destroying him.” First of all, how is this an evil act on Harry’s part? On a basic level, he is defending himself from Voldemort trying to kill him. Second of all, Voldemort, in some ways like Sauron, is in no way a redeemable character. He has murder countless people in order to spilt his power and soul so that he may live forever. Like Frodo destroying Sauron (evil incarnate), Harry destroys Voldemort (evil incarnate).
My point being, if Mr. O’Brian's problem with the Harry Potter series is based on these two foundations, then he should also have a problem with the Lord of the Rings series.
I also found it curious that O'Brian brought in Rowling's comment about Dumbledore being gay. Now, I do not know Rowling's intention for making this comment when it was not remotely hinted at in the series, but I find it curious. Let's say that Dumbledore is gay throughout the stories, is there anything immoral or unChristian about his actions? I would argue for the opposite. Isn't Dumbledore living the life that the Church calls men with same-sex attractions to live? There is no account of Dumbledore having any romantic relationships, or of him explicitly or implicitly condoning immoral sexual behavior (Rowling does a good job of steering clear of sex altogether). As far as the reader knows, Dumbledore is living the life of a chaste single man who wholeheartedly devotes himself to bettering the lives of others. Gay or not, I do not see how he could be anything less than a positive role model.
Hey Paul, did you ever read his fiction? Sophie's House or Father Elijah? I read Father Elijah, which was super intense and powerful, but not really my genre. I don't like to read end time stuff. There were some good moments though.
For Heidi's benefit, O'Brien is a major conservative, catholic author. He has written before about fantasy in children's stories. Usually his points run along the same lines as here. He is concerned that ancient symbols of evil be preserved. So, no good dragons.
Some of his other points (once they have been disentangled from his fantasy vrs. reality problem) are a little more interesting. Ends justifying means is a major problem with HP for me. Why is it okay for good guys like Harry to use the Unforgivable Curses? You can argue that all of her characters have flaws and that is one of the things that makes them successful. But not to show the inherent fault in using evil to do good is a dangerous sin of omission in children's stories, I think.
His point about violence and death being the answer to evil in the world is also an interesting argument. It's not the strongest I've ever heard but it brings up something that I've been interested in while reading these books. In HP's world, there is not a lot of grace working. I can think of four character do not solve their problematic attraction to evil by dying. (Snape, Percy, whatever-his-name-is- Black, and Dudley Dursley.) Of them, only one is fully forgiven while still living and part of the story. The other three either die or drop out of the story before they are truly reconciled.
The thing about father figures... that's interesting. I, personally, am not a fan of Sirius Black. His manhood is a little bit twisted. I rather prefer Lupin. So it is interesting that Lupin's test of character revolves around his fatherhood. In the end, he chooses to be a father, rather than emulate Black's manhood. Of course, as soon as the kid is born, both parents run off and get themselves killed... so that messes it up a bit. At least he gets over his self-loathing a bit before he dies.
Wait, hold up a minute. Dragons are evil? Always? Wouldn't that make Mordecai in the book of Esther an evil man? What about the Oriental traditions of the dragons?
I have three critiques of Mr. O’Brian’s opinion of Harry Potter.
ReplyDelete1. He never admits to having read them in their entirety. For me, this is a blow to his credibility when he criticizes the Harry Potter series.
2. His first large objection to HP is it’s use of magic. He says, “Most important, she [Rowling] has taken the paganization of children’s culture to the next step, in which sorcery and witchcraft—traditionally allied with supernatural evil—is now presented as morally neutral.”
However, does not Tolkien do the same? Both Gandalf and Saruman are wizards that use magic, however, one is morally good and the other is morally evil. The magic itself is “morally neutral.” Like Tolkien, Rowling is using magic as a consistent axiom for her fantasy story.
3. His second large objection is the means by which Harry kills Voldemort. O’Brian says,
“The ultimate example is to be found in the seventh and final novel. Here, Harry is involved in a search for what are called “horcruxes.” The horcruxes contain a portion of Voldemort’s soul, since this archenemy has divided his soul into these mystical objects spread throughout the world. Harry and his friend Hermione seek to find the horcruxes and destroy them one-by-one, and they succeed in destroying some, which means they destroy part of Voldemort’s soul…The Elder Wand is a wand of ultimate power that totally destroys any opponent—it is like the ring in The Lord of the Rings. But now, because Harry has died and resurrected, the Elder Wand obeys him. The Wand is in Voldemort’s hand and he points it at Harry to absolutely annihilate him a second time, but because Harry is the Master Over Death, the wand obeys only Harry and the curse rebounds upon Voldemort, utterly destroying him.”
First of all, how is this an evil act on Harry’s part? On a basic level, he is defending himself from Voldemort trying to kill him. Second of all, Voldemort, in some ways like Sauron, is in no way a redeemable character. He has murder countless people in order to spilt his power and soul so that he may live forever. Like Frodo destroying Sauron (evil incarnate), Harry destroys Voldemort (evil incarnate).
My point being, if Mr. O’Brian's problem with the Harry Potter series is based on these two foundations, then he should also have a problem with the Lord of the Rings series.
I also found it curious that O'Brian brought in Rowling's comment about Dumbledore being gay. Now, I do not know Rowling's intention for making this comment when it was not remotely hinted at in the series, but I find it curious. Let's say that Dumbledore is gay throughout the stories, is there anything immoral or unChristian about his actions? I would argue for the opposite. Isn't Dumbledore living the life that the Church calls men with same-sex attractions to live? There is no account of Dumbledore having any romantic relationships, or of him explicitly or implicitly condoning immoral sexual behavior (Rowling does a good job of steering clear of sex altogether). As far as the reader knows, Dumbledore is living the life of a chaste single man who wholeheartedly devotes himself to bettering the lives of others. Gay or not, I do not see how he could be anything less than a positive role model.
ReplyDeleteHey Paul, did you ever read his fiction? Sophie's House or Father Elijah? I read Father Elijah, which was super intense and powerful, but not really my genre. I don't like to read end time stuff. There were some good moments though.
ReplyDeleteFor Heidi's benefit, O'Brien is a major conservative, catholic author. He has written before about fantasy in children's stories. Usually his points run along the same lines as here. He is concerned that ancient symbols of evil be preserved. So, no good dragons.
Some of his other points (once they have been disentangled from his fantasy vrs. reality problem) are a little more interesting. Ends justifying means is a major problem with HP for me. Why is it okay for good guys like Harry to use the Unforgivable Curses? You can argue that all of her characters have flaws and that is one of the things that makes them successful. But not to show the inherent fault in using evil to do good is a dangerous sin of omission in children's stories, I think.
His point about violence and death being the answer to evil in the world is also an interesting argument. It's not the strongest I've ever heard but it brings up something that I've been interested in while reading these books. In HP's world, there is not a lot of grace working. I can think of four character do not solve their problematic attraction to evil by dying. (Snape, Percy, whatever-his-name-is- Black, and Dudley Dursley.) Of them, only one is fully forgiven while still living and part of the story. The other three either die or drop out of the story before they are truly reconciled.
The thing about father figures... that's interesting. I, personally, am not a fan of Sirius Black. His manhood is a little bit twisted. I rather prefer Lupin. So it is interesting that Lupin's test of character revolves around his fatherhood. In the end, he chooses to be a father, rather than emulate Black's manhood. Of course, as soon as the kid is born, both parents run off and get themselves killed... so that messes it up a bit. At least he gets over his self-loathing a bit before he dies.
Wait, hold up a minute. Dragons are evil? Always? Wouldn't that make Mordecai in the book of Esther an evil man? What about the Oriental traditions of the dragons?
ReplyDelete