Harry Potter

In light of the recent movie release of Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix, my mother suggested that I post this paper. I wrote it for a college application essay, so it is perhaps not the best. I should probably go back and rewrite it, but until I do, here it is.

_________________________________________
Last November Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire opened in theatres. This reawakened the ever-present dispute in the Christian world over J.K. Rowling’s series. I came across a movie review of Goblet by Gene Edward Veith that seemed to capture one side of the issue. However, the movie review was just the general overview of the larger issue and, at the same time, was specific to the latest movie. Further research uncovered another article written by Veith which dealt with the series as a whole. In this article, “Good Fantasy & Bad Fantasy,” Veith attempts to address why Christians are wary of the Potter series.

The premise of the article is that it is necessary to understand the genre of fantasy and how it works before determining what is “good” or “bad” fantasy. He makes many good points about what fantasy is and how is should be used. I believe that his examples are often off the point and many could be taken out entirely since they show bias, or really are not necessary. But overall he makes a very good argument for what Christian fantasy should involve.

In the first place Veith delineates between Fantasy and Reality. He argues that the struggle facing Christian writers is to find the balance between the two. There are truths that have to be presented in a setting that is imaginary. He says, “There are realistic Christian authors, such as Dostoevski, but another way to write about these invisible truths is to explore them symbolically; that is, through fantasy. By definition, fantasy is wholly imaginary. It is not reality, but it can provide a way to think about reality.”[1]

Second, he defines “Good Escape” and “Bad Escape”. There will always be people who wish to escape from the responsibilities of this world by reading and living in fantasy. Veith holds that this is the wrong use of fantasy. Good fantasy allows for good escape when it demonstrates and espouses those Truths that are denied by the worldview of the culture.

Finally, Veith deals with “Fantasizing Evil.” The realm of the imagination is dichotomous. While fantasy can be used to portray Truth (good fiction), it can also be used to advance false beliefs, encourage immoral behavior, or simply fix the imagination on unwholesome things. However, you cannot simply throw everything ‘evil’ out of fantasy for it has to reflect reality. Evil has to be placed in its proper place- in sharp contrast to the Truth.

However, the problems, besides his examples, arise in the conclusion. Veith returns to the issue of the Harry Potter books and clearly states that they are fantasies- they are not trying to describe some twisted form of reality but are describing imaginary things. This is where any resemblance to the previous paragraphs ends. Nowhere does he clearly explain why Harry Potter is “bad” fantasy according to his definition.

He first explains why he thinks the books are so popular. Children can identify with them- they are books about school. For some reason Veith seems to consider this a problem even though one of the requirements of good fantasy is that is portray truths about reality. If there are no ties to reality then the reader cannot identify with the characters and the story fails. Instead of allowing the possibility that the Harry Potter books are popular because they reflect life, Veith concludes his analysis by saying, “young Harry Potter fans are not so much fantasizing about witches as they are fantasizing about being popular and successful.”[2]

This conclusion is, I believe, both right and wrong. I agree that young readers are not fantasizing about being witches; however I do not believe that they are fantasizing about being popular or successful. Rather, I believe that people read these books because they accurately portray aspects of life that everyone, not just children, can identify with and they portray them well.

I think that Veith is being overly narrow when he attributes the popularity of the books to the fact that people enjoy reading about popularity and success. Actually, when Harry first arrives at school he is not popular so much as he is a legend. Throughout the books he goes through times when he is very popular and times when people hate him (usually the reason is because he tells the truth when no one wants to hear or believe it). Also, Harry is not overly successful. He is an average student in most respects, not a genius. He is not even the best in his year. Rather, these books touch on many more aspects of life than Veith gives them credit for. All readers enjoy books that include: love, hate, danger, fears, friendship, family, death, truth and the clash between good and evil, to name just a few.

After saying the reason for children’s attraction to the books as not fantasizing about witches but rather something else entirely, Veith states the real crux of the problem. The reason that Christians are hesitant about Harry Potter is that it is about witches. Now, Veith does explain that Potter fans have argued that the witches in Harry Potter are not Satan worshipers or Wiccans. However, he seems to push this argument to the side as unimportant. “Still, at a time when witchcraft is becoming a major presence in our youth culture . . ., Christians are right to disapprove.”[3]

I disagree with his view. The fact that the characters in Harry Potter are not espousing the worship of Satan or the activities associated with Wicca is a vital one. There is a major difference between invocational and incantational magic. Never once in the books do the characters invoke a spirit, demon or other force; instead, the world of Harry Potter revolves around incantational magic- the use of vocal spells. Veith explains that in fairy tales, ‘good’ fantasy, the existence of witches reinforces “the clear lines between evil and good, that is, the forces of darkness and the forces of light. Anything that blurs those lines is cause for concern.”[4]

First of all, the characters in Harry Potter use the same type of magic that is to be found in the fairy tales that Veith considers “good” fantasy. If he insists that the line between good and evil in those fairy tales is clear because the witches are all wicked, he must throw out such characters (and their books) as Gandalf in Lord of the Rings. For he uses incantational magic but is not wicked. Lord of the Rings, indecently, is a book that Veith holds up as a model of Christian fantasy.

But Harry Potter in no way blurs the lines between good and evil; in fact, I believe that it accomplishes quite the opposite. Because the characters are both witches and use the same type of magic (incantational) the choices that they make about how they use their magic shows the difference between good and evil in a way so forceful as to be unmistakable. For example, in book five, Harry, in desperation attempts an Unforgivable Curse (dark magic) on an evil witch who is trying to kill him; he is unsuccessful. She says, “You need to mean them, Potter! You need to really want to cause pain- to enjoy it- righteous anger won’t hurt me for long.”[5] In order to use dark magic in Harry Potter the characters must have evil desires. This is only one of the myriad examples of the stark difference between good and evil in Harry Potter; others are to be found on every page.

Veith continues by saying that although Harry Potter “does not erase the lines completely, … [it] falls short.”[6] He concludes with a paragraph warning parents that the Harry Potter books satirize Christianity as being “narrow, materialistic, [and] boring”[7] like the Muggle world. He also emphasizes that “it is Christianity that has the open universe with room both for the natural and the supernatural … [and] that recognizes unseen truths of goodness and beauty and that believes in a genuine battle between the forces of darkness and the forces of light.” (emphasis added)[8]

In his eagerness to discredit the books, Veith has made a compromising assumption. His conclusion demonstrates the very thing that he was trying to disprove yet he still comes to his own conclusion. He concludes that Harry Potter is forcing Christianity into the realm of the Muggle world and teaching children to satirize Christianity when actually the exact opposite is true. The magical world is a very thinly veiled allusion to the Spiritual world. There are the forces of Truth (good witches and wizards) and forces of Evil (the dark witches and wizards) that are fighting for mastery. Spiritual warfare has rarely been better portrayed in a way that is accessible to children. The Muggles, who have no idea about magic or anything that goes on in the magical world, are a much better example of un-believers who are deaf and blind to the Spiritual than of Christians.

So in the end, although Veith wanted to give Christians good reason to avoid Harry Potter all he has managed to do is contradict himself and show his own biased view of the novels. He defined “good” fantasy as fantasy that portrays truths about life in an imaginary setting, that allows for escape from the culture in which we live, and that clearly defines between good and evil. But even though Harry Potter fits all these requirements Veith still considers it “bad” fantasy because is contains the same type of magic that he allows in fairy tales and actually espouses a Christian worldview. Instead of running away from Harry Potter Christians should be embracing it as good fantasy that opens the doors for discussion about the Truths of the Bible. If anything, the children of Christian parents are the last to be negatively affected by Harry Potter. Because they understand the worldview that the books are written from they are the ones that can get the most out of Harry Potter.
________________________________________
[1] Gene Edward Veith, “Good Fantasy & Bad Fantasy”, Christian Research Institute, 18 December 2005 [journal on-line]; available from http://www.equip.org/free/DF801.htm; accessed 16 January 2006.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. (New York: Scholastic Inc., 2003), 810.
[6] Veith, Good Fantasy & Bad Fantasy.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.

Oh Mann!!!!

A typical night at the Mann:
I saw two people I know from school; one person from high school who is back for the summer; the parents of a guy I went to Luzerne with about 5 years ago- they recognized me; my assistant conductor from DCYO from senior year; and, last but not least, two nine-year-olds who recognized me from two years ago when I played on "From the Top" with my quintet.
One of the girls summed it up- "I remember. It's the braid."

Edmund Blair-Leighton

I have recently discovered one of my favorite painters. I think the thing I like most about his paintings is the way he uses light. He never uses "artificial" spot lights. Rather, he uses sunlight usually coming from the back or side. Also, all the paintings are oil-on-canvas which gives real depth to the pictures. This lighting and paint, combined with the warm colors he uses, create a quietly radiant painting that is simply breath-taking. The picture I first fell in love with is called The Accolade (1901)


If this was not enough to put him in my "favorite painters" list, on further research I found another picture. Now, understandably, Lady Godiva has a special place in my heart. However, there really aren't any acceptable pictures of her, seeing as painters seem to harp on the riding-naked-on-a-horse theme. So I was rather ecstatic when I found Blair-Leighton's Lady Godiva (1892)

Hamlets

A quick note on Hamlet. On Sunday afternoon we watched Mel Gibson's rendition of Hamlet. It was excellent. The cast was incredible (Ian Holm as Polonius, Helena Bonham Carter as Ophelia, Paul Scofield as the Ghost). This is my review: if you want a clean, un-complex version of Hamlet then this is the movie to watch. Because they have to cut so much (it is a 2 hour rendition of the 4-hour play) there is not so much to work with and you just get the essential questions and problems. Mel Gibson makes a wonderful Hamlet and really brings something to the part. For the purists, however, there is Kenneth Branagh's version as well. This also has a star-studded cast and really brings out the complexity of the Hamlet roll since it is the complete play. It is rather lighter in aesthetic quality than the Gibson film, and it is set in a different century- 19th century instead of the Middle Ages.
I loved the Branagh version and so was a little hesitant to see the Gibson film. But there were aspects of the play and of the characters that I had never seen or thought of. I thoroughly enjoyed it and recommend either (or rather) both.

First Fruits

I decided to take a stroll outside today and during my stroll I noticed our garden. Every year we plant several rows of peas and every year my Dad puts up 4-foot fences; and every year, without fail, the peas grow to be about 6-foot. You must understand, this happens every year; we suggest that he put up taller fences and he points to the seed packages which say the plants should grow to 3 1/2 feet; and the plants proceed to grow up over the fences, falling into each other, forming barricades and obstacle courses for the pea-pickers.
So this year we but up 5-foot fences; and, yes, you guessed it, the peas grew to be 3 feet. Now that's what you call ironic. So we have been watching these little plants produce flowers. But today when I went to check on them, there were peas! These little plants are loaded with pea-pods. So Sarah and I happily ate our way down the rows- no baskets, no "two for the basket, one for me." It was just "All for one, and more for me."
It looks to be a different year- we will have to bend double in order to pick; this may be an improvement over having to fight your way through long tendrils that somehow find their way into your hair, tickle the back of your knees, and slowly form barricades behind you, preventing your escape. I say it might be an improvement, as long as there are still enough peas!

Weed-wackers and Hydrangeas

I was asleep on the chair when I heard it- the sound of a weed-whacker starting. My subconscious prompted- "Hydrangeas." I told it, "He wouldn't cut down the hydrangeas, they are blooming." Then, into my mind floated the picture of the field of violets they cut down; then the brussel sprouts chopped in the garden. I am now sitting in the basement saying to myself, "Please don't cut down my hydrangeas, please don't cut down my hydrangeas." I have sent Sarah outside to mosey around and pet the cat and KEEP AN EYE ON THAT IDIOT WITH THE RATHER-IMPORTANT-PLANT-WHACKER.
She has reported that apparently 1 1/2 foot plants with blooms the size of baseballs were obvious enough to survive the weed-scourge. He whacked right around them, getting close enough to make them wave, but did not actually hurt them.
You might ask, why I didn't go and watch him instead of sending Sarah. The answer? I couldn't. Not watch him trim around my precious, young, beautiful hydrangeas.
He has gone now, off to terrorize someone else.... but he has been replaced by the mower. Ah me!

The Bagpipe Didn't Say No

Here is my funny poem of the day. I had forgotten about this one, but when I was reminded of it, I thought I would post it for others to enjoy. It is rather funny in a sad kind of way and it seems to be a parody of a Scottish balled.

THE BAGPIPE WHO DIDN'T SAY NO

It was nine o'clock at midnight at a quarter after three

When a turtle met a bagpipe on the shoreside by the sea,
And the turtle said, "My dearie,
May I sit with you? I'm weary."
And the bagpipe didn't say no.

Said the turtle to the bagpipe, "I have walked this lonely shore,
I have talked to waves and pebbles--but I've never loved before.
Will you marry me today, dear?
Is it 'No' you're going to say dear?"
But the bagpipe didn't say no.

Said the turtle to his darling, "Please excuse me if I stare,
But you have the plaidest skin, dear,
And you have the strangest hair.
If I begged you pretty please, love,
Could I give you just one squeeze, love?"
And the bagpipe didn't say no.


Said the turtle to the bagpipe, "Ah, you love me. Then confess!
Let me whisper in your dainty ear and hold you to my chest."
And he cuddled her and teased her
And so lovingly he squeezed her.
And the bagpipe said, "Aaooga."


Said the turtle to the bagpipe, "Did you honk or bray or neigh?
For 'Aaooga' when your kissed is such a heartless thing to say.
Is it that I have offended?
Is it that our love is ended?"
And the bagpipe didn't say no.


Said the turtle to the bagpipe, "Shall I leave you, darling wife?
Shall I waddle off to Woedom? Shall I crawl out of your life?
Shall I move, depart and go, dear--
Oh, I beg you tell me 'No' dear!"
But the bagpipe didn't say no.

So the turtle crept off crying and he ne'er came back no more,
And he left the bagpipe lying on that smooth and sandy shore.
And some night when tide is low there,
Just walk up and say, "Hello, there,"
And politely ask the bagpipe if this story's really so.
I assure you, darling children, the bagpipe won't say "No."

-Shel Silverstein