Harry Potter and the Fans' Lament
When I was about 9 years old, I spent several days--perhaps a week--out of school because of some bad bug I had caught. Out of sympathy for ill-stricken little me, my grandma sent me a gift in the mail; it was a book that she said was turning out to be pretty popular, and she thought I might like it. The book was Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. I remember opening it up and leafing through it, seeing the odd, pastel-esque illustrations that accompanied each chapter and thinking to myself, "Weird." Then I began to read.
Thus I was introduced to the world of Harry Potter. Or at least I think that's how it happened.
Anyhoo, Grandma must have heard that I liked the book, because I also received The Chamber of Secrets and The Prisoner of Azkaban in fairly short order. Over the course of the years, I somehow wound up in possession of all of the books, and a few days ago I finished reading Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.
I think Harry Potter has had an effect on me similar to the effect many T.V. shows have on people. I've been engrossed in the plot and become attached to the characters, and now that it's over I feel disappointed. In many ways, I've grown up with Harry ( but this is the first time that he hasn't been older than me. Ha!).
Waitasec, I think I just figured something out....I've pondering for a while what it is that has made Harry Potter so explosively popular; what it is that has made its fans loudly clamor for more after each book came out, what made them line up in sizzling summer heat 12 hours before it was released, consume an entire book in another 12 hours (Fools! They don't know how to savor) and hail it as the literary event of the 21st century. I think I just wrote myself the answer in the above paragraph:
Thanks to lightning-bolt luck that made her first book so popular, and a pre-formed plan to make the series long but not eternal, J.K. Rowling pretty much ensured herself an audience that would become attached to her story and gobble it up as it became more intricate, rich and detailed (which she had plenty of time to do in seven books) but would also be aware that it was finite and therefore would dedicate themselves to it like it were the last season of Friends.
Ha! Fiendish!
Anyhoo, now that I've figured that out...I've been trying to view Harry Potter through objective eyes, considering the fact that so many people either love it ("modern epic!!!") or hate it ("Devil's instrument!!!"), with many shades also residing between those extreme examples.
It should be clear that I don't view the books as Satan's tool. Indeed, sometimes I wonder why the series has been so vilified and attacked. There are much worse things out there that society's critics should be concentrating their fire upon. Harry's popularity is probably the only real reason he created such a kerfuffle. Well, obviously; no one would have noticed him otherwise.
Anyhoo, if you think about it, the books contain lots of imagery and (perhaps?) symbolism that is very positive and even Christian. For example, the idea that sacrificial love (like that of Harry's mother) is a power that evil can never comprehend and thus never defeat. Another example is that Voldemort, by committing various despicable crimes and murders, literally tears his soul to pieces, mauling it beyond recognition. I think there's some very Catholic imagery there; heinous offenses, which Catholics know as mortal sins, inflict damage to the soul that only true repentance (which is not one of Voldemort's outstanding qualities) can repair.
However, I don't call the books perfect, either. Rowling is pretty inconsistent at times in her portrayal of good and evil. Here's one notable example of this:
Harry has a definite angry, angst-y streak, which is understandable if Rowling is trying to create a realistic adolescent boy. But when Harry's anger transforms into vengeance--and, most importantly, he never indicates remorse for seeking that vengeance--his role as "good guy" begins to get a bit fuzzy. This happens in the book when Harry, overcome with grief upon seeing loved ones killed, attempts to avenge them by using an Unforgivable Curse, that is, a curse so strong and presumably evil that its use warrants life imprisonment. Harry attempts these curses on at least two occasions, but neither remorse nor consequences for their use ever come his way. Not very good for a good guy.
I myself have concluded that, overall, the bad things that are present in Harry Potter are not worth the near-panic they've incited from some people. I would say, however, that in reading the books one should have a definite grasp of what right and wrong really are, and one should also bear in mind that Rowling neither is nor is intending to be (I hope) a philosopher or a theologian; as a result some of the moral/spiritual themes in the books can be a bit wonky.
In other words, I think Harry Potter is like a whole bunch of other books/movies/music etc. It has things about it that are great and things that are not so great. Both should be recognized.
Thus I was introduced to the world of Harry Potter. Or at least I think that's how it happened.
Anyhoo, Grandma must have heard that I liked the book, because I also received The Chamber of Secrets and The Prisoner of Azkaban in fairly short order. Over the course of the years, I somehow wound up in possession of all of the books, and a few days ago I finished reading Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.
I think Harry Potter has had an effect on me similar to the effect many T.V. shows have on people. I've been engrossed in the plot and become attached to the characters, and now that it's over I feel disappointed. In many ways, I've grown up with Harry ( but this is the first time that he hasn't been older than me. Ha!).
Waitasec, I think I just figured something out....I've pondering for a while what it is that has made Harry Potter so explosively popular; what it is that has made its fans loudly clamor for more after each book came out, what made them line up in sizzling summer heat 12 hours before it was released, consume an entire book in another 12 hours (Fools! They don't know how to savor) and hail it as the literary event of the 21st century. I think I just wrote myself the answer in the above paragraph:
Thanks to lightning-bolt luck that made her first book so popular, and a pre-formed plan to make the series long but not eternal, J.K. Rowling pretty much ensured herself an audience that would become attached to her story and gobble it up as it became more intricate, rich and detailed (which she had plenty of time to do in seven books) but would also be aware that it was finite and therefore would dedicate themselves to it like it were the last season of Friends.
Ha! Fiendish!
Anyhoo, now that I've figured that out...I've been trying to view Harry Potter through objective eyes, considering the fact that so many people either love it ("modern epic!!!") or hate it ("Devil's instrument!!!"), with many shades also residing between those extreme examples.
It should be clear that I don't view the books as Satan's tool. Indeed, sometimes I wonder why the series has been so vilified and attacked. There are much worse things out there that society's critics should be concentrating their fire upon. Harry's popularity is probably the only real reason he created such a kerfuffle. Well, obviously; no one would have noticed him otherwise.
Anyhoo, if you think about it, the books contain lots of imagery and (perhaps?) symbolism that is very positive and even Christian. For example, the idea that sacrificial love (like that of Harry's mother) is a power that evil can never comprehend and thus never defeat. Another example is that Voldemort, by committing various despicable crimes and murders, literally tears his soul to pieces, mauling it beyond recognition. I think there's some very Catholic imagery there; heinous offenses, which Catholics know as mortal sins, inflict damage to the soul that only true repentance (which is not one of Voldemort's outstanding qualities) can repair.
However, I don't call the books perfect, either. Rowling is pretty inconsistent at times in her portrayal of good and evil. Here's one notable example of this:
Harry has a definite angry, angst-y streak, which is understandable if Rowling is trying to create a realistic adolescent boy. But when Harry's anger transforms into vengeance--and, most importantly, he never indicates remorse for seeking that vengeance--his role as "good guy" begins to get a bit fuzzy. This happens in the book when Harry, overcome with grief upon seeing loved ones killed, attempts to avenge them by using an Unforgivable Curse, that is, a curse so strong and presumably evil that its use warrants life imprisonment. Harry attempts these curses on at least two occasions, but neither remorse nor consequences for their use ever come his way. Not very good for a good guy.
I myself have concluded that, overall, the bad things that are present in Harry Potter are not worth the near-panic they've incited from some people. I would say, however, that in reading the books one should have a definite grasp of what right and wrong really are, and one should also bear in mind that Rowling neither is nor is intending to be (I hope) a philosopher or a theologian; as a result some of the moral/spiritual themes in the books can be a bit wonky.
In other words, I think Harry Potter is like a whole bunch of other books/movies/music etc. It has things about it that are great and things that are not so great. Both should be recognized.
posted by James at
8:51 PM
