Internet Monk, a high school English teacher, among other things, posted this just after I posted on Potter below:
"our students read Shakespeare in all four high school grades. This includes the witches and murderers in Macbeth, the ghosts in Julius Caesar and Hamlet, and the violence and mature themes in all of Shakespeare’s plays. If Shakespeare were to be confiscated for these elements, I would have to consider whether OBI [his school]could maintain its reputation as a “real” school with a curriculum comparable to other private schools.
"Yet Harry Potter is sometimes confiscated for the same elements, even though any reader of both will tell you that Rowling is far more clearly, teachably, “moral” in her story-telling than Shakespeare is in his plays.
"Why is the wizard Gandalf in Lord of the Rings legal, but the wizardry in Harry Potter illegal? Why is the “magic” in the Narnia stories legal, but the magic in Potter illegal? The same question could be asked of Merlin the Magician or even of the Witch at Endor in the Bible."
Again, don't take this as blanket endorsement of Potter, on my behalf. I've only read part of the first book and wasn't very impressed. I may give them a second chance in the future. I'm just trying to get us past knee-jerk negative reactions to the portrayal of the supernatural in pop culture stories...
I think the difference between the use of Magic in Narnia and in Harry Potter is quite significant. In the Narnia series, when men use magic, bad things happen. And in fact, it is this very thing (the use of magic by humans) that leads to the corruption of Narnia. On the other hand, in Harry Potter, we are presented with a false proposition; specifically, that magic can be used for either good or evil by humans. As for LOTR, this is a little more enigmatic. There is a similar theme in that it is the sin of men using magic to gain power that leads to so much harm in middle earth. But what about Gandalf? Isn’t he called and presented as a “good” wizard (i.e. a human magician)? Well, yes and no. The truth is, that if one is familiar with the background material for Middle Earth, you know that Gandalf is not a man. He is a Valor (in essence an angelic creature). But this is not clearly portrayed so it gets a little murky.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what the fuss is about using the magical or fantastical in literature - the visual arts have been doing it for centuries to speak of supernatural and even earthly events. The Rennaissance was chocked full of mythological and fantasy-type images to speak of the commonplace or communicate an idea/philosophy. This continued on in the Baroque period where even architecture started looking ultra-fanciful. I would love to see a revival of the understanding of magic and the other-worldly in contemporary art (beyond all the silly little faeries you see everywhere). It's too quickly written off as childish or not serious enough to "speak with the big boys."
ReplyDeletePotter is seen as "little L" literature simply because it has not stood the test of time yet. Give it 100 years. A lot like Kinkade's paintings today - nice for above your sofa, but not enduring.