Harry Potter: Conservative Hero?
by Andrew PriceIs Harry Potter now or has he ever been a communist? Just kidding. . . he’s no Smurf. When I first read the books, I recall some conservatives screaming that Potter sends the wrong messages. Imagine my surprise to discover the exact opposite. Indeed, at its core, the Harry Potter series is a truly conservative work, and it seems to me Harry should be considered a conservative hero.
"You are charged with being an inconvenient truth."
** SPOILER-AMUS **
Let’s consider the various themes that run throughout the books and movies. Do you remember the individual v. collective thing from my prior post about what makes a film conservative (Portus)? Potter has it in spades:
• Anti-Government Themes. A common theme throughout the books is that the government not only cannot help you, but will abuse its power to harm you. The Ministry of Magic is hopelessly bureaucratic and ultra-intrusive. It regulates every trivial aspect of wizards’ lives, e.g. caldron sizes, but it cannot protect the people. Instead, it gets brutal trying to cover up its ineptitude. When Dumbledore warns the world that Voldemort has returned, the MOM tries to discredit Dumbledore and then Harry. When this proves ineffective, it tries to drive Harry from the magic world through a Soviet-style show trial. It then drums up fake charges against Dumbledore and chases him from Hogwarts, where he is replaced with a bureaucrat (Delores Umbridge) who imposes an educational agenda designed to lower all children to the lowest common denominator. The government also seizes key industries, hides behind a veil of secrecy, denies the truth, and locks up its opponents. Frankly, this sounds like something Ayn Rand or George Orwell could have written.
• Pro-Capitalism Themes. Harry Potter is also unabashedly pro-capitalism. Time and again, the private sector, not the government, is shown to be superior. Whereas the government world is drab and oppressive, the private sector is vibrant and alive. This is true from the pro-commerce Diagon Alley, to the way The Quibbler (a tabloid) rises to meet consumer demand for the truth when the main paper falls under the influence of the government, to the Weasley brothers being a walking advertisement for the joys of starting your own business. Even the fight against Voldemort is handled without the “help” of the government.
• Anti-Cult of Personality Themes. The Death Eaters, Voldemort’s followers, worship him in a strange cult of personality. They do as they are told without question. . . “Yes we can, my master, yes we can.” Nothing is more classically liberal than thinking for yourself. Nothing is more modern liberal than uncritically believing what you are told by a “gifted” leader.
But what about traditional morality? That’s the second part of the equation (Portus). Well, Potter is deeply conservative there too:
• Rejection of Moral Relativism. Rowling simply does not accept shades of gray in these books. The good guys are good and the bad guys are bad. It’s black and white. Readers are told repeatedly that you cannot do evil and remain good, even where evil seems to offer an easy solution. And whenever a character suggests that an evil character might only be evil because they feel pressured or disadvantaged (like Dumbledore suggests about Malfoy or Tom Riddle), those characters always prove that person wrong with violence.
Further, Voldemort is an evil man. He is not evil because he is misunderstood, or the product of an unhappy childhood, or driven to evil by economics or lack of health care. . . he is evil by choice. And while various motivations are offered to explain him to the audience, it is never suggested that the audience should sympathize with him or excuse his behavior. This is a truly conservative message: evil should be fought, not sympathized with. Heck, this message is so conservative that if you put the third book to your ear, you can actually hear an ACLU lawyer weeping.
"My social worker said I have clarity issues. . . so I killed her to make myself clear."
• The Value of Hard Work/Self-Reliance. Unlike most modern heroes, Harry is actually nothing special. He’s not smarter or wiser or stronger or faster than the other kids. He doesn’t have super powers. What Harry does have, is a group of people who care about him and who push him to work harder. When he does, he succeeds. When he doesn’t, he fails. It’s that simple. In the Harry Potter world, hard work gets rewarded, slacking gets punished, and anyone can succeed if they are determined to succeed. What could be more conservative than that?
• Belief in Traditional Families. The series repeatedly stresses the importance of the traditional family. Harry’s mother and father died to protect him, and in so doing, put a charm on him, which protects him so long as he has family, even nasty family like his uncle and aunt. The happiest people in the series are the Weasley family, who impart invaluable lessons about love, responsibility and all the other things conservatives want parents to teach their kids. By comparison, the messed up kids, from Neville Longbottom to Luna Lovegood, come from single parent homes (though they rise above their problems — another conservative theme). Similarly, Malfoy and Dudley, who have complete families, are taught the wrong lessons. Malfoy’s family is loveless and spiteful. Dudley’s family is over- indulgent and selfish. Consequently, Dudley and Malfoy became really messed up. The implication is clear throughout the book: a strong family is the best foundation. Love your parents, love your kids, and teach the right values. Indeed, the greatest moments in the book involve self-sacrifice to save family members.
• The Gay Issue. But what about Dumbledore being gay, you ask? Well, first, there’s no reason a gay person can’t be conservative. If Ronald Reagan had been gay, he’d still be my favorite President. And having gay characters in films really should not be a problem for conservatives unless they’re attacking traditional or religious values. Even then, remember that you have to look beyond single moments in films to determine the overall ideology. One leftist gay character does not a commie film make (Portus). And in any event, in the Potter series, the issue of Dumbledore being gay simply NEVER comes up. . . and no, that’s not innuendo for anything — you people have dirty minds. At no point is it ever mentioned.
"Um. . . Professor Dumbledore, will this be on the test?"
There you have it. Call me crazy, but that all seems pretty conservative to me?
Thoughts? Commento Lumos!!
(P.S. Thanks for all the comments in the prior articles. I want everyone to know that I do read all the comments, even though I can’t respond to them all.)
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
374 Comments
Voldemort is an evil man long dead, but he followers becomes professors and people in power in order to get to our children, try leave books for Harry to find that contain his writings (Tom Riddle)..
It's obvious he's Karl Marx..
Never thought about it that way…never really thought about the Harry Potter series in any way. Prior to forming an opinion, reading the book versus watching Hollywood drivel is the prudent decision….lesson learned.
This article may make a few heads explode. On both sides. Some Wiccans and pagans won't except that some of them are so mainstream. And some of the people who flipped out about these books being a portal to the satanism missed the entire point.
Have the anti-Potter people gone away? I haven't heard much from them in a few years.
And incase you haven't seen it: http://youtu.be/ySN8Q4U6wys
Maybe its not conservative or liberal. Maybe its just a series of books about young wizards.
Buckwheat, Yep, some people will flip out. But oh well.
I've seen the portal to satanism arguments and they're pretty ridiculous. If you follow the logic of those, pretty much any fantasy story is eeeeevil. I've even seen people get upset about Narnia because it includes "pagan images." And frankly, if you're worried about witchcraft, then you probably have bigger problems than a series of kids books.
LOL! Bravo!
Books are almost always the superior choice, but not always. In this case, the books do contain a lot more than the films, especially the later films. By that point they're dropping whole subplots and characters.
Great article. One of the things I most like about the Harry Potter books is their unequivocal acknowledgement that evil exists and must be fought vigorously, or we are all doomed.
That and then they'd have to get rid of just about every Disney movie they own. And talking animals, I don't know. There was one in the Old Testament, but I'm keeping my eyes on that one.
The books were great, but got a little bloated. Rowling seems to have been indulged as the series went on, and really needed an editor.
I agree. I thought she really stretched the last one in particular. It should have been half the size — or it needed more plot. But all in all, I really enjoyed the series. It wasn't Shakespeare or anything, but it was a good read.
Thanks! I agree. I think it's great to see a series that don't go for this shades of gray, everything is relative approach.
Right, and 1984 is just a story about some dude and his girlfriend getting hassled by the cops.
True. And let's not forget the great Dungeons and Dragons crisis of 1983, when million of kids disappeared in a cloud of dust.
The series has so many fans worldwide, and I doubt most of them have taken the time to really look closely at what the story's themes tell us (the stuff mentioned in your article), which could show that people inherently/subconsiously see that the conservative principles work and that we should strive for them.
Great article, and thank you. Just more reasons for me to enjoy the series.
Now, that's just Crazy talk…I mean DoubleSpeak.
Hmmm… disappearing comments. Perhaps we went too far?
Honestly, if Rowing hadn't said Dumbledore was gay, I wouldn't have thought it. I still think that she said that to be politically correct. Anyway, one thing I love about the series is that it doesn't sugar coat evil. We don't need to understand evil, nor make evil characters feel good about themselves. We fight them, and defeat them.
You're welcome scuba, and I think the point you make is an excellent one. Whether people think of themselves as conservative or not, they recognize that conservative ideas make sense. What conservatives need to do now is get liberals to see that they are instinctively conservative and get them to start applying that to their politics.
Good point about Harry not being anything special. In fact, he starts off in the wizarding world far behind most of his compatriots. He wasn't raised surrounded by it and he doesn't have the support of his own family. In that sense, he's the classic kid from the wrong side of the tracks who makes good.
Another good article, Andrew!
But that's good too! Subversive conservatism! Get 'em while they're young!
If that's too far, we are all doomed.
Yep. Harry Potter, Conservative Capitalist
Incidentally, for an example of a movie being better the book it's based on, take a look at the Godfather. The movie is far superior to the book, mostly because it cut out the pointless subplot about Sonny's mistress' oversized genitalia (and no, you do not want to know any more than that).
Hmm, and Rowling lives in England. Do you suppose her stories have any reference at all to jolly olde England?
Since you point this out there is something of a parallel between the worlds of Harry Potter and of Bilbo Baggins of Underhill…
Interesting, I'd never read it. Thanks for the tip.
Very Good Article, I agree with you whole-heartedly.
.
When the books were becoming popular, my kids obviously wanted to read them but the big witchcraft scare was going around the churches. So I asked my daughter to bring the first one from school so could read it and decide for myself. I did let her read it as well as all the others after checking them out first (sacrifices must be made
The messages in the first book convinced me they were books I wanted my children to read:
-Just because you don’t get along with someone (Harry and Snape) does not mean they are an evil person.
- Standing up to your enemies is hard – standing up to your friends is harder (Dumbledore to Neville).
- Wit, skill and ability will only get you so far. In the end it is courage and perseverance in the face of evil that will bring victory (Harry vs Quirrel).
- You can’t wait for others to save you, it might just be you that has to make the decision and the sacrifice (Harry, Ron, Hermione).
- No one is all knowing or all powerful (Dumbledore or Voldemort).
- Friends matter.
And that was just book one.
I agree. If she hadn't said anything, I doubt very many people would have noticed. You really have to read a lot into the hints she gives to see them as making him gay. If anything, he comes across mainly as excentric or a bit like an ex-hippie, but that's about it.
So when she said it, I also thought there was some other motive — like keeping Hollywood happy.
I see your point. When I was in college, I had an English class where the professor extorted students to read the subtext of various classics.
As long as you could make something 'fit' nothing was out of bounds, so for fun some of us would try to come up with really absurd readings.
I've seen four of the earlier movies (not the the last two) because my wife dragged me to them and while I found them mostly entertaining, but I didn't walk away thinking 'Wow, that was a great conservative film'.
Thanks Pingu. I actually think it's an important point because it's not elitist. So many stories these days involve the elite/special character who is called upon…. as if ordinary people aren't good enough. I don't care for that kind of thinking at all and I think it's antithetical to conservative thinking, which believes in letting people rise and fall on their own abilities because we trust that everyone is capable of rising if they so choose.
I don't think they were written with any kind of political agenda in mind. I think Rowling drew from her own experiences in portraying how the government works and so on. If there were an agenda, she would have portrayed Hogwarts, a public school, as hopelessly inept. The teachers would have been useless and Dumbledore would have been a tenured short-timer just waiting for retirement.
I'd forgotten. What was happening in Puzo's world where that topic became one to focus on?
Thanks!
I agree. I think these books include all the right messages, many of which you've outlined. There are moments or elements I didn't care for, but it's rare that I ever felt the books sent the wrong messages. And at it's core is the fight between good and evil, with evil being clearly marked, and good having to do all the right things to be good.
"…having gay characters in films really should not be a problem for conservatives unless they’re attacking traditional or religious values."
These are my feelings as well, but it goes beyond Hollywood, and to gays in general. The Left has conditioned gays to think that anyone who stands up for values or religious rights is homophobic.
I actually believe that teaching your children about witchcraft in the context of fiction is healthy. Witchcraft isn't "real" in a practical sense anymore than "The Force" is from Star Wars. It's nothing to be afraid of as long as your children understand that it's not real.
The only Wiccans I've ever met are teenage girls trying to get attention or adults who never got out of their "teenage girl" phase.
Potter himself isn't really a capitalist, but everyone around him is.
Rowling may be some kind of big time liberal, but when the wizard government sends one of their agents to start monitoring Hogwarts, there's no better rebuke of overbearing government control than what happens to her.
That's part of the identity politics game. It's the same reason they complain that all criticism of Obama is racially motivated — it's a means of keeping their base from drifting away. In my dealings with conservatives, I've found a whole range of opinions on gays, but a large majority really aren't troubled by gays.
I agree. I've always been a firm believer that it's better to teach your kids about something than it is to try to shield them from it, because they will eventually run across it. So why not explain it to them before it finds them.
On the Wiccans, yep, that's them! I've run into a couple serious ones, but the whole thing struck me as pretty silly. And if you look up the history, it's not what most of them think it is — it's a very recent creation.
True. And let me point out that some of the great "conservative" books (like 1984 and Brave New World) were written by socialists. I think they just didn't quite grasp that they were indicting their own ideology. So whatever Rowling's political leanings, what she has created is a deeply conservative book. . . by design or mistake.
I didn’t read the books, my wife did as my daughter was crazy about the entire Harry Potter series, and she wanted to know what all the fuss was about. She concurred with your overview, self reliance, hard work, understanding right and wrong, good and evil, thus conservative. Good read Andrew.
more exploding heads
I get the point, that's not the case here. These aren't hidden themes or minor moments that I'm parsing into a theory. These are the main themes that drive the story and they come into play consistently in every single chapter throughout the books.
It's not as obvious in the films because they films are omitting all but the basic plot, so you don't see much of it. But you do get a flavor for it in things like the take over of Hogwarts by the Umbridge and the show trial of Harry.
Yep… could be a lot of those today! LOL!
But seriously, what do you think Orwell would have said if people had told him that his books would come to be seen as highly conservative?
Thanks Stan. It definitely sends all the right messages. And it should make conservatives very happy that so many millions of kids read them and absorbed what they had to say.
And I could just as easily say that the fact that harry is fated to face voldemort instead of the much naturally hard working hermoine is a metaphor for how liberals tends to repress those who believe in exceptionalism. Or I could say that having people born with magic instead of acquiring it through hard word is promoting elitism. Strain yourself hard enough and anything becomes everything, which makes it mean nothing.
The difference is that I'm not straining. You are. And if your position is that there is nothing we can see in these books, then I take it you don't see liberal bias in Hollywood either, right? Or are you just reading too much into films?
I felt that she really grew as a writer. I almost didn't get through the first one, it was so clunky at times, but a great effort for a first timer. By Goblet of Fire she really hit stride and I thoroughly enjoyed her prose.
She did make the last few books a bit bloated. I can't even remember the action of the sixth, except Dumbledore dying.
"And frankly, if you're worried about witchcraft, then you probably have bigger problems than a series of kids books"
Off topic Andrew but that comment reminded me of the men's room in a bar I used to frequent in Houston. The red "debris cover" in the urinal had the phrase, "Just say no to drugs on it." And I thought. "If you're looking for life-changing philosophical advice in a bar urinal, you got bigger problems."
And Animal Farm is just a cute fable about pigs and sheep.
Very true! LOL!
Actually Hogwarts staff did prove to be hopelessly inept in each book, failing to keep their charges safe from some threat year after year.
Yes Andrew, remember what I like to call "The Great Liberal Movie Critic Backlash against Forrest Gump" back in 94? Limbaugh mentioned the conservative values of the film and before you know it, liberal critics were foaming at the mouth, retracting their glorious reviews, and in some cases, begging the Acadamy NOT to make it Best Picture.
The movie where the MoM took over Hogwarts was extremely anti-government and was a great example of what a government run amok can and will do.
If you watched that movie and came out still believing that more government meddling is a good thing, then your last name must be Marx, and not the Groucho variety….
Of course I see the liberal bias in hollywood, don't typcast me as a denier just because i disagree over harry potter of all things. Thats just lame and hypersensitive.
The point is though, to you its straining. Ask a liberal who sees this movie as inherently moral and good, and they would make it just as much about themselves. It's like the Wall-E arguement all over again, whether its about the dangers socialist states or environmentalism. It's just a cartoon, and this is just fantasy. Sometimes if it walks like a duck, smells like a duck, and sounds like a duck, its ….a duck.
I love the defense teacher in "The Order of the Phoenix," Dolores Umbridge. She's a nasty little bureaucrat, whose teachings are so wrong that the kids form their own group to learn how to fight.
Shhh, this is BigHollywood, even cowboys and aliens is suppose to have political subtext *sarc*.
Now that im done being sarcastic, actually yes i agree with you entirely.
I remember that. I've actually noticed that big time liberal critics like Ebert will shade their reviews based on the politics. In fact, whenever he comes across a conservative film, he always seems to find that it has a "confusing message" as if he somehow can't recognize films with conservative ideas.
"Unlike most modern heroes, Harry is actually nothing special. He’s not smarter or wiser or stronger or faster than the other kids."
Err…isn't the whole point of the series that Harry Potter _is_ special, extraordinary, and destined to destroy Voldemort? He's not an "everykid" at all. I remember in the first few movies everyone who met him gasped in awe at his amazing specialness because he was _the_ Harry Potter.
Harry Potter is neither pagan nor wiccan. Magic in her universe is just a skill, like being able to play piano at a very young age (think Mozart). They do not worship gods (including mother gaia), in fact, they celebrate Christmas. This is the same kind of magic one finds in Lord of the Rings or The Chronicles of Narnia.
Dagnamit you beat me to it. Was going to post about this on my blog. But actually that's good. Someone else noticed and does a good job of bringing these themes to light.
My moment of revelation (seeing the whole conflict as reflecting leftist versus classical liberal views) was centered around Umbridge and the Ministry of Magic. Boy do those dark wizards just want to *control* everyone and everything. And when someone speaks the truth that doesn't fit the narrative they are immediately accused of "lying".
I was thinking the same thing. In addition to his legacy status, famous parents and tragic back story, he was, after all, the star Quidditch player in the school and he won the Tri-Wizard tournament. Not really "nothing special".
And I'm not calling you a "denier" because we disagree over Potter. I'm saying that your unsupported assertion that this work contains no political themes is ridiculous as you have yet to refute the political themes I've discussed above or shown that the series has counter themes.
I could use the same argument to say that Obama is a moderate because I said so. There, it's proven.
Hank, Very true. Like I say, it's so blatant that it could have been written by Rand.
Definitely. It's a microcosm of the government PC we're seeing nowadays.
Great article. I love these books, they are very conservative and very Christian. I have had to defend them more than once.
A few things:
1) She explains moral relativism and explains how it is evil in the very first book. Prof Quirrel(?) tells Harry that before he met Voltemort, he had "silly ideas about good and evil" but he now understands that there is just power the will to use it. Moral relativism in a nutshell, and she shows it from the start as being very evil.
2) Harry and Voltemort had very similiar childhoods. Both were neglected (Harry, angrily so, Voltemort, apathetically so) yet, Harry CHOSE good and Voltemort CHOSE evil. She makes it very clear in all her books that being good is a CHOICE!
3) Luna and Neville were not raised by single parents. Luna mother died, her parents where married. Her father is a widower. Neville is an orphan. Again, his parent were married and they died. A single parent is where the other parent is alive somewhere, just not involved with the child. It is the children of single parents that have a higher risk of poverty and prison, not the children of widows, widowers, orphans or divorced parents where both parents stay involved.
He had the reputation as being the only survivor of a Voldemort attack, but that's all he had. He didn't have stronger magic or better skills than any of the others. He was basically an average kid talent-wise and he had to work like everybody else. In fact, that's part of the point in the books. Whenever he thinks he's special or he slacks off, bad things happen to him. When he works hard, good things happen to him.
I remember Ebert practically………………..how do I say this and get past BH's standard of good taste and decorum…………..uh…….um……pleasuring himsef at the 'artistic merits" of a cheaply made film that depicted George W. Bush getting murdered!
That was the moment that struck me too. Before that, it wasn't much more than a decent kid's adventure story with some conservative-ish points now and then. But once the MOM started to get involved, that's when you really saw these themes begin to develop — especially once they start trying to silence Harry and Dumbledore. But even beyond those points specifically, you see all kinds of bad things out of the MOM — arrogance, indifference, minor abuses of power, conflicts of interest, etc.
Nice way to avoid the censors! I used to respect Ebert when I was younger. I didn't often agree with him, but I could respect him. But in the past 5-10 years, he's become so political. Not only in what he says in his reviews, but in how he judges movies. I really have lost a lot of respect for him.
Okay counter themes.
Lets start with how the main thrust of the entire story is preaching about the evils of racism.
Or that 90% of the bad guys come from privledged old money families.
Are you really going to tell me you can't see how a liberal could call these books liberal?
Thanks! I agree. Good points. There are a lot more conservative elements than I could squeeze into the article without it becoming too long. For example, one thing that I keep thinking about is how Harry is the only one willing to say Voldemort's name ("if you can't say it's name you can't fight it"). That can be seen as a total counter to political correctness, which says that if we avoid saying something, it will go away.
The points you make about Quirrell and the similarities between Harry and Voldemort are great points. They again show both conservative elements AND the repudiation of liberal ideas. It's moments like that which show that she is following a consistent, conscious "ideology."
On the single parent thing, I mean it simply in the sense of "raised by 1 parent." I wasn't meaning to imply that they were from divorced families. But the point is the same, these kids have problems because they don't have the stable homes that Rowlings is advocating in the books. They overcome that because they are good kids and their parents/grandparents seem to care about them (unlike Malfoy), but they are not as well adjusted as the kids from two parent homes.
Agreed, I used to like Siskel and Ebert both because, while they were both students of cinema, they could enjoy on its own merits, a silly comedy, a well made action film or a martial arts flick. Everything wasn't compared to Citzien Kane, like Pauline Kael and a bunch of other snooty critics seemed to do. Since about 2000 (November to be precise, well actually December) Ebert like a lot in Hollywood and the media sold their integrity to the Devil.
I agree. I liked the fact that he was able to enjoy a movie on its own terms without attacking it for not being something highbrow. But these days, so much politics has crept into his reviews that I just don't read them anymore because I don't want him lecturing me and I don't trust his judgment.
Actually, Neville's parents aren't dead. They were tortured into insanity by the Lestranges. He's not technically an orphan, though his parents weren't able to raise him themselves.
That's total nonsense. First, you are straining to see a race angle in this. Secondly, are you seriously telling me that only liberals oppose racism? And by privileged old money families, you mean like the Kennedys? Also, the bad guy, Voldemort, was an orphan from a family of freaks.
Keep trying.
Another nice article, Andrew. You articulated so many thoughts I had over the last month as I re watched all 7 HPs before going to see the last one in the theatre. I can only add a couple more examples:
File under The Value of Hard Work/Self-Reliance: The bad guys were obsessed with "pure" bloodlines, status and money. On the other hand, Hermione was arguably the smartest witch and came from muggles. She was all about achievement, pure and simple.
File under Belief in Traditional Families: Even the Malfoys, for all their faults, ended up leaving the dark side in the end because of their love for each other. Narcissa even covers for Harry when she proclaims him dead because he saved Draco's life in the Room of Requirement when it was burning down. Family love can save even the most jaded of people.
Lastly, as owner of the most powerful wand in the world, Harry snaps it in two in the last scene and throws it off a cliff. This alone proves he's a conservative folk hero. No liberal worth their salt could ever give up any power.
Wait, are you asserting that preaching about the evils of racism isn't conservative? I remind you that it was the Republican Party that was the party of civil rights from it's inception prior to the civil war all the way to the present. The Democratic Party managed to undeservedly steal the title in the late 60s with a massive campaign of pandering and spin.
And are you saying that conservatives must be supporters of privileged old money? While we support everyone's right to earn and amass wealth, that doesn't mean we idolize the wealthy or think they can do no wrong.
Unlike most modern heroes, Harry is actually nothing special.
I must respectfully disagree with this statement.
I'm not really a fan of the movies, forced to watch by my wife and daughter, and I've never cracked one of the books.
But from the movies I have seen on DVD, Harry is very special. He intrinsically knows the difference between right and wrong, good and evil. He also has fierce loyalty to his friends who he knows are good.
At a very young age, Harry is already a better man than most males I know.
I never read the book, but I do believe the movie is one of the greatest productions that ever came out of Hollywood.
The look, the feel of the scenery and sets. To me it almost feels like I'm in the same room with the actors.
Not a lot of movies can pull that off.
That was a smart move by the author to leave the spirituality aspect out of the story.
Rather than one belief system vs. another, it was simply good vs. evil.
I believe it was Freud who said sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Thanks! And those are all excellent points! I think you're right on the money with each. Hermione is a classic example of ability over status and the value of hard work and self-reliance. If Rowling was American, I would say that Hermione is represents the American dream — the idea that anyone can achieve what they want regardless of where they were born in society.
It is interesting how the Malfoys do come around in the end, isn't it?
Finally, I love the point about Harry and the wand. This is a repudiation of the very liberal idea that a "good totalitarian" can be a good thing and a confirmation of the very conservative believe that all power corrupts (as stated by Lord Acton).
Ed, That's not the kind of special I'm referencing. The kind of special I'm referencing is what you usually see in films these days where the hero has special abilities that make them far superior to normal people. It sets the hero up as a member of an elite group rather than an every-man made good.
But your point is well taken that Harry has excellent values.
These aren't hidden themes or minor moments that I'm parsing into a theory.
Actually that makes sense, and I'm not the sharpest pencil in the box.
American/conservative/libertarian values aren't the kind of values that get thrown in your face. The operate quietly in the back ground. At face value, they don't seem like much, but over time they really do add up.
I was listening to Rush once and I don't remember where he got the quote, but he said liberal women want a man who's in touch with his feelings. A conservative women wants a man who can fix the gutters.
No one notices the gutters getting cleaned, and no one notices they don't back up during a down pour. But the work was still done.
True, and that's why I think people are wrong to see this as an anti-Christian story. The magic here is of the exact same character as in LOTR or Narnia. It's just something they can do. It's not meant to represent some other belief system.
Never read any of this junk, never will. Nor watch it.
One can read anything into anything if he tries hard enough.
Hitler ran day camps for the youth, Mussolini got the trains to run on time.
I will stick with Tom Swift, Tom Sawyer, Huck Finn and the like.
Excellent article, Andrew. Although I do wonder if the anti-government themes we Americans so easily see were intentionally added by Rowling, or were instead just a natural projection of the world she lives in. I think in Order of the Phoenix, it was intentional, obviously, in the person of Umbridge. But in the very general sense (i.e. cauldron laws), I wonder if she was even aware of the broader implications.
I also think it's worth noting that the happiest family is also the only one we see that doesn't limit themselves to the fashionable standard of a single child. The only other families (we see) where there are more than one child are either twins (the Patils) or Muggle families with magical children (The Creevys). I compare it to the recent vitriol against the Beckhams for having a fourth child, and we can appreciate just how unconventional having multiple children is in European families. Perhaps Rowling did this because she herself has three children, which is still above average.
I understand your point. And I don't disagree with it. Simply expanding on it a bit.
Superman's super powers aren't what made him Superman. It was his rock solid belief in courage, virtue, American ideals. He could just as easily have been raised in the USSR and developed the complete opposite set of values.
My point is, being a true, solid, moral person is a lot more difficult than it would seem on the surface. So many people don't even bother to try. Many who do try fail – but the fact they tried makes them special. But to succeed at it is very rare and special indeed.
One of my favorite things about being an American is there are so many of my fellow citizens who are willing to step up to the challenge. Whether its standing up to the red coats at Lexington & Concord, or holding the left flank on Little Round Top at Gettysburg, or the Marines landing at Iwo Jima, every day people, with no special powers were asked to do the near impossible. And they did.
I find that very special.
Yeah but we all know Frued had issues
Ed, I agree and it is an excellent point. I was just clarifying what I meant in the article.
On your point, I find that special too. I think Americans have shown themselves time and again ready to stand up and do what's right to help their family, their friend and their country. It's really inspiring.
As a Christian, I'd believed the negative, dangerous analysis on Harry Potter Then, when I had kids of my own, I read all of the Narnia books with them. Then my kids read the Percy Jackson and the Olympians books. So, reluctantly, I allowed them to wade into the Harry Potter books if I read along with them.
What I found was a wholly enjoyable series of books, fabulously imagined, and filled with a Christian ethos and imagery. For example, when Harry is faced with demons called Dementors, he speaks a charm in Latin "expecto patronus" to send them away. Though a bit of a bodge, it's a literary concoction from Latin meaning "from the breast comes the father" and Harry's patronus charm looks like a stag, a Celtic symbol for Jesus. When he first performs this feat, it's said that Harry looks just like his father. Wow. And if a uniquely gifted, anointed Savior who saves the world from ultimate evil isn't Christian, I don't know what is.
Whether Rowling intended it all, or whether it came inadvertently from her own Christian upbringing is irrelevant. There it is in black ad white throughout the series: a strong, conservative Christian worldview.
I think they just didn't quite grasp that they were indicting their own ideology.
No one is in a better position to critique their own ideology than a true believer.
It is not a strain to state the books show the futility of a bureaucratic socialist system. This is somehting that an English author like Rowling has a greater affinity for since they have been caught in this for over a century across the pond. By the way this theme is not unique to her either. It is the same clear theme in Douglas Adams Hitchhiker's guide trilogy with the Vogons representing the government bureacracy.
If anything one would have to strain in order to find a theme that contradicting this. It ain't reading into it when the work shouts it out from the hill tops.
That's a curious response. Thousands upon thousands of new books through the centuries and the only ones worth reading are pre-20th? And from someone who admits to having not read the books.
So, you have no idea that the author of this post is reading anything into the Harry Potter books or not. I can tell you, I've also read these books, admittedly for kids, but they do not touch on the themes the author mentions, they are the backbone of the series..
Yeah, and just look at Sarahcuda, (yeah just look at that gal). She's a hero in many Americans eyes- and what is she really? Pro-Family, Pro-Life, Pro-gun, Pro-small government.
In another word, what we aspire to be. Any special abilitys? Portraying and living the average Tea Parties values to the T(ea).
She's my hero.
You're missing out by dismissing something you've never even read. While Huck Finn is an excellent book to help kids learn that even they can understand the difference between right and wrong and act appropriately, Harry Potter is no different. It will undoubtedly be remembered in the future as a classic of children's literature.
When my children wanted to read this book when it came out, I got a copy and went through it. I don't like magical or witchcraft themes because the proposition of witchcraft is the same as gambling– you can get an unfair advantage over people, power or wealth without merit. The book had no such message. It was full of positive values, conservative if you want to call them that. I approved heartily and argued in favor of the books with my more conservative pastoral colleagues. As long as you understand that this is a story and that magic isn't real, it is harmless to children and builds their understanding of real virtues. I'm glad other people are recognizing this.
Thanks JG! I think the Umbridge thing was clearly intentional, as was the Ministry of Magic trying to censor and then destroy Harry and Dumbledore. Those aren't run of the mill events in England. Also, look at the character of Percy, who joins the government. We're told that he likes to see himself as somebody important, someone who likes to tell people what to do. And once he's in the government, he becomes as rotten and evil as the rest of it. That's not a positive view of government. The rest could just be her parroting what she sees. But in so doing, she's not putting it in a very positive light.
Whatever her motives though, I think what she has created is what is important. In fact, one of the interesting things to me about literature is that the great "conservative" books were written by socialists who had no intention of attacking socialism, but instead intended to attack communism or Nazism… and ended up writing a total indictment of socialism itself. So whether she intended these to be negative themes or not, that's how they come across and I think that is how history will eventually see them.
On the large family thing, that's an interesting observation. I have to admit that I never noticed that all these kids were only children. . . but it makes a very interesting point. What do you think her point is?
This is off-topic, but I couldn't find an e-mail address …
Andrew, have you ever had similar discussions about the "Diary of a Wimpy Kid" books? They're also controversial in some circles, both for content concerns and the alleged way that their semi-picture-book approach does not constitute "real reading" in some people's eyes. The books depict a lot of less-than-stellar behavior (and especially, attitudes) by the title character, Greg. Yet I find them ultimately redeeming. In fact, I was literally brought to tears by the climax of the recent "Roderick Rules" movie, which I watched with my 9-year-old son. I saw in there was seemed to me a pretty clear Christ parallel (though certainly not a perfect one) when Greg "gave himself up" to a task he was dreading so that his mother would lift the punishment from his brother Roderick, who had certainly done nothing to "deserve" the selfless act. It was pure grace on Greg's part (as I saw it). After the scene played itself out, I stopped the video and asked my son if he saw the connection. He did not, but when I explained it to him his eyes got wide and he said, "Oh, yeah!" It was a really valuable teaching moment. I have no idea if this was intentional or not, but it was real, nonetheless.
You must be logged in to post a comment.