Harry Potter, thin skin, and materialism

The Common Room had a post that quoted an article about Harry Potter. Though its focus was banning books, there was a lot in the article that made me think.

First of all, the derisive tone that the author of the article used when it said: "The Harry Potter series has come under fire before." As if no book series is allowed to be criticized? Or if it does, that those people are firing the books down with weapons? What has happened to the society that used to have public debates? If supporters of a book/theory/idea are so touchy about it that they consider anyone who doesn't agree a troglodytic moron, they don't deserve to be quoted in print.

This is just the most recent piece of evidence that points to the thin-skinned and intolerant nature of the general population. Instead of judging men by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin, we have a new sort of racism that focuses on making sure that people of minorities are catered to. Instead of gender equality, now anyone who says anything critical about a woman is a chauvinist, though to be critical of a man for the same reason is somehow justified. Instead of having a truly diverse society where all opinions are tolerated (if not condoned), anything remotely conservative or religious is banned and unsuitable. You can criticize any book you want, and I may or may not agree with you, but I will never say that you should not criticize. When a society no longer feels able to speak about what is against the opinion of the majority (or the loud minority), something has gone dreadfully wrong.

"In our district we are trying to promote character with programs like
Character Counts, and I don't see how the book promotes that. I think
(the books) could arouse a child's imagination and curiosity of the
unknown, of the dark side. The book brings out the imagination in a
negative way."

Should children be shielded from the TV series and movie "Bewitched?"

Of course! Anything that promotes witchcraft is against the Scriptures, and therefore wrong. I do actually agree with the quoted speaker, about Harry Potter drawing out curiosity in the occult. There is plenty of evidence that many children, though not all, expressed a desire to learn more about "real" magic after reading the series. Of course, I also know many people who read the book as purely fiction, but many were first well-grounded in the Scriptures. But that doesn't get rid of the evidence.

In 1953, popular science-fiction writer Ray Bradbury wrote about some
future civilization burning books. The title relates to the temperature
"Fahrenheit 451," when books catch fire.

Bad analogy. In "Fahrenheit 451", all books were burnt, not just those considered unsuitable. How that has to do with Harry Potter, I have no idea.

Good grief.

Does every book a child might read have to have a positive role model?

The great British writer Charles Dickens wrote about children who were
pickpockets.

We think that J.K. Rowling herself answered the question superbly when
she was asked, "Do you feel Harry Potter is a good role model for a
generation?"

The author said:

"I see Harry as someone who is struggling to do the right thing, who is
not without faults, who acts impetuously as you would expect someone of
his age to act, but who is ultimately a very loyal person, and a very,
very courageous person.

"So, inasmuch as he has qualities that I admire most I would say he is
a good role model. That doesn't mean that he is saintly, but then
frankly, who is?

"But I think you do see enough of Harry's inner life, the workings of
his mind in the books to know that he is ultimately human, struggling to
do the right thing, which I think is admirable."

The Valley Press believes that the Wilsona school children should have
the free opportunity to learn about a young man who is struggling to do
the right thing.

We urge the trustees to reverse their decision and eliminate the stigma
of book-banning in the land of the free.

Oh my goodness. Good grief indeed! How does one start to answer this? First of all, Charles Dickens never condoned pickpockets; they were always portrayed as morally deficient, untrained. No, every book does not need a positive role model. There are some perfectly good books where all the "role models" are very bad people, but to be an acceptable book, those characters should not be condoned. Like The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, which does indeed contain a witch, but she is the villain.

Secondly, Harry's attitude about rules is quite childish. "The ends justify the means" is his motto, and it is not a healthy one to cultivate in children. Because the adults in authority are not good leaders, Harry is justified in J. K. Rowlings eyes to disobey them to defeat evil. Perhaps in fiction one can overlook that, for the sake of the story, but in real life, this is a very dangerous message. Throughout life we are under various authorities: Our parents', our boss's, the government's, God's (always), our husband (for women). It is our duty to humbly submit to their authority, not to disobey them for "the greater good". Harry's attitude, that he knows what is better for him than everyone else does, is incredibly arrogant and un-Biblical. J. K. Rowling may say "I see Harry as someone who is struggling to do the right thing, who is not without faults, who acts impetuously as you would expect someone of his age to act, but who is ultimately a very loyal person, and a very, very courageous person", but loyalty and courage are not the only virtues, nor the most important.


Another point about Harry Potter, which I have never heard expressed, is the underlying worldview of materialism. Not incredibly strong, of course, but it is there. One of the most appealing thing about Hogwarts is that magic gives you whatever you want, without earning it, and without limit. Surely, one does have to learn how to do the spells, but you can do whatever you want afterwards. In Eragon, another book with magic, not only does performing the magic require a huge amount of energy and training, the students are taught not to use the Dark Magic. But in Harry's world, not only is magic easily accessible, but he uses the "Dark Magic" just as commonly as the "bad guys". The only difference between the "bad guys" and the "good guys" is that Voldemort kills. But they both use the same means, even the "Unforgivable Curses", which is rather sickening. In LOTR, magic is only used to create beauty, or in extremely desparate circumstances. In Star Wars, there is a distinct Light Side and Dark Side, and the Force is used to promote peace and democracy. Hogwarts, though, is mostly neutral, and magic is just to make life easier. When revenge or luxuries can be there at a wave of a wand, it is not a healthy world for children to dwell on (just the idea of revenge being allowable is unhealthy). Who wouldn't covet the ability to have whatever they want without working for it? But, "if a man does not work, neither shall he eat". A work ethic is both Biblical, and realistic.