(Credit for this header goes to theviewfromtuesday)
I've been rereading Harry Potter this month (which has been absolutely delightful!) and since it's something that I love that's sometimes controversial...I thought I would defend it today!
Harry Potter seems to need defense on three fronts these days:
1. The magic
2. The rule breaking behavior
3. J. K. Rowling herself
Let's jump in! (Because I'm too tired for an actual intro. XD)
#1: There's magic in Harry Potter--and some people say it's not something we should read about.
How many books have you read recently that had magic in them? Fairy tales? Hmm? And so why are we worried about Harry Potter in particular? That's one answer. But to go into a longer answer...
It's true, the Bible does forbid "Sorcery". Now, there's no "sorcery" labelled as such in Harry Potter. The first book, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was called, at time of publication in England, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, but the name was changed because American publishers thought it sounded better. (Darn publishers!).
Right here is the time to start making distinctions: Literature differentiates between two kinds of magic.
- Invocational magic: "Calling things up". This is the bad kind, and what the Bible calls "sorcery" (See: the witch of Endor). There is none of this in Harry Potter.
- Incantational magic: Speaking things or events into existence. This type of magic, which is the kind used in Harry Potter, actually mirrors God's creation of the world.
Incantational magic is another version of being sub-creators in God's world. The magic in Harry Potter is a God-given ability or talent, just like painting, drawing, making music, writing, talking, and so on. It's not something that the characters can gain or make (like invocational magic *shudder*), but it is an ability they can hone. It's (obviously) an imaginary God-given gift, but within the imaginary world, it is a good thing, since it's from God! Additionally, as incantational magic is a God-given gift, it can be used for either good or evil, just as any other God-given gift.
A good example of the contrast between the two types of magic can be seen in the Narnia books. Aslan uses incantational magic (his song) to call Narnia into existence. And Lewis doesn't shy away from this--in The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, he refers to the "rules" and creation that were laid down at the beginning of the world as "magic from the dawn of time". However, he makes a stark distinction between the two types of magic in Prince Caspian.
The Narnian army calls for help using Queen Susan's magical (God-given, through Father Christmas) horn. Caspian's main advisors--Doctor Cornelius and Trufflehunter--wait patiently for the help that they trust (correctly, as it happens) will come. However, not all members of the army and counsel are that patient. The black dwarf, Nickabrick, brings two of his friends to counsel, and they counsel Caspian to bring back the white witch. He asks how this can be done--they say that they shall "Draw the circle...prepare the blue fire..." fairly obvious giveaways that they want to perform (evil) invocational magic. However, Caspian denounces them, and overpowers them with the help that does come, and just in time!
Through the distinction he makes between incantational and invocational magic, Lewis shows his view--that incantational magic is good, and invocational magic is evil.
I could probably talk about this quite a bit more, including talking about Lewis's views on magic and how they were formed, and the Catholic love of fairy tales and any sort of truth...but I'll cut off there, so this post doesn't get unwieldy!
#2: People often criticize these books by saying that the characters chronically break the rules, and don't have any consequences.
Okay, there is rule-breaking. That I will say to start.
However, Harry does spend a good portion of the books in detention for breaking the rules. There are very few times where he gets away with blatant rule breaking, although it does happen occasionally.
But just because he and Ron and Hermione don't always get "punished" by those in authority doesn't mean that their actions don't have consequences.
When Harry *spoiler* doesn't give back the half-blood prince's textbook *end spoiler* he ends up using unknown spells, hurting people, and losing other peoples' trust.
When Harry *spoiler* looks in Snape's Pensieve *end spoiler*, he doesn't learn what he needs to know in that context (*spoiler* Occlumency *end spoiler*), and as a result of this, someone (*spoiler* Sirius *end spoiler*) dies.
And those are just two examples. Actions have consequences, and it's shown pretty obviously.
Another consideration is that not all the people creating the rules are ethical. The rules created by that one horrible character in book 5, for example, are broken egregiously--because they are unethical, and infringe freedoms.
#3: J. K. Rowling has a tendency to "add on" to her world in interviews/on Twitter and it's very vexing.
Yes, this can be irritating, and feels like "revisionism". However--Twitter is not canon! Once the book is out, the author can't change it, and we can just ignore her now. :)
(I'm not going to talk about the way the internet is blowing up about her right now, because it's controversial and I am tired this week. 😊 Let's just say that I take the Catholic view of the whole situation--and I'm not going to stop reading the books!)
While that concludes the defense against the main attacks on Harry Potter...I want to add a few more final points emphasizing why these books are awesome.
- The rich Catholic symbolism. There are a variety of points in the books where it's quite obvious that Rowling is drawing on the Christian/Catholic tradition for inspiration and symbolism. I'm not going to say what those points are...because spoilers.
- The role of godparents! Godparents are super important in Harry Potter, and shown to be closer relatives than even aunts and uncles. I am disproportionately satisfied by this, tbh.
- The very obvious struggle between good and evil, and especially the emphasis on choice. Harry and his friends are the "good guys", not because they are inherently better than Voldemort, but because they choose the good. In fact, in book 2, Dumbledore explicitly states "It is our choices...that show us what we truly are". But they are quite clearly the "good guys"--there's not a lot of moral ambiguity.
Bravo, Sam!! I know that Harry Potter gets a lot of bad rep, all it's good to see someone defend it. :) I mean, people can have their own opinion of the books, I didn't like the HP books at one point while I was reading them (that's all changed since the last book), but when someone makes claims about how bad it is without ever reading it or knowing the story, it's nice to throw some more things out for it instead of against (does that make sense? It's been a really long day and I can't figure out what words are anymore.)
ReplyDeleteI have one quibble with the last book, but there are such good, even similar Catholic things, that make it one of my favorite books. THE ENDING, THOUGH?? FANTASTIC. It did not disappoint. <333
Oh, and yes, Twitter is in no way canon. ;)
DeleteThank you, MC! I'm glad you enjoyed seeing me defend it. :) I don't expect that everyone is going to love it, but I would hate for someone to have a mistaken idea of what it is or how good/bad it is, and not read it because of that! (Yes, that definitely makes sense! Your words are still working. :D).
DeleteJust out of curiosity, what's your quibble with the last book?
I agree, there are SO many good things, and Catholic symbolism, and the ENDING IS AMAZING. <3
It deals with your second point. SPOILERS for anyone who hasn't read it. A character, one of the good guys, uses not one but two unforgivable curses and never has any repercussions. The first instance it does get them into bigger trouble than before, but they still are fine and there is no mention of it again. You know what I'm talking about? Any thoughts on those occasions?
DeleteAaaahhhh of course. I did think about that a bit on my most recent reread. I can't remember what the first instance was, precisely, but I definitely remember the second instance (Gringotts, right?). That is an issue for sure, although I will say that it's wartime, and while it's not on a battle field, per se, sometimes different rules apply (i.e. like killing in a just war isn't a mortal sin). Not that that mitigates the issue...but may modify it. Anyway--just my thoughts. :)
DeleteTrue about it being in war! That definitely gives it a different perspective. Yes, the first time was Gringotts, and I'm okay with that because it was the only way the character could think of getting past that problem. I really appreciate how the character never uses the killing curse! I was so thankful that it never came to that. But, the second time I just can't support. It happens in the Ravenclaw common room near the end. The third unforgivable curse that I haven't mentioned is used. It doesn't matter how angry the character was or how much the receiving character "deserved it", that curse is UNFORGIVABLE and anyone who uses it goes to Azkaban. He could've used some different spell to make the character unconscious. A lot of people really like that moment and the connection between two characters, but to me that makes it more disturbing. Do you remember it now?
DeleteI appreciate the lack of killing curses, too! I think it's really a way of setting him apart from the Death Eaters, especially, even though not-using-the-killing-curse becomes dangerous for him, since it's his signature, so to speak.
DeleteAhhhh, now I remember. (Was partially thinking about my ridiculous art class assignment while reading your comment, sorry!). I actually just went back and read it to remember *exactly* what happens. And I agree with you, that while the recieving character does "deserve" it, in that he's being really evil and loathsome, the-character-under-discussion (honestly, we've already spoiled it so much, I just hope no one is reading this thread. XD) kind of destroys his own character a bit by using that curse, rather than a more innocuous one.
At the same time, Amycus is about to pass off the summoning of "You-Know-Who" on the students, who will then be "punished" by Voldemort. (And really--given how bad Amycus and Alecto and Snape's punishments are (using unforgivable curses on students, leaving Neville *that bloody*, etc.)) Harry's reaction is not completely about the professor he's nominally defending, but also about protecting other Hogwarts students from You-Know-Who. All of which does make his anger more *understandable* but not really more *justifiable*, since he could accomplish unconsciousness *without* an unforgivable curse.
I do think there should be at least some repercussions for this, but it's at least understandable (after all, he is a hot-head teenager defending his friends!). As always--just my thoughts!
This is such a well-written post. I agree with MC, so many Christians that I know dislike Harry Potter [which is fine. You certainly don't have to love the books], without having read any of the books.
ReplyDeleteAlso, YES to your first point especially. The way you wrote it was so clever and well thought out.
I've been meaning to do a Harry Potter reread, and your post just inspired me. *goes off looking for the first book*
Thank you! It's true--people don't have to love the books, but I do want them to understand them. *blushes* I'm glad you liked my first point. :) Have fun with your reread!
DeleteI haven't read the books yet, but after watching the movies. I decided that the whole these books are full of evil magic was blown out of proportion. Tons of fantasy books use that kind of magic, even Christian ones. (I do plan on reading them at some point)
ReplyDeleteI also agree on just ignoring the author adding things on after. It really doesn't affect it.
Great post!
It's definitely blown out of proportion! The magic in itself isn't evil, but there are some people who use it that way in HP. (You should read them at some point!)
DeleteSeriously! The books stand alone.
Thank you!
I just came across your blog and I love this post! I've only just got into Harry Potter (I'm 20 years old and so behind on the times). My mum read them when they first came out and loved them, but I wasn't allowed to read them as a child because my mum thought the later books were too dark for me at the time (which I completely agree with, having read them now!). I've never understood the Christians boycotting it, but I honestly think it has to do with the use of the phrase "witchcraft". Even though I agree that the magic in Harry Potter isn't really any different to that in Narnia or LOTR, I think a lot of people panicked at the use of witchcraft and witches.
ReplyDeleteAs for J.K. Rowling, well, I honestly think she's gone off the deep end, and I have personally decided not to buy any of her books (thank you, Library) or support her financially in anyway.
I love your points on Harry's rulebreaking. Yes, he breaks the rules a lot, because he's honestly a pretty rebellious teenager, but at the same time, his actions usually have severe consequences.
Thanks for this post! I really enjoyed reading it!
Thank you! It's so cool that your mum read them when they came out! I totally agree with her that the later ones are dark, though. I wouldn't let anyone under fourteen read them, if it was up to me.
DeleteI think you're right about the use of the word "witchcraft". Even though in the context of HP, it means something completely innocuous, it has a negative connotation for a lot of people.
J. K. Rowling does seem to be a little whacky these days, doesn't she!
He's definitely a very rebellious teenager, but that for sure doesn't mean his actions don't have consequences!
You're welcome! Thank you for reading!
*Glances up at the full (if second-hand and mismatched) set of Harry Potter books on my shelf* I have so much love for this series. Such an intricate world, so many excellent characters, and so well plotted. I have known a lot of people over the years who have refused to read it/let their kids read it, and while I can respect their decisions, I feel like there's so much good stuff in these books. As a Christian, I see so many Biblical parallels and spiritual metaphors and really powerful illustrations of good vs. evil. I thoroughly enjoyed reading your defense :) I love the way you articulated the difference between invocational and incantational magic, and the parallels you drew between Harry Potter and the Narnia books (which I love, bless them). Your point about incantational magic being a (made-up) God given gift--which can be used for good or evil like any other God given gift--is quite good.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, it does bug me when authors keep adding to/changing things in their books after they're published via social media and such...but my method is to largely ignore this additions. Twitter is certainly in no way cannon.
Ah, yes someone else who has a mismatched set of second-hand HP. :) It is SUCH a lovely and fun series. I do respect people who don't let their kids read it (especially since the last books are rather dark for younger kids) but I don't agree with them, if it's because of the magic system. :) I'm so glad you enjoyed my defense! It was very fun to think out and write. The parallels between HP and Narnia came to me one day right after I read Surprised by Joy, and I was rather pleased with that. :) Narnia is fantastic. Aww, all the compliments! *blush*
DeleteYeah, that's why I do not and never will have a Twitter account. :)
Thanks for your comment! You've made my day a little brighter.