Provisional Last Word on Harry Potter
NOTE: There are no spoilers, properly speaking, in this post, but I do give my general opinion of the last book, so if you want to remain absolutely free of preconceptions about it you may want to skip this.
UPDATE: no spoilers in the post itself, but there are some in the comments.
As my wife said last night, this weekend has been “all Harry Potter, all the time,” at least up until the wee hours of Saturday night. Having decided that we would make one of our rare ventures into a theater for the most recent Potter movie, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, we decided on Friday night to refresh our memories by renting its predecessor, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. That turned out to be a good idea, as I had forgotten most of it. Then last night we went to see Phoenix. And after we got home we both finished the Potter books we were reading, Deathly Hallows for me, its predecessor Half-Blood Prince for her. Both films were thoroughly enjoyable for the most part, although, as with the books, I wouldn’t make any great artistic claims for them. If you’re a fan and haven’t seen the new movie yet (which I guess is almost a contradiction in terms), you can look forward to portrayals of Dolores Umbridge and Luna Lovegood which could hardly be improved upon. I note in passing with dismay that Emma Watson (Hermione) has the unnatural-looking thinness that seems to be required these days of young women in show business; let’s hope it’s natural to her.
Here’s what I am not saying about the books:
-
That they are risk-free. There is a real possibility that some readers might be confused and misled by the treatment of magic and wander into occultism. I don’t think they would be a great many, and if they go very far at all into that path, they have deeper problems, but it is a possibility. Although I’ve insisted that “magic” in Potterworld is not the magic with which occultists toy (or worse), there is at minimum a prudential argument against using the same paraphernalia for non-occult literary purposes.
-
That they are completely compatible with Christian theology and morality. I’ve noticed a tendency on the part of some anti-Potter Catholics to speak as if they want to see in children’s fiction a theological correctness, in which every element of the story must conform explicitly to Catholic doctrine. The more extreme proponents of this view seem to imply that a work is to be rejected if any character in it ever commits a sin which is not clearly and specifically punished. A rigid application of this criterion would, obviously, be a recipe for artistic shipwreck, and require rejection of much or most of the world’s great literature.
On the other side, there are apparently some Christians who do maintain that the books are thoroughly and specifically Christian. I think they’re overstating the case. I’ve heard it said throughout this controversy that J.K. Rowling is a Christian, but without any further detail. On the basis of the books I would guess—and I emphasize that it’s only a guess—that her Christianity is not very definite about doctrine.
-
That they are great literature. There’s much in the books that I find distasteful (the gross-out humor) or unconvincing and unamusing (the depiction of the magical world as a sort of Halloweenized parody of the real one). There is certainly no remarkable prose craftsmanship on display. That’s forgiveable, as the story here is the main thing, but it’s certainly a major handicap if we are going to throw around the word “great.” I find them overall fairly lightweight, although they get better after the almost comic-book level of the first one, and often show real depth. But I don’t put them in the class with Tolkien.
Here’s what I am saying: the over-arching theme of sacrificial love in the story—the whole seven-volume story—disqualifies it from being fundamentally evil. I’ve been saying that with the qualifier “so far” until now. Having finished the last book, I can remove the qualifier.
I was, finally, somewhat disappointed in Deathly Hallows, but not because I think it retreated from the theme. Without going into detail that would spoil the story for those who plan to read it but haven’t yet, I’ll just say that as a work of fiction it runs into some difficulties. When the book arrived last weekend, my daughter, who is of the generation that have passed from late childhood to early adulthood reading the Potter saga, of course had first claim on it, and read it through in a day or so. When I asked her to tell me her basic opinion without giving away anything specific, she said, “It’s good, but some of it doesn’t hang together very well.” That’s my nutshell opinion, too. We both thought it seemed as if the latter part especially had been written in a rush.
Here are some links to other opinions, all of which contain major spoilers, so don’t read them if you don’t want to know how the story ends. I share many of the criticisms made by Ross Douthat and Eve Tushnet. The comments on Mark Shea’s post include some excellent debate about the question of magic, including some interesting observations by Sandra Meisel who has a formidable knowledge of history. And although I think he may be overstating things a bit, I like this remark by Shea himself, which I can quote without giving away anything:
Think about it: it must drive the devil freakin’ *nuts* to see imagery that has long been his property now being co-opted by this insidious Rowling person and turned to the service of Christ, inspiring people with Christ-like models of love and self-sacrifice and with a story of divine grace and mercy that clearly draws on the Christian tradition. I think God must be laughing his head off at this consummate work of jiu-jitsu. To have even the image of the *witch* bow the knee to Christ. Old Scratch must be mighty frustrated. If only Christian Harry haters could figure that out.
Spoiler-ridden opinion links:
Pre-TypePad
Light On Dark Water 
Leave a comment