Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, July 30, 2007
La Shawn Barber :: Townhall.com Columnist
Harry Potter and the Inevitable End
by La Shawn Barber
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Warning: This review contains MAJOR spoilers. Do NOT read if you don't want to know how the Harry Potter series will end, who will die, and who will survive.

J.K. Rowling’s epic tale about an orphan boy who discovers he’s a wizard at age 11 comes to an end in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

The seventh and final book in the series sold a reported 11 million copies in the first 24 hours on sale, which broke the record for fastest-selling book. Rowling’s Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince held the previous record at nine million.

The seven-book series has sold more than 325 million copies worldwide. The first five books have been made into top-grossing movies, and Rowling has been named one of the richest people in the world.

Not bad for a former divorced welfare mother who nursed cold cups of coffee in a café while writing the first book.

Love it or hate it, Harry Potter is a cultural phenomenon. The series has produced a collection of books, research papers, blogs, podcasts, fan fiction, and fan conferences devoted to analyzing the text, positing theories, dissecting clues, and pouring over minutiae. The long tail of Harry Potter is so vibrant, even fans have fans.

Over seven books, Rowling has done a stellar job capturing our imaginations and immersing us in a wondrous world of magic, where the universal struggle between good and evil unfolds. Choice, loyalty, forgiveness, love, and sacrifice are major themes in the books. At the ripe middle age of 40, I’m not the least bit abashed to confess my affection for these “children’s” tales and for the way Rowling presents these themes in an engaging context.

The first 500 pages of Deathly Hallows are a hardcore Potter fan’s dream. Rowling superbly sets the novel’s tone in the first chapter, bringing on stage Severus Snape, arguably the most intriguing character in the entire series, though we don’t see nearly enough of him in the 759-page book.

After a heart-pounding airborne battle at the start, where two characters meet their demise, Rowling takes her time acquainting the reader with a setting that lacks the structure of a typical school year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. The Ministry of Magic has fallen to Lord Voldemort, the minister is dead, the Death Eaters are on the move, and 17-year-old Harry, Ron, and Hermione are on the run. No more Quidditch matches or treacle tart.

In the ensuing Horcrux hunt, the trio stumbles upon the legend of the “Deathly Hallows,” mysterious objects referenced in a book of wizard children’s fairy stories. But the objects are not legend. They are real and powerful, and Harry must decide if finding them is more important than finding Voldemort’s Horcruxes, the keys to vanquishing him.

The last third of the book races to the inevitable showdown between Harry and Voldemort at Hogwarts, with more deaths along the way. Wizards and magical creatures alike take part in the Armageddon-like war.

Overall, Rowling delivered what she promised in this well-plotted book, though it seems rushed toward the end. For instance, Snape’s true loyalties are revealed in one, too-short chapter, and the duel between Harry and Voldemort left me longing for more blood, tension, and terror. And Rowling didn’t have the heart to kill off main characters other than two we expected to die.

Does Harry defeat Voldemort? Yes. Does Harry die? Yes. And no.

Christian Literature?

In a previous Townhall column, Harry Potter and the Charmed Christians, I wrote about Christian-themed elements in the series (and touched on the occult controversy surrounding the books). Influenced by the work of John Granger, an Orthodox Christian, homeschooling father, college professor, blogger, and author of Looking for God in Harry Potter, I began to see these themes more clearly.

Rowling’s use of Christian themes and symbols across the series has been subtle, compared to how she uses them in the final book. Referring to earlier books, Granger writes, “Harry always dies a figurative death and is saved by love in the presence of a Christological symbol. The resurrection at story’s end each year is the culmination of that year’s cycle and transformation.” Rowling’s use of this imagery “marks her as a writer in the English traditions of writing faith edifying literature, what is often called ‘baptizing the imagination’ or ‘smuggling the gospel.’”

In Deathly Hallows, Harry’s death and resurrection are more than figurative. A strong theme in the series is substitutionary sacrifice, laying down one’s life to save others. In the final book, Harry believes he must die, so he willingly goes to his “death.” His willingness to die for others saves him, and he’s resurrected, in a sense. Harry’s sacrificial death defeated death.

And Christian readers can’t miss the symbolism of the Deathly Hallows themselves, three objects that conquer death.

Across the series, wizards celebrate and observe Christmas and Easter and sing carols, but in Deathly Hallows, we learn that wizards are buried in a churchyard in Godric’s Hollow. On Harry’s parents’ headstone is the Bible verse, “The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death” (1 Corinthians 15:26). The headstone of late headmaster Albus Dumbledore’s mother and sister reads, “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” (Matthew 6:21)

I suspect the series will become a classic, and future generations will discover its treasures. As John Granger explains, the series is so popular because it contains “themes, imagery, and engaging stories that echo the Great Story we are wired to receive and respond to.”

Rowling may not have had such elevated intentions, but something in her stories resonates with millions all over the world. And it’s not Quidditch.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Freelance writer La Shawn Barber blogs at the American Civil Rights Institute blog.
Government goes over to the Dark Side?
--
What a surprise. Rowling has been telegraphing that punch throughout the series. The wonder of it all is that there's been any sort of pretense about the oh-so-veddy British Ministry of Magic standing in opposition to Lord Voldemort and his coterie of Death Eaters.

Has anybody else taken note of the series all-but-total refusal to acknowledge the existence of anything on the opposite side of the Atlantic Ocean?

To paraphrase Shrek: "D'you think [they're] compensating for something?"

For all you avid Potter-swotters out there, I'm glad you've enjoyed the Harry Potter saga. Those of us who've been reading speculative fiction well before *The Philosopher's Stone* (published as *The Sorceror's Stone* over here, where Americans are judged too stupid to catch the alchemical allusion), we've already read works like Poul Anderson's *Operation Chaos*, De Camp & Pratt's *The Incompleat Enchanter*, and Robert A. Heinlien's "Magic, Inc."

Nearly 70 years ago, John W. Campbell's magazine *Unknown* was doing Harry Potter-ish stuff wider, wilder, and with better internal logical consistency than anything Rowling ever prowled toward in her career of cutesy copy-catting.

And you don't even realize that she lifted her term "muggles" from the longstanding derisory term "mundanes," used by SF fen to describe people who *don't* read science fiction. Tsk.
--

Its All The Devils...
...work, glorifies witchcraft and should be banned

Wow.
About 2 years ago I glanced at a copy of one of these Potter books, in a store aisle. I read a page or two, was struck by the poor writing quality. Felt sorry for the kids of today. Yet I'm glad they're reading. What can I say.

I love and appreciate HP
in the same way that I adore Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia. I read HP for pure escape and enjoyment, but notice Rowling really understands bureaucracy!!

To those wringing their hands about witchcraft, sexism, racism, poor writing on Rowlings's part, etc... go create something better,purer, or racially/sexually sensitive. I'll be waiting for your releases.

Harry Potter and the Prigs and Snobs
Not since the days when I rose to relative stardom among the Doctor Who people (because I can write) have I heard so many snide and priggish comments from putative adults about a phenomenon that has literally swept the world, as I have heard about Harry Potter. People who spend their entire lives obsessing about the conspiracies between feminazis and homosexuals to take over the universe are getting nosebleeds from the ascent of their high horses at the sight of adults embracing fantasies of a more intriguing and lasting type. Some parents have informed me sniffily that their children are being brought up to despise the popular simply because it is popular. These are the kids we in Catholic School called prigs; in later years we met them at Star Trek and Doctor Who conventions, dressed in costumes and sighing over their parents' complete lack of humour and proportion.

Yes, Rowling could have used an editor -- I would have suggested that a number of the expository matters that dragged down the action be relegated to appendices to be studied by those who want a deeper communion with this universe. And for sure she could have used a less rushed deadline so that she could have massaged the story into a more easily flowing shape.

Nevertheless, we Harry Potter people have shared a wonderful experience with a universe that is not actively trying to kill us, squash our sense of humour, dictate that what is not forbidden must be made compulsory, or advocate that anybody over the age of 12 be tarted up in bootylicious MTV mode and rushed into numerous sexual encounters, porn-torture and oblivion to the ordering of the world into adults and children each of whom has a part to play.

And for you humorless Puritans who suspect that anything popular must be Satanic, please feel free to go back to screaming NO NO! at consenting adults and trying ceaselessly to take over the world. Pinkie and the Brain welcome your competition.

harry potter
ms rowling based her evil protagonist after a real life person. The deathly hallows actions of voldemort brings to mind the personality and antics of missus clinton. A despicable conieving person who plots the downfall of enemies and uses underlings to help impliment his evil plot. All the while there all cheer-leaders on the side-lines encouraging the evil one while he attempts to impliment his vision of how wizard society should be run under his inspired guidance. Everyone's attention is drawn to voldemorts enemy, harry potter. Not unlike libs proclaiming missus clinton will save the world from the excesses of president bush and again bring prestige and honor to america under her inspired leadership

Sorry, Irony Is...
...obviously difficult to express on screen. I was merely paraphrasing some of the Christian fundies I heard spouting off about Harry Potter when I lived in the States in the 90's. Some of them actually seemed quite bright which was worrying!!!!
Never read any of Harry Potter books myself cos I've started shaving and I'm a grownup. Rowling is definitely a great British success story though (and quite easy on the eye too!!!)

vespanat
you are missing a little something if you have not read the harry potter series. I have read the entire series , with the exception of the last book, which I read but have surrendered it to my wife, at least three times each. generally read twice and then again before each movie to check poiknts and characters for clarity. I don't personally see them as anything but adventure tales with heroes and villains. Each character has attributes and flaws. The heroes win, the heroes do good things as opposed to those who are the villains who are more short-sighted and thus doomed to failure. I am 59 and my wife is 58 and we truly enjoyed the stories. I know many others even older who find the stories enchanting. But the real value is the number of children who became more avid readers tyhanks to harry and his pals

I've read most of them
So far, and I thought they were reasonably good. Yes, Rowling plows over a lot of the same ground as Anderson, Pratt & de Camp, to say nothing of Tolkien and Lewis, but those writers would tell you directly that they were inspired by the likes of Lord Dunsany, "Saki" (H.H. Munro), Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and of course Rudyard Kipling. (Rowling's writings have strong elements of Doyle's Spiritualist beliefs and Kipling's interest in the occult.) And that's no bad thing.

I grew up reading the SF and fantasy of Andre' (Alice Mary) Norton and Edgar Rice Burroughs, with a side-order of Robert E. Howard (think "Jimgrim", as opposed to the more famous Conan). those led me back to Tolkien, Dunsany, and Doyle's more esoteric writings. (Previously, I'd only known of him as the creator of the greatest detective in fiction- you know who I mean.)

I suspect that Rowling's journey was similar. The difference is that she can write readable, interesting fiction, and make a living at it. She took what was there, put her own interpretation on it, and created her own version of the world in her books.

Just like every author before her.

There are no new ideas in literature, even in SF or fantasy. (Trust me, I've been reading this stuff for the last forty-seven years.) What is new is how each new generation of writers- and their readers- rediscover and reinterpret those ideas. Rowling is better than most of her generation. (Don't get me started on the various other "fantasy series" out there, especially not the "game ties" to AD&D, Warhammer, etc.) She deserves credit for getting it right, and doing it well enough to become at least as popular as any of her predecessors. As a result, an entire generation of kids who might never have put down a game controller have picked up her books, and read them. And reading is a very addictive habit, as I can personally attest. (Fortunately, it is less harmful, and more rewarding, than most addictions.)And in the process, she is making more money at it than most of her predecessors did.

And there's nothing wrong with that, either.


cheers

eon



Eon -- great post
You said everything I wanted to say.

But to the person who complained about the "poor writing quality," all I can say is -- are you SURE you picked up a HP book? A lot of publishers have put out series with remarkably similar cover art...


It just so happens
I've read all 7 Harry Potter books. I've yet to convert to Wicca. It doesn't promote witchcraft. Yes, it follows the conventions of the fantasy genre. It's not racist.

Rowling admits that the costumes for the Death Eaters in the fifth film were inspired by the Nazis. Does this make the film a commentary on WW2 then? No.

It's an enjoyable series of children's books, and anyone looking to read into the "deeper meaning" of the text, that it bolsters or tears down Christianity, that it's a commentary on Guantanamo Bay, etceteras, needs to pull their heads out of their rear-ends. It's not out there to promote a philosophy. It's out there to entertain, and make money. Good grief.

my 2 cents
I must confess that I have read not a word of any of the Harry Potter books. I have seen all the movies and they were all very entertaining and well done and I forgot them all within a few hours of leaving. The cool names of the characters and the camera tricks and all that stuff is great while you watch it and then forget it.

Same with the Lord of the Rings. Tom Clancy (even though we went to the same High School) stuff? Great, thanks goodbye. Robert Ludlum? Same.

But

I've always been pretty insensitive



ON THE OTHER HAND


Many years ago, in fact so long ago that it qualifies as once upon a time, my sainted daddy sat me down and put a book by P.G. Wodehouse in my hand and suggested that I read it.

50 years later it's STILL funny.

Thanks, dad

one more thing
if these books serve no purpose other than to get kids to READ that alone is great.

And there have been a few movies in the last 10 years or so about Beethoven. Noone can really play the part although Gary Oldman did a really good job and Ed Harris showed a lot of cojones for an American ACTOR - not a movie star, when he tackled the part. An honorable failure indeed.

But both movies served the purpose of bringing to the abused ears of "the young people" (love that phrase - I used to be one!) a taste, however brief, of truly glorious music.

Not to mention "Mr. Holland's Opus"

Will they be playing The Sex Pistols "music" 100 years from now?


naaah

Harry Potter and racism
One of the interesting things about the Harry Potter books is the theme of racism running through the novels. What surprises me is that so few critics seem to pick up on it. Consider: Valdemort and his followers want to turn Hogwarts into a school for students who are pure wizards; no one with Muggle blood will be allowed. Any evil wizard with some Muggle ancestry is ashamed of it and tries to conceal it.The somewhat shadowy regime projected by the villains would also extend the rule of evil into the Muggles' world (that of 'normal') human beings.

While there's much more going on in Rowlings' universe, the liberal theme of opposition to racism is surely present.

I Beg To Differ Uncle Max...
...I'm sure they will still be playing the Sex Pistols in 100 years time, their one and only album is still one of the greatest rock and roll records ever and sounds fresh 30 years since its release.

oh brother
Surely the liberals on here are kidding. This is not a liberal v conservative book series, for Heaven's sake!

Harry Potter is a good versus evil story with good winning in the end. If conservatives wanted to get all high and mighty (and arrogant to boot) we would say...the Harry Potter series is an allegory for the war on terror and the good guys know they are going to have to fight that evil possibly to the death....however, we are not so narcissistic.

I have read all of the books to my children, and going to Harry Potter movies is a family event. We tracked down the final book while on vacation in Florida and we read it late into the night for three straight nights. When we had finished the book, we discussed our feelings and thoughts on it for quite some time. That, my friends, is magic right there!

I am a staunch conservative and I have never once thought the books should be banned. I have never heard any of my conservative friends call for the banning of the book either. Stop trying to tar us all with the same brush.

MassachusettsLiberal
I am a conservative and I LOVE the Harry Potter series.

Something I have noticed about you liberals is how completely intolerant you are...you just paint everyone (conservatives) with this broad brush, calling them names deatheaters (i.e. Nazi's) and you feel so good about yourself.

Maybe you should get to know a conservative or two and understand what we really represent before you go reading the Daily Kos and believing every word of it.


eon - it's not what a writer starts with
--
...but rather what he ends up with.

It's not that "Rowling plows over a lot of the same ground as Anderson, Pratt & de Camp, to say nothing of Tolkien and Lewis," but rather that she does it so unimaginatively by comparison.

It's not that her predecessors in the writing of "real-world" fantasy (see Fritz Leiber's *Conjure Wife* [1953] as an example) in popular fiction were not "...inspired by the likes of Lord Dunsany, 'Saki' (H.H. Munro), Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and of course Rudyard Kipling," but rather that they imbued their writings with the same element that had been brought to "scientifiction" by editor John W. Campbell, who steered speculative literature away from the "gadget stories" of Verne and Wells and Gernsback, and into the examination of the possible social and political effects of advancing technology on protagonists and other characters in the work he commissioned, accepted, and published.

In effect, Campbell "humanized" the worlds of science fiction. He did that in the pages of *Astounding* and followed it up with a similar impact on fantasy through his work in *Unknown*.

That's the exact antithesis of the approaches taken in "high fantasy" - including Tolkien's Luddite "quest" crapola as well as Rowling's Potterish putzelry - both before and since, all of which, while feigning the presentation of their characters' supposed moral strengths, courage, and/or growth, actually present them as nothing more than woodchips in a millrace.

Have you actually *READ* the stuff written "...by the likes of Lord Dunsany, 'Saki' (H.H. Munro), Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and of course Rudyard Kipling" so as to be able to compare it against what you consider to be derivative in the works of Campbell-influenced F&SF writers like Poul Anderson, L. Sprague de Camp, Robert Heinlein, H. Beam Piper, Fritz Leiber, Gordon Dickson, and the rest? Are you capable of seeing the contrast for yourself instead of parroting what's been published by the MLA mundanes?

I know that you *say* you'd been led "...back to Tolkien, Dunsany, and Doyle's more esoteric writings," but I doubt that you get the point. You might have caught a partial glimpse of where the later (and, in Tolkien's case especially) better writers had taken off, but I *really* doubt that you've quite managed to understand where they landed.

No, "[t]here are no new ideas in literature, even in SF or fantasy," but there *are* innovative and evocative ways in which to couch those ideas.

The problem with evaluating Rowling's stuff is that to do so accurately and effectively, you have to be literate in the field, and - as with most consumers of mainstream fiction - most of Rowling's avid readers (and unthinking mundane critics, both "Liberal" and conservative) are *NOT*.

And there's *plenty* "...wrong with that."

--

You spoiled it .......
...... by interjecting Christianity into the series! Sheesh, the series is supposed to be fun and entertaining for everyone regardless of religious background. I saw some themes originally with this mudbloods (children of magical people and Muggles) and purebloods (two magical parents)stuff and there were even elements of Star Wars involved (Harry as Luke Skywalker, Dumbledore as Obi Wan Kenobi--well, maybe you get the picture) Stop interjecting themes that just are not there into a series everyone universally loves.

Another Conservative
that loves Harry Potter!!

Sometimes a good imaginary fairy tail, is sut that, a good imaginary fairy tail. That's what Harry Potter is. I have thoroughly enjoyed all of the Harry Potter series!!

I don't understand why politics have to enter into everything. Why not just enjoy something once in a while for what it is?

harry potter
missus clinton has far more in common with voldemort. He wants to control all aspects of society, after he destroys the existing govt body. But voldemort, like missus clinton, also has no real understanding of the people or the workings of the society around them. But that doesn't stop the evil one from still trying to re-engineer his view of what society should be. His willing accomplishes, the dems in congress are no different from the death eaters in that they will blindly follow voldemort without question to change society, just as the dims are blindly rushing to embrace socialism

Harry Potter
My grandchildren and I have read all the books and seen all the movies - and enjoyed every one! at one level, it is interesting and instructive to compare the series strengths and shortcomings to established authors and stories, and these help to make the read of HP more enjoyable. But, on the other hand, enjoying the story over the years as just an enjoyable story has brought to our family a wonderful shared experience. The fact that there are interesting parallels to other things does not diminish the story or the experience, but, to my mind, enhances it, as the triumph of good over evil is something I will always cheer for, whether it is in the pages of HP, Lord of the Rings, etc., etc., and I will always cheer for that in real life as well. In fact, the setbacks and dangers faced by HP can be seen as a parallel to the difficulties we all face in life, and the need to persevere in doing what is right in spite of the difficulties and opposition we may confront is an important lesson. As the story so clearly presents to us, the most important things are not wrought by the power of magic with a wand, but rather the "magic" which comes from love, loyalty, frienship, courage and all the other virtues we so often seem to have forgotten. Whatever way we can have these re-enforced to our children, and ourselves, is good, and that cannot be a negative.

Behind the scenes
Several years ago I viewed JK Rowling’s web site to read why she wrote the “Harry Potter” series, and saw something that was shockingly profane and blasphemous, and deleted it instantly to minimize the visual memory. To introduce my observation, the popular painting of Jesus by Michelangelo is wrong for four reasons (this also applies to images of the devil):

(1) No one knows what Jesus or any other Bible character looked like, so any painting of Him is dishonest.

(2) It goes against the 2nd Commandment to worship (admire) visualizations, and paintings and statues of religious characters. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me" (Ex. 20:4-5). “Image” and “likeness” includes paintings and sculptures of religious fiction and things that people spend time giving their worshipful attention – adore and admire.

(3) Jesus didn’t have long hair; He was not a woman or a Nazerite, but a man; and in Jewish and Christian teachings it was a shame for a man to have long hair like a woman.

(4) Michelangelo was a homosexual, dishonestly attempting to portray Jesus with long as gay transsexual or (as some try today).

After reading the equivalent of several pages of her reasons why she wrote those books, Rowling revealed her prophecy representing the false perverted notion in witchcraft, that at the end of time Jesus would bow down and worship satin, and satin would be their eternal god. Then, at the bottom of the page there was a false portrayal of the devil standing naked, and a false portrayal of Jesus kneeling in front of him, doing a homosexual act.

While this is absolutely disgusting to even think about, I believe it is important for people to realize what is going on behind the scenes of this supposedly entertaining and childlike “Harry Potter” fiction. Homosexuality has always been a form of pagan worship, starting just after Ham did a horrible act to his father, as recorded in Genesis 9:20-25 (possibly several years after the flood).



Satin?
I don't know why anyone would worship satin, when silk is superior in many ways...

I would venture to say that Chuck was on what he THOUGHT was Rowling's website. Step away from the computer dude!

Back to regularly scheduled programming.
Anyway, here is what I was going to say before that rant by Chuck got me off-track:

If you really want to analyze the Harry Potter books from a religious perspective, look at it this way. SPOILER ALERT
When he lost Dumbledore and Sirius, he said he could no longer pretend anyone was protecting him. He would need to stand alone. In the last book, Harry loses almost everything; his owl, his broomstick, his wand, his shelter even. In the end, he goes willingly to face death with nothing to protect him and to sacrifice himself for the community. Sound familiar?

duck
I am a harry potter fan. I never got saw or read anything that sends a signal of his being anti-feminist. Other than teen confusion over his first contact with girls he frequently relies on several girls to help him battle voldemort. Harry is the better wizard at fighting, but Hermione is always the brains of the group.

Lovely FICTION
As I have stated, my children and I have greatly enjoyed reading the Harry Potter series. We realize they are meant for entertainment, and they are works of fiction. I am amazed at how people try so hard to over-analyze things, and this is no exception.

My children have never tried to cast spells after reading these books, although I think they would all like to be able to do so (who wouldn't, honestly). As far as being racist or anti-feminist--good grief! It seems that people seem to find what they are looking to find.

Those who resent the money J.K. Rowling has made off of the books seem to be the harshest critics. They are also the ones who seem to find the "demons" in the works. I have talked to people who have harshly criticized the books only to find they had not read a single one. What is up with that? Those who have read the books and not found them to their liking...fine, offer your criticisms, but do not try to belittle those of us who enjoy them or begrudge us our pleasure.

Harry Potter
For those of you, both liberal and conservative, that can agree that these books are excellent stories, with profound and meaningful messages for all of us, both children and adults alike, KUDOS TO YOU.

I don't know JKR's political leanings (I read somewhere that she said she was left-wing, but since I didn't hear it from her, I can't say it's true or not), and frankly I don't really care.

Her messages of love, friendship, sacrifice, tolerance, and even her satirical treatment of government and bureaucracy, are something we should all be able to share.

The only time I jumped on the political bandwagon was when certain liberals decided that it would be fun to equate Voldemort, Fudge, and Death Eaters with Republicans. Given what Voldemort and his Death Eaters stood for, especially in the last book which was eerily reminscent of Nazi Germany, I find that to be highly offensive (and I don't offend easily and I'm not a Republican). The fact that they tried to equate Bush with Fudge is simply funny and shows a lack of insight into the story of Goblet of Fire and Order of the Phoenix, where Fudge refuses to act because he's afraid he will lose power and so he DENIES THAT THERE IS ANY THREAT. Who does that sound more like?

But that's where I draw the line on political commentary.

I immediately saw the Christian overtones in the last book and remembered that JKR stated that she was glad that no one asked her further about her Christian beliefs because then they would know where she was going in the last book.

And, sure enough, she went there - to sacrifice oneself to save others. And I'm not really a Christian either.

CHUCK - please, please, take your medication. You need it, dear.

Dottie's got a point, SJ Doc
Dottie writes, "Those who have read the books and not found them to their liking...fine, offer your criticisms, but do not try to belittle those of us who enjoy them or begrudge us our pleasure."

SJ Doc writes -- well, he writes a lot, but it boils down to: HP is "cutesy copy-catting," and "unimaginative Potterish putzelry," especially compared to Anderson, Heinlein, de Camp, Leiber, Piper, Dickson, Campbell himself, and perhaps even more.

Fair enough. But I don't understand your purpose. I hope your purpose is, "I've been reading SF/fantasy for years, and if you loved Harry Potter you really should check out these other authors!"

However, if that was your purpose, this clincher didn't help:

"The problem with evaluating Rowling's stuff is that to do so accurately and effectively, you have to be literate in the field, and - as with most consumers of mainstream fiction - most of Rowling's avid readers (and unthinking mundane critics, both "Liberal" and conservative) are *NOT*. And there's *plenty* "...wrong with that."

Uh, no. Sure it'd be nice if everyone shared our passion for SF/fantasy, but face it -- not everyone does, and there isn't a thing in the world "wrong" with that. The reason that J.K. is a multimillionaire is that she tapped into the vast market of people who are NOT hard-core SF "fen."

Let me guess -- you're not much on STAR TREK or STAR WARS, either...

mrsblizz & the joys of satinism...
--
You can always tell a satinist.

Just check out the guy's skivvies drawer.

Boxers or briefs, I wonder?

--
Edna: "Virtually indestructible, yet it breathes like Egyptian cotton!"

...-- Brad Bird, *The Incredibles* (2004)
--

further to DocNoleCat's comments
In another relatively recent series, Anne MacCaffry (apologies if speled rong) had a talented lyricist and songwriter who finds her way to the world's version of Hogwarts, the music school. While there she delights in the intricate and difficult to play compositions of one of the masters, while most of the world prefers her ditties (music and bards being the main means of news dissemination) and urges her promotion to master status.

Relevance? SJDoc seems to be looking for the musician's musician, one who writes for those with enough skill in that field to properly appreciate the nuances and subtlety that goes into the creation. Most of us just want a pleasant tune (or story) to help while away the time, especially one that informs us and makes us think. Though grammar and editing are important, they should be considered as secondary to whether the story is readable by it's target audience. Folks, we ain't that audience. Kids and grandkids are. Regardless, I'm glad I came along for the ride for I found it to be a wonderful world in which to spend my relaxation time.

Other authors I like? Dave Duncan (though some of his a little dark lately) and David Eddings. I think Edding's "The Losers" should be mandatory reading for students looking to become social workers, or conservatives who enjoy realistic human characters (warts and all).

DocNoleCat & the joys of illiteracy
--
I have no objection at all to the fact that hordes of cashe-bearing mundanes have been gulled, cullied, and diddled by J.K Rowling, her publishers, and her other co-conspirators.

After all, in the words of Calvera, "If God didn't want them sheared, he would not have made them sheep."

That to which I *do* object is the mindless mundane praise for Rowling's rummage-sale retailing of antique tropes. These maunderings of indiscriminate (hell, functionally illiterate) readers and critics ramble on to the point at which the genuinely skilled and innovative work of other, better writers is degraded by dint of the literary equivalent of the Banzai charge.

Can I be blamed for taking up the figurative machine gun and trying to play "Manila John" Basilone to Rowling's General Maruyama?

I'm not just talking about the Campbellian writers of SF who have repeatedly proven that good fantasy can be written without the sorts of mindless Luddite malignancy that is found throughout Tolkien and his "quest fantasy" imitators - and pounds away without surcease in every page of the Potterish cutesy-poo plastered on pulp by Rowling - but also the work of well-established journeyman specialists in children's and "young adult" fantasy, like Alexander Key, Susan Cooper, Alan Garner, Lloyd Alexander, Madeline L'Engle - ah, but why go on?

I might as well be discussing species of grass with a Merino ewe, mightn't I? Potter worshippers are content to munch on whatever is forked into your manger, and not even look up to the possibility of a better browse.

(And though you're right about *Star Wars* - I called it mindless drivel when I ran into the LucasFilms people at MidAmeriCon in '76 - but wrong about *Star Trek*, which was the first time that the MSM ever succumbed [if only briefly] to the supposition that there might be intelligent life on the viewer's side of the TV screen.)

For a taste of high fantasy approached in a fashion that departs sharply from the malicious technophobia of Tolkien and the "right little, tight little island" precious British shallowness of Rowling's Pottery plenum, the interested reader is invited to take a look at Rick Cook's novel *Wizard's Bane,* which is made available in its totality free online by his publisher (Baen Books) at:
http://www.baen.com/library/0671878468/0671878468.htm

--
"For God wrote in LISP code
"When He filled the leaves with green.
"The fractal flowers and recursive roots:
"The most lovely hack I’ve seen.
"And when I ponder snowflakes, never finding two the same,
"I know God likes a language with its own four-letter name."

...--Bob Kanefsky, *Roundworm*
(see: http://songworm.com/audio/EternalFlame.html)

--
"Lately some literary critics have been condemning my stories as being elitist and concerned only with superior people - instead of the little people, the common people, the born losers. Those critics are correct: the sort of hero I like to write about is a boy from a broken home and a poverty stricken background who pulls himself up by his bootstraps..."

...-- Robert A. Heinlein (personal communication, letter of 15 June 1981)
--

Hey SJ_Doc
You're a wine snob too, aren't ya?

Dottie - a wine snob?
--
Only to the extent that in my family we don't consider it drinkable unless we make it ourselves. The Sicilian and his grappa....

You'd be surprised what can be done with native American Concord and Ives grapes (the only kinds that grow really well in South Jersey) if you add at least one bushel of big, fat Merlot grapes to each barrel for fermentation.

I only shudder in shame at the fact that South Jersey - in Vineland, more's the pity - is also the place in which Dr. Thomas Bramwell Welch managed to develop a reliable method of *preventing* the juice of the grape from achieving fermentation so as to have an "unfermented sacramental wine" for his camp meeting congregation.

Bloody Methodists....
--

well SJ_Doc
Your last post makes you far more endearing than some of the previous ones. Thank you for being a good sport!


SJ Doc
You wrote something to the effect of: HP is "cutesy copy-catting," and "unimaginative Potterish putzelry," especially compared to Anderson, Heinlein, de Camp, Leiber, Piper, Dickson, Campbell himself, and perhaps even more.

So far the only ones that are recognizable to me are Heinlein and Campbell. I'm only 35, but I've been into Sci Fi, both movies and books, since I was young. I've read all of Frank Herbert and some of Heinlein, and others in a sci fi lit class in college. I never was into fantasy really although I enjoyed the LoTR movies. The books were okay, but a little long-winded for my taste.

I think in your "snobbery" you are missing some important points:

1. There are only about 10 or so plot lines in all of literature, including quests/heroes journeys and good vs. evil. So technically everyone is a copy cat.

2. The joy of JKR's books are not that it is a new plot, but what she did to tell the story. Her universe is unique, even if it does contain some aspects of known mythology. She took those things and made them her own, to tell her story. She told at least the first 4 stories like mystery novels and it is clear as you re-read them how subtley she gives you clues and it is a wonder to behold. She also creates characters that you care about, they are real, with real strengths and weaknesses. She writes so well that the fact that you have suspended your disbelief is almost not noticed at all.

3. Just because you like other authors, doesn't make JKR a bad author. She is not to your taste, and as others have said, kudos to you. But to disparage her just because YOU don't like it, or because it was so widely popular, makes you nothing more than a snob. Maybe it's actually a good thing that the message JKR was sending resonated across cultural lines; what's wrong with that? Why is popularity synonymous with being a terrible author? I stick up for Stephen King, too. Many of his books were very well-written, for what they were. He doesn't write literature. He writes horror and should be judged on that basis. JKR wrote fantasy, although she is not a fantasy writer and does not consider herself to be. I thought she did an excellent job considering that she isn't a fantasy writer. And just because they seem like children's novels, don't make them so. Only very smart kids can keep up with the plot, etc. And very thoughtful and intelligent essays have been written by young people about the books over the years.

Like JKR said, only history will tell how good her books are and I have a feeling that they will still be read and even taught for generations to come.

Why do people read? Why do you read? Mostly people read to be entertained, to escape life's duldrums into another place, another time. If a book does that for you, that's all there is to it. It's why I don't listen to movie critics. I enjoy most movies as long as I'm entertained. Of course, I don't like it when the plot is stupid or contrived. That does take my pleasure away, but I don't go to every movie expecting it to win an Oscar and I don't read every book expecting a Pulitzer Prize. You have to take books and movies for what they are, not what you want them to be.

Your standards are way too high. And if you cannot provide specific examples in JKR's work that support your conclusions, then why bother to come here and bash her and the rest of us for reading her books?

It's no better than the name calling that gets thrown around on both sides of the political aisle - sure it may make you feel better and sometimes it's fun, but is it really productive to solving a problem, or discussing an issue?

Didn't think so.

SJ Doc
"Can I be blamed for taking up the figurative machine gun and trying to play "Manila John" Basilone to Rowling's General Maruyama?"

Well, yes. IF, that is, your purpose is to get more people to read the authors you obviously love.

"I might as well be discussing species of grass with a Merino ewe, mightn't I?"

Actually, no. I've read most of the authors you mentioned (For example, though, I admit I haven't read Piper). But this confirms what I, rather sadly, expected -- your only purpose is to show how much better you are than the "Potterites."

Oh My!
Glad to see I'm not the only Harry Potter fan! My suspicion is those that hate the HP books along with Tolkien object to the anti-communist, anti-nazism, pro-life messages in these books. I'm thoroughly sure they also hate the theme which is some things are worth fighting for. Willing to bet they hate the Narnia books as well. As to these books being "unimagitive" that probably was the most stupid statement of all since J.K. Rowling has the bucks to prove it.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.