I have always enjoyed science fiction, fantasy literature, the classics, mythology, etc. I’ve read all the HP books. I enjoyed the first one way back in 1999 or so, read the second which was not I thought as good as the first but still interesting enough; read the third which I thought was very good. Then came the fourth. This was where I thought the series began to get out of hand–I thought JK had far too many subplots, her difficulties with numbers, dates, keeping track of what she had already written etc. were problematic. Then along came “CAPSLOCK” (book 5) which, having just gotten two of three of my offspring through the dreaded adolescent angst, was more difficult for me to read for that reason as well as for what almost seemed an egregious killing of Sirius --an event for which Harry bore more responsibility than I ever feel was acknowledged in the books. Then book 6 with still more sudden introductions of people, SS of all people (in pure-blood Slytherin) revealed as ‘half blood prince’, the whole Dumbledore mystery. Finally book 7 not only does not succeed in typing up many loose ends, it leaves more that came up in that book alone, as well as those before.
I know that for some it will seem as though I’ve read “different stories”. I am not against them as books, I am not against them as being ‘evil’; for me, personally, I find them unsatisfactory as great, or even ‘good’ literature, taken as a whole.
I think what really started me thinking and puzzling was the way in which the ‘good’ --i.e., the authority figures, the rule abiders, the conscientious, studious people–were presented poorly unless they ‘supported’ Harry. Hermione, for example, never was treated well until she LIED to her teachers to ‘save’ Harry and Ron from punishment. In each succeeding book she moved more and more away from following rules and further and further into going against them.
And the best-liked characters, like the twins, were poorly behaved slackers, mean spirited bullies who, because they played sports and were ‘amusing’, were idolized. . .while the quiet brother Percy was named (by them) as pompous and stuck up. Amazingly enough, while Percy even outdoes Hermione academically, he never uses his powers the way the twins do, or even retaliates against them. Yet HE is portrayed as stuffy and ambitious --obviously cardinal sins in the Weasley family who seem to be cheerful slackers.
All through the books the main thread seems to be “The end justifies the means”. . .and in book 7 we have the revelation that this is exactly how and why Dumbledore acted as he did --the end, the death of Voldemort, was considered so important that the means to that end–involving the death of Harry–was something Dumbledore accepted. Further, Dumbledore’s own death also embodied that thought. . . It was to make Snape appear ‘loyal’ to Voldemort, it kept Dumbledore from a lingering painful death otherwise. Morally, these ‘ends’ may be a desired good–but the means to them were emphatically not good.
So bring on the good wizards like Gandalf. Even bring on the flawed wizards from Earthsea who actually have to deal with real consequences, not ‘fairy tale’ happy endings. But for me, the whole Harry Potter saga is one that ‘could have been’ much greater. If it had indeed truly reflected Christian teachings and not simply attempted to make a few allegories and allusions and use of relativity and situational ethics and portray it as ‘Christian’ values, no doubt with good intentions and sincerity of belief–it could have stood the test of time and been not just a popular saga, but an authentically great one as well.