Secular criticism of Harry Potter

[curlycool89]

You forget that he realized his ‘error’ and attempted to use it again against Snape (in Half Blood Prince). Is that the mark of a good person?

Just a FYI, Harry has anger issues. Plus he just saw his mentor (Dumbledore) get murdered by Snape. Plus he feels that it’s his fault due to the fact Dumbledore asked him to (spoiler) force-feed him the potion in the cave by the sea in order to recover an important item, and said potion severely weakened Dumbledore. Plus he doesn’t know that Dumbledore’s near death anyways due to an incident earlier in the year.
The point is he’s not exactly stable at that point in the novel.

I think that morally his culpability would be reduced anyways due to the fact that (another spoiler) he’s got a piece of Voldermort’s soul inside of him, which has a real measurable effect on him, such as giving him a “link” to Voldermort’s mind, allowing him to speak to snakes, and in book 5 especially he has a lot of angry outbursts which seem to be due to said link to Voldermort’s mind. All of these effects disappear after the piece of Voldermort’s soul is destroyed.

However, the answer to the question is: No I have never polluted my mind by reading such unwholesome and unsavoury material.

Wow, you perfectly fit the stereotype of people who complain about books they haven’t read. Look, Harry Potter is even listed.

Most people would accept that reading trusted reviews and in-depth analysis of any work is quite sufficient for the purposes of debate, after all one is engaging in a debate not writing a book review. In the course of my research on HP I have read various reviews, articles and analysis from various sources, both pro and con.

No amount of reviews, analysis or research is enough to actually replace reading the books themselves. The problem is that you in fact do not have your own opinion that you would form from actually reading the books themselves. Instead you outsourced your opinion to people who’s motive’s are unknown and who aren’t even trying to be neutral in their review and instead try to impose their opinions on others (most likely because they have an inferiority complex and need others to affirm their own opinions in order to feel like they’re worth something).

Now of course people are quite free to ignore my critique and censures of the HP novels and even treat them with the contempt that they imagine that they rightly deserve

And this is especially not an example of being condescending to your opponents and treating your own opinion as Gospel from the Lips of the Lord Himself.

however the one thing that they cannot do on a public forum is prevent me from expressing my viewpoint, however much they disagree with it.

No one has said that you shouldn’t be allowed to voice your own opinion. Don’t play the “I’m being persecuted” card. It’s such a lame excuse to try and get your opponents to pity you and back off because no one wants to be seen as a “persecutor”. I’ve seen it played enough and frankly I’m sick of people using it. Frankly, it’s the “mature” person’s version of a temper tantrum.

 

[dixieagle]

I understand that, but good people, by definition, realize their error, repent, and attempt to make ammends. Where did Harry do that?

Perhaps near the end of Deathly Hallows, when he returns Voldemort’s Cruciatus curse with only a disarming curse? And when he puts his life on the line for his friends, being willing to sacrifice himself for them?

Again, I think that people twist themselves into pretzels over these things. Just enjoy the wonderfully crafted stories, with an ultimately heroic young protagonist.

 

[Portrait]

A point of clarification…

When Harry attempted to use the Cruciatus curse against Bellatrix Lestrange, it was largely ineffective because - as Bellatrix pointed out - Harry lacked the real desire to inflict pain; he had to “really mean it”, and he didn’t, as he lacked the necessary cruelty.

Harry reacted out of pure, raw pain and righteous anger when Sirius was killed by the thoroughly evil Bellatrix, much like many otherwise good people might.

That said, I think that there is a lot of overthinking about fantasies like the Harry Potter books. It is a wonderful series that has provided countless hours of delighted reading to people of all ages, with Good defeating Evil in the end, but at great cost.

Dear dixieeagle,

While Rowling does posit the “good” use of occultic powers against their misuse, thus imparting into her sub-creation an apparent aura of morality, the cumulative effect is to shift our understanding of the battle lines between good and evil. Alas, the border is never defined. Of course, the archetype of “misuse” is Voldemart, whose savage cruelty and will to power is blatantly and undeniably evil, yet the reader (often an impressionable young person) is lulled into minimizing and forgetting altogether that HP himself, and many other “good” characters, frequently use the selfsame powers on a lesser scale, allegedly for good ends. The spurious and totally un-Christian notion that “the end justifies the means” is the the subtext throughout. The author’s characterization and plot continually reinforce the message that provided a person is "nice"or “cool”, if his heart is in the right place, and is heroic and loyal to his friends, he can more a less do as he pleases to combat horrific evil - magic powers being the weapon of choice to serve this end. This is consistent with Rowling’s confused notions of authority. In reality magic is an attempt to circumvent the limitations of human nature and God’s authority, in order to obtain power over the material creation and the will of others through manipulation of the supernataral - all of this in books for whom the primary target group is children and young persons. To plead that this is fantasy fiction and not reality in no way mitigates or ninimizes the poblem, since the wrongful and un-Christian use of magical powers is the message being conveyed to the young readership. That is apart from the deeply disturbing interrelationship with the very real world of the occult.

Magic is all about taking control and is a fundamental rejection of the divine order of creation. In the first book of Samuel (15: 23) divination is equated with the spirit of rebellion. The Catechism of the Catholic Church calls divination and magic a form of idolatry.

“All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one’s service and have a supernatural power over others…are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion” (see para. 2117 and also paras. 2110-2116 and para. 2138).

This per se ought to put all Catholic parent’s on enquiry with regards to the HP novels and films. The interconnection between Rowling’s sub-creation and the real world of magic and witchcraft is just too close for comfort. Can we as good Catholic parent’s risk exposing are precious offspring to these wicked practices and notions, albeit in a fictional world? res ipsa loquitor.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[rocklobster]

I have read these books and I strongly disagree with this writer. Rowling has a great imagination. Reading one book in the series is not enough to gauge it. Harry Potter himself changes throughout the series. So do many of the others.

 

[Brendan]

Just a FYI, Harry has anger issues. Plus he just saw his mentor (Dumbledore) get murdered by Snape. Plus he feels that it’s his fault due to the fact Dumbledore asked him to (spoiler) force-feed him the potion in the cave by the sea in order to recover an important item, and said potion severely weakened Dumbledore. Plus he doesn’t know that Dumbledore’s near death anyways due to an incident earlier in the year.
The point is he’s not exactly stable at that point in the novel…

So our supposedly Christian hero is a mentally unstable person who tries to torture people when he is angry at them? Is that pretty much what your are saying?

 

[Brendan]

I have read these books and I strongly disagree with this writer. Rowling has a great imagination. Reading one book in the series is not enough to gauge it. Harry Potter himself changes throughout the series. So do many of the others.

If you are talking to me, I have read all of them, several times in fact. They are fun books, there is no doubt about that at all. But it is not a tale of Good vs. Evil at least not in the Catholic sense.

Modern moral relativists might find it so, but a Catholic cannot.

We hold that there is such a thing as intrinsically evil actions that cannot be performed, even towards a good end.

 

[Loveday220]

Dear Loveday220,

It was not my intention to purposely keep you, or any other fellow poster, in a state of suspense over the question of my reading of the HP books, I just do not deem it to be an issue of crucial importance as you seem to think it is.

If someone asks you a direct, pointblank question in a discussion such as this, it’s only polite to answer it, whether you feel it’s important or not. However, your total disregard of my question before now led me to believe you indeed had not read the books, as you state here:

However, the answer to the question is: No I have never polluted my mind by reading such unwholesome and unsavoury material.

You have no idea if the material is unwholesome and unsavoury–you haven’t *read *it! And don’t say you’ve read excerpts in reviews and critiques. Context is extremely important, and believe me, those critics you love so much have an agenda and will pull out one sentence, one paragraph, one quote to ‘prove’ their thesis, without putting it into the context of the whole story. You can take something from the most wholesome, G-rated book out there and make something unsavoury out of it if it will further your own agenda.

The whole argument that one must read HP to have an informed opinion is, quite frankly, utterly riddiculous and risible and the people who assert that would never in a month of Sundays apply that to themselves in any number of other issues. They just say this to make cheap debater’s points in an effort to marginalize any dissent. It is a specious argument employed for polemical purposes against ones antagonists to silence them and is invariably put in an adversarial manner, which should tell us something.

*Truly *informed opinions require more than just reading the opinions of others. Otherwise, you’re only regurgitating hearsay.

Most people would accept that reading trusted reviews and in-depth analysis of any work is quite sufficient for the purposes of debate, after all one is engaging in a debate not writing a book review. In the course of my research on HP I have read various reviews, articles and analysis from various sources, both pro and con. What I have read convinces me that picking up a Potter book to read from cover to cover would be not only be time-consumming but also mind polluting.

No, most people would NOT say that reading trusted reviews and indepth analysis is sufficient for debate. Most serious debaters would laugh their heads off at that statement.

Reading Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone would probably take you only a few hours; it’s not a long book. Ditto with the second and the third books. As much time as you spend in writing your long posts in this thread, I’m quite sure you can find a few minutes here and there to read a little Harry Potter.

Of course…the further into it you get, you might have a time problem, I’ll grant you. Those later volumes are rather weighty tomes. But they have to be–they deal with weighty issues. Life and death. Love and friendship. Sacrifice. The triumph of good over evil. You know…all those *unsavoury *and *unwholesome *issues you find so abhorrent.

Similarly, I have never read The Davinci Code, yet I have read articles and reviews that show it to be arrant nonsense of the first rank so I give it a wide berth; why on earth do I need to waste my time reading such inferior fiction? Again does one need to read a salacious novel to know that it contains sinful material? Surely it would be spiritually unwise to read such a book in its entirety. Clearly there is nothing intrinsically unsystematic in not reading a book through to the end before venturing to critique or give an appraisal of its contents; it is quite permissible to lean on trusted and respected reviews of others in order to better understand a given work.

While it’s certainly permissible to rely on reviews to decide whether you want to read a certain book or not, it’s NOT permissible to rely on them to critique and debate the merits of a book with others. You cannot expect to be taken seriously, to have your opinion given any respect whatsoever by reasonable and thinking people, if you’re debating solely from the perspective of one who has only read reviews, critiques, and analyses of a book, but who has not read the book itself.

Now of course people are quite free to ignore my critique and censures of the HP novels and even treat them with the contempt that they imagine that they rightly deserve; however the one thing that they cannot do on a public forum is prevent me from expressing my viewpoint, however much they disagree with it. As long as I feel passionately and deeply concerned about the Potter books I shall, God willing, continue to submit unfavourable and negative evaluations.

First off, we don’t *imagine *your critiques and censures deserve contempt–we now KNOW they do. You haven’t read the books. You’ve quoted critiques dating back to the year 2000, long before the series was even halfway completed. You haven’t read the books. You’ve used sources you didn’t bother to verify as legitimate. Did I mention you haven’t read the books?

Second, NO ONE ON THIS FORUM has said you have no right to express your viewpoint. So don’t even go there. Unless, of course, you want to reduce your credibility even further.

 

[Loveday220]

One more thing, Portrait. I have another question for you. Silly of me, I know; my last question took you nearly six months to answer, but I like to live a little dangerously, so I’ll ask another and see how long it takes for you to answer this one.

You’re obviously an adult; from your manner of writing I would guess you’re an older adult, perhaps my age, maybe a little older (I’m in my early fifties, so forgive me if you’re younger and feel a little insulted by my guess). You’re not a nine year old child, easily susceptible to suggestion, like the children you’re so worried about who might read the HP series and suddenly become immersed in the occult and Satanism. You’re fully capable of reading a book or a series without fear of the same.

So: what on earth are you afraid will happen to you if you read Harry Potter for yourself?

 

[SugarMagnolia]

I have read these books and I strongly disagree with this writer. Rowling has a great imagination. Reading one book in the series is not enough to gauge it. Harry Potter himself changes throughout the series. So do many of the others.

Many posters on this thread do not understand what literature and literary criticism are.
I am only using rocklobster’s post as an example; many others are making the same mistake.
The terms “fiction” and “literature” are not interchangeable. The word “fiction” applies to
all imaginative prose writings whether or not they are “literature.” “Literature” applies to
works of art. Harry Potter may very well be an entertaining work of “fiction,” but it
is not a work of “literature.” Thus, for example, Hamlet is literature even if you don’t
find it entertaining; *Harry Potter *is not literature even if you do find it entertaining.

The standards of how a work of “fiction” is judged to be “literature” or not are too complex
for me to go into on this forum. Suffice it to say, people study for PhD’s in literary criticism to
learn how to make these determinations. While anyone may express disagreement with Bloom,
only disagreement from a qualified literary critic of equal calibre to Bloom is worth heeding.
Bloom is one of the great literary critics of our age; thus, disagreeing with him is the equivalent
of disagreeing with the chief of surgery on whether your appendix needs to come out, or disagreeing
with the Pope on the meaning of the catechism.

By all means continue to debate whether or not *Harry Potter *is entertaining and whether or
not *Harry Potter *is acceptable reading for children; such a debate is appropriate for a
general readership. But please do not claim to be qualified to debate with Bloom without the
proper credentials and without a proper knowledge of what “literature” is.

 

[curlycool89]

So our supposedly Christian hero is a mentally unstable person who tries to torture people when he is angry at them? Is that pretty much what your are saying?

I’m saying that’s it’s not as simple as you’re putting it. There’s a lot of mitigating factors. Are you actually saying that in fictional works that a “good” character must not be portrayed as (gasp) human? With all the flaws and fallen nature of being human?

Referring to the scene in question, Harry also gets his butt kicked for even trying. He loses badly for trying to lower himself to their level. Now, what does that tell you?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

The usual Pro-Potterite response to this is to say that Father Amorth has no expertise in fantasy fiction and hence is not in a position to appraise the books. However, surely Father Amorth does not need to be tutored in the fantasy fiction genre to be able to access whether or not the books contain references to “the satanic art”, for that clearly is his forte.

Actually, he does need to understand the form, content, and structure of the books qua literature if he is to accurately comment on them. He would need a familiarity both with supernatural evil (which he, as the Vatican’s chief exorcist, does of course have) and with the books themselves.

After everything I’ve learned about Harry Potter, it couldn’t be clearer to me that he has a completely inaccurate understanding of the novels’ content and structure. I will only ever have the utmost respect for the Vatican’s chief exorcist, but on Harry Potter, Father Amorth is, sadly, mistaken.

Read How Harry Cast His Spell by John Granger.

In any event it is not just the occult that is the issue with these books, but the worrisome fact that they sadly blur the lines between good and evil, The HP novels are essentially a relativistic product of our relativistic age; indeed such ignoble works of fiction could only be written in superficial and frivilous times such as our own, which are witnessing the ever increasing paganization of culture.

Good and evil are very distinct in the books, as has been explained to you time and time again. What’s right is always portrayed as right; what’s wrong is always portrayed as wrong. And good wins in the end - in the end of every book.

I wish I could argue with you in greater detail, but you’ve given me no arguments to refute - only baseless generalizations.

Finally, all good Christian parent’s worth their salt impose boundaries upon their children [which] necessarily include their reading and viewing material. Not to do so would be a dereliction of parental responsibility.

Of course; I wholeheartedly agree. And since Harry Potter is a wholesome series which instills a respect for the transcendent mysteries of love and death, a firm conviction that love and self-sacrificial goodness always triumph over evil and brute power, and an appreciation for the value of friendship, then if I ever have kids they will most certainly be allowed and encouraged to read Harry Potter.

I would disagree. Harry Potter is hardly Christian.

Take a look at his use of the Crucius curse. We were already told, in the book, that this was a very illegal curse, and rightly so.

But Harry uses it with impunity, and for no other justification that as revenge for the death of his godfather.

How is that Christian? In legitimate Christian literature, the protagonists have been know to morally fail. But, if it to be held as an example of Christian behavior, the protagonist should either repent and make ammends, or be punished.

Neither happened to Harry. By rights, he should have been shipped off to Azkaban.

Especially when my fictional character learns that, for the torture to be REALLY painful, you have to “mean it”, and takes that advice to heart for the next time he attempts torture.

How does all that promote an awareness and longing for the Good News of Christ?

Does the Good News state that people may torture with impunity? Or that if they don’t the the torture right the first time, they should ‘mean it’ more on subsequent times?

Okay, thank you for actually raising a specific, meaningful objection that can be addressed. Trading generalizations wasn’t getting anyone anywhere.

You have a point. But five things come to mind:

(a) As you yourself acknowledged, characters - even protagonists - don’t need to be perfect all the time, and Harry is definitely portrayed as flawed in many ways throughout the series. Though he is not punished for using the Cruciatus Curse - although you should acknowledge that at the time he does so, the legal authority that is in power is a corrupt and evil regime which permits and encourages its use - nowhere is his doing so presented as heroic or good.

(b) As he is flawed and is consistently presented as so, the reader is never invited to consider Harry’s use of the Cruciatus Curse as anything but a consequence of a vengeful outburst of a man infuriated by the persecution of one of his beloved teachers.

(c) Harry does get what’s coming to him for everything he has done wrong when he is asked to die for the sake of all of his friends so that the Horcrux inside him can be destroyed. To this task he freely submits himself, even to the point of death.

(d) That this act of self-sacrifice moves him toward his own moral perfection clearly indicates that there was definitely some imperfections to be eliminated in the first place. Thus, why would any reader be invited to consider his use of the Cruciatus Curse a good thing?

(e) How do you support claiming that this book isn’t very Christian in light of the massive evidence to the contrary elsewhere in the series - and I’m not just referring to the glorification of self-sacrificial love that the series presents even from the first chapter (i.e. how Lily saved Harry as a baby). What about the ending of each book, and the use of a Christ figure in each? (i.e. phoenix, stag, etc.) What about the stages of transformation based on literary alchemy that Granger identifies? (i.e. nigredo stage in book five marked by Black’s death, albino stage in book six marked by Albus’ death, rubedo stage in book seven marked by “Rubeus” Hagrid’s carrying Harry’s body, etc.)

In short, what about everything else? The whole series in its proper context destroys any particular scene’s potential moral ambiguity.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Most people would accept that reading trusted reviews and in-depth analysis of any work is quite sufficient for the purposes of debate, after all one is engaging in a debate not writing a book review.

I agree with you - it is quite sufficient for the purposes of the debate. But - and I do mean this with all due respect, Portrait - you have displayed such an ignorance of what the Harry Potter novels contain that it is not only justified to assume but virtually certain that you have gleaned nothing accurate from whatever “in-depth analyses” of these books you have explored.

he’s got a piece of Voldermort’s soul inside of him, which has a real measurable effect on him, such as giving him a “link” to Voldermort’s mind, allowing him to speak to snakes, and in book 5 especially he has a lot of angry outbursts which seem to be due to said link to Voldermort’s mind. All of these effects disappear after the piece of Voldermort’s soul is destroyed.

Good point; I forgot about that.

Perhaps near the end of Deathly Hallows, when he returns Voldemort’s Cruciatus curse with only a disarming curse? And when he puts his life on the line for his friends, being willing to sacrifice himself for them?

Again, I think that people twist themselves into pretzels over these things. Just enjoy the wonderfully crafted stories, with an ultimately heroic young protagonist.

Well said. You put it much more succinctly than I was able to.

While Rowling does posit the “good” use of occultic powers against their misuse

Not quite. This series isn’t about “good magic” vs. “bad magic,” because in these books, magic is neutral. The morality is not in the “type” of magic but rather it is in the actions - magical or nonmagical - and intentions of the characters involved.

Furthermore, Voldemort is way more powerful than Harry. Thus “magic” never saves the day, but rather courage, friendship, and self-sacrificial love. One example of this is the ending of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Even at the series’ end, Voldemort is destroyed not by a killing curse from a “good guy” but essentially by his own killing curse (Harry casts a simple disarming spell).

So while there is a “use vs. misuse” concept in the book, that’s not the principal avenue through which morality is explored or expressed.

yet the reader (often an impressionable young person) is lulled into minimizing and forgetting altogether that HP himself, and many other “good” characters, frequently use the selfsame powers on a lesser scale, allegedly for good ends.

No. You’ll just have to trust me on this, but Harry and other “good” characters often make poor decisions which are, ultimately, exposed as poor decisions at the end of each book.

 

[Loveday220]

Many posters on this thread do not understand what literature and literary criticism are.
I am only using rocklobster’s post as an example; many others are making the same mistake.
The terms “fiction” and “literature” are not interchangeable. The word “fiction” applies to
all imaginative prose writings whether or not they are “literature.” “Literature” applies to
works of art. Harry Potter may very well be an entertaining work of “fiction,” but it
is not a work of “literature.” Thus, for example, Hamlet is literature even if you don’t
find it entertaining; *Harry Potter *is not literature even if you do find it entertaining.

The standards of how a work of “fiction” is judged to be “literature” or not are too complex
for me to go into on this forum. Suffice it to say, people study for PhD’s in literary criticism to
learn how to make these determinations. While anyone may express disagreement with Bloom,
only disagreement from a qualified literary critic of equal calibre to Bloom is worth heeding.
Bloom is one of the great literary critics of our age; thus, disagreeing with him is the equivalent
of disagreeing with the chief of surgery on whether your appendix needs to come out, or disagreeing
with the Pope on the meaning of the catechism.

By all means continue to debate whether or not *Harry Potter *is entertaining and whether or
not *Harry Potter *is acceptable reading for children; such a debate is appropriate for a
general readership. But please do not claim to be qualified to debate with Bloom without the
proper credentials and without a proper knowledge of what “literature” is.

Thanks for the lesson, Sugar. I’m sure none of us had *any *idea there was a difference between ‘fiction’ and ‘literature’ until you set us straight.

And thanks, too, for assuming that most of us have no idea who Harold Bloom is. I don’t recall anyone even mentioning him, much less claiming to be his critical equivalent, although I certainly might have missed a reference… But now that you bring him up, I posit that it’s entirely permissible to disagree with his assessment of something even if one *isn’t *quite at his level in the firmament of literary criticism. His is no more the last word on a literary–or a popular fiction-- subject than is anyone else’s.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

The spurious and totally un-Christian notion that “the end justifies the means” is the the subtext throughout.

This objection is the same as the one raised by Brendan, although he was helpful enough to actually give a specific example. Thus I will attempt to lay it to rest once and for all by looking at the most morally ambigous moment in the entire series: the euthanizing of Dumbledore - at his own request - by Severus Snape.

In order to keep himself well-trusted by Voldemort and to spare himself from a much more painful death, Dumbledore asks Snape to kill him, pretending to do so on Voldemort’s orders. Snape does so at the end of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.

Is this moral? No, of course not. Only a consequentialist could think so. But the books don’t portray it as moral. In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, we discover that Dumbledore had asked Snape to murder him. Dumbledore had, until that point, been portrayed as 100% good and heroic. But in Deathly Hallows, we learn all about his very flawed past, which leads us to freely realize that he did commit moral wrongs.

Then, when Dumbledore speaks with Harry at King’s Cross (hint, hint, by the way) at the end of Deathly Hallows, he explicitly tells Harry that Harry is a better, braver man than Dumbledore.

It doesn’t get any more morally ambiguous than Snape’s murder of Dumbledore. But although that was the best practical option, nowhere does the narration expect us to believe that it was morally acceptable - indeed, in the very same book in which we discover that Dumbledore had asked Snape to euthanize him, we also discover that Dumbledore is himself a severely flawed character, one who explicitly tells Harry that Harry is the better man.

So even this - the most morally ambiguous moment of the series - is still far from consequentialism.

Magic is all about taking control and is a fundamental rejection of the divine order of creation.

That’s true of real magic. But:

(a) Granger refutes the charge that HP promotes this in the first chapter of How Harry Cast His Spell. You can read part of that first chapter on amazon.com. I recommend you do so.

(b) So magic is a rejection of the divine order of creation. Does that make the following acts fundamental rejections of the divine order of creation: (1) Caspain magically summoning the Pevensie children in Prince Caspian with the horn? (2) Gandalf using magic in The Lord of the Rings? If you can understand why these examples of “fictional” magic are not fundamental rejections of the divine order, then you can understand why Harry Potter’s “magic” isn’t either. By the way, not even the bad guys in HP use the kind of “magic” that is a fundamental rejection of the divine order of creation. Rather, their evil is in what they use that “magic” to do - kill, maim, intimidate, torture, or even (for the characters who aren’t villains but are just jerks) just bully others.

Many posters on this thread do not understand what literature and literary criticism are.
I am only using rocklobster’s post as an example; many others are making the same mistake.
The terms “fiction” and “literature” are not interchangeable. The word “fiction” applies to
all imaginative prose writings whether or not they are “literature.” “Literature” applies to
works of art. Harry Potter may very well be an entertaining work of “fiction,” but it
is not a work of “literature.” Thus, for example, Hamlet is literature even if you don’t
find it entertaining; *Harry Potter *is not literature even if you do find it entertaining.

You’re incorrect. Even the dictionary (dictionary.com) says literature is a “writing in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays.”

This includes Harry Potter. What you meant to say was that Harry Potter is - in your opinion, of course - not serious or good literature. Get your terms right.

While anyone may express disagreement with Bloom, only disagreement from a qualified literary critic of equal calibre to Bloom is worth heeding. Bloom is one of the great literary critics of our age; thus, disagreeing with him is the equivalent of disagreeing with the chief of surgery on whether your appendix needs to come out, or disagreeing with the Pope on the meaning of the catechism.

And yet Bloom would likely be the first to tell you that literary criticism is not as exact as either a science - the like of which would determine whether you need your appendix out - or even catechesis.

In addition, Harry Potter is written for a young adult audience. Also, it deliberately - in its artistic structure - engages the heart more than the intellect (though not in any way at the expense of the latter).

Furthermore, the “argument from authority” - even the strongest authority - is the weakest of all arguments.

And by the way, Sugar, that same dictionary defines “art” as “the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria.”

Harry Potter is subject to aesthetic criteria. So it is art. You may claim it is bad or simply not serious art, of course, but please don’t forget to bring your soul to a discussion on fiction or literature. (The real difference between the two, by the way, is that not all literature is fiction - some may be lyric poetry, for instance)

 

[SugarMagnolia]

Apparently no good deed goes unpunished. I provide a little education
on the subject which is my area of expertise and get shouted down for it.
Fine. Believe whatever you like. And hang on your wall a picture of dogs
playing poker and claim it is the artistic equivalent of the Sistine ceiling.

 

[Loveday220]

Apparently no good deed goes unpunished. I provide a little education
on the subject which is my area of expertise and get shouted down for it.
Fine. Believe whatever you like. And hang on your wall a picture of dogs
playing poker and claim it is the artistic equivalent of the Sistine ceiling.

Pompous, much? Take yourself a bit too seriously, much? Lighten up, for crying out loud.

Did it occur to you that for some of the rest of us, this subject may be among OUR areas of expertise as well?

And no one here has claimed that JK Rowling is the literary equal to Ibsen, James, or Proust. And she’s certainly no Austen, although there *is *some evidence of Austen’s influence in her writing here and there.

Join in the discussion if you like–whichever side you’re on, I’m sure you have plenty to say and a new voice is always welcome, but please don’t come in here with an attitude of superiority because you may have a degree in a particular subject.

 

[SugarMagnolia]

Pompous, much? Take yourself a bit too seriously, much? Lighten up, for crying out loud.

Did it occur to you that for some of the rest of us, this subject may be among OUR areas of expertise as well?

**Perhaps you misunderstood my intention. I only intended to provide a little education to the many folks here who didn’t seem to understand Bloom’s criticism of Harry Potter. I never suggested that no one here understands; but based on the responses it seemed that most people did not understand. I wasn’t pompous. **

And no one here has claimed that JK Rowling is the literary equal to Ibsen, James, or Proust. And she’s certainly no Austen, although there is some evidence of Austen’s influence in her writing here and there.
**
This was implied by those who disgreed with Bloom without understanding Bloom. Many responses were of the order of: “I disagree with Bloom because I enjoyed the book.” I was making a distinction between entertainment value and literary merit, and this is a distinction people may not be aware of if they have studied literary criticism.

Join in the discussion if you like–whichever side you’re on, I’m sure you have plenty to say and a new voice is always welcome, but please don’t come in here with an attitude of superiority because you may have a degree in a particular subject.

**I don’t take myself too seriously. On the contrary, I enjoy works of entertainment as well as works of great art and literature. I just make a distinction between them. I can’t comment on whether the Harry Potter books are entertaining because I have not read them nor do I intend to read them. I have seen some of the movie adaptations on TV and they were somewhat entertaining. I’m not a cinemaphile, so I have no objection to watching movies for the sole purpose of relaxing at the end of the day.

On the other hand, I don’t think such books are suitable for children unless those children learn at an early age to distinguish between entertainment and literature. As a child, I was a bookworm and read fantasy novels along side of classic children’s literature. I think people do a disservice to their children if they allow them to read only Harry Potter. It is the equivalent (yes, I’m fond on analogies) of allowing children to eat only junk food. Parents sometimes say, “It doesn’t matter what they read, as long as they’re reading something.” But I don’t think those parents would say, “It doesn’t matter what they eat, as long as they’re eating something.” Eating junk food is fine in small amounts in addition to healthy meals. Reading books like Harry Potter is fine in small amounts as long as it’s in addition to children’s literature. **

 

[Portrait]

Many posters on this thread do not understand what literature and literary criticism are.
I am only using rocklobster’s post as an example; many others are making the same mistake.
The terms “fiction” and “literature” are not interchangeable. The word “fiction” applies to
all imaginative prose writings whether or not they are “literature.” “Literature” applies to
works of art. Harry Potter may very well be an entertaining work of “fiction,” but it
is not a work of “literature.” Thus, for example, Hamlet is literature even if you don’t
find it entertaining; *Harry Potter *is not literature even if you do find it entertaining.

The standards of how a work of “fiction” is judged to be “literature” or not are too complex
for me to go into on this forum. Suffice it to say, people study for PhD’s in literary criticism to
learn how to make these determinations. While anyone may express disagreement with Bloom,
only disagreement from a qualified literary critic of equal calibre to Bloom is worth heeding.
Bloom is one of the great literary critics of our age; thus, disagreeing with him is the equivalent
of disagreeing with the chief of surgery on whether your appendix needs to come out, or disagreeing
with the Pope on the meaning of the catechism.

By all means continue to debate whether or not *Harry Potter *is entertaining and whether or
not *Harry Potter *is acceptable reading for children; such a debate is appropriate for a
general readership. But please do not claim to be qualified to debate with Bloom without the
proper credentials and without a proper knowledge of what “literature” is.

Dear SugarMagnolia,

There is little to distinguish the HP novels other than their unprecedented sales records and their ability to mesmerize a host of readers. Certainly Rowling can spin a good yarn but her writing skills are decidedly unexceptional and her literary style is irritatingly puerile. Her “vision” comes nowhere near the artistry and depth of say Tolkien or C.S. Lewis.

Her “works” are the product of the superficial and frivilous age in which our lot is cast; a previous generation, who drank from the wells of the great literary and cultured classics such as Dickens, Swift, Robert Louis Stevenson and Shakespeare, would have given the thumbs down to this inane hogwash. Indeed the literati of that day would have exposed the Potter books as utterly unworthy and inferior texts, likely to corrupt public morals and lead the young and unsophisicated, especially, from the path of virtue into error and sin.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Loveday220]

This was implied by those who disgreed with Bloom without understanding Bloom. Many responses were of the order of: “I disagree with Bloom because I enjoyed the book.” I was making a distinction between entertainment value and literary merit, and this is a distinction people may not be aware of if they have studied literary criticism.

I will have to go back yet again and re read this entire thread to catch the Bloom references. I don’t recall a whole raft of posters discussing him, but hey, this thread goes back a long way, so I should refresh my memory.

By the way, literary merit does not cancel out entertainment value. Just thought I’d throw that out there.

On the other hand, I don’t think such books are suitable for children unless those children learn at an early age to distinguish between entertainment and literature. As a child, I was a bookworm and read fantasy novels along side of classic children’s literature.

So was I, and I encouraged my children along the same lines. I missed very few children’s classics, and was reading many adult classics by the time I was nine or ten. As well, I read as much popular children’s fiction as I could get my hands on.

I think people do a disservice to their children if they allow them to read only Harry Potter.

In the ten years or so that I have followed the HP phenomenon, I have never once heard of a single parent who allowed their kids to read only Harry Potter novels. I’m sorry, but this is pretty silly.

It is the equivalent (yes, I’m fond on analogies) of allowing children to eat only junk food. Parents sometimes say, “It doesn’t matter what they read, as long as they’re reading something.” But I don’t think those parents would say, “It doesn’t matter what they eat, as long as they’re eating something.” Eating junk food is fine in small amounts in addition to healthy meals. Reading books like Harry Potter is fine in small amounts as long as it’s in addition to children’s literature.

I totally agree with this. But nowhere in this thread has anyone suggested otherwise. *I *certainly haven’t suggested that kids should read huge amounts of HP. But how much is a huge amount? My daughter has read all the books as they came out (except the first three–she was too young when they first came out, so she read those three just before Goblet of Fire came out in 2000), and now, once in awhile, she’ll pick one up and re-read it, in amongst all the other reading she does. I do the same thing–with many favourite books, not just HP; I think I’ve read Jane Eyre a dozen times in my life, is that too much?–so I see nothing wrong with that. And no child I know or have heard or read of, has been so into HP that they steadfastly refuse to read anything else and are constantly doing nothing but reading HP. That would suggest a problem that has nothing to do with HP and everything to do with something else inherent in the child.

 

[Loveday220]

Dear SugarMagnolia,

There is little to distinguish the HP novels other than their unprecedented sales records and their ability to mesmerize a host of readers. Certainly Rowling can spin a good yarn but her writing skills are decidedly unexceptional and her literary style is irritatingly puerile. Her “vision” comes nowhere near the artistry and depth of say Tolkien or C.S. Lewis.

Her “works” are the product of the superficial and frivilous age in which our lot is cast; a previous generation, who drank from the wells of the great literary and cultured classics such as Dickens, Swift, Robert Louis Stevenson and Shakespeare, would have given the thumbs down to this inane hogwash. Indeed the literati of that day would have exposed the Potter books as utterly unworthy and inferior texts, likely to corrupt public morals and lead the young and unsophisicated, especially, from the path of virtue into error and sin.

Portrait, how up are you on your history of western literature? Are you aware that Dickens, Swift, Stevenson, and Shakespeare were the pop fiction writers of their day, just as Rowling, Stephen King, and Dan Brown are of ours? Are you aware that people would wait anxiously for weeks and months for the next instalments of Dickens’ stories, EXACTLY as people around the world waited for the next Harry Potter novel?

If you were to do some serious research into many of these so-called ‘classics’ authors, you might be surprised to find that they were considered anything *but *, in their day and age. I’m not saying J K Rowling’s books will someday be considered as classic as Dickens’, but believe me, at certain points of his career, quite a few of the literati found his work to be rather unworthy and inferior. So the idea that the giants of classic literature have always been recognised as such, is quite a fallacy.