A
R T
I C
L E
S
In Defense of Harry Potter
Professors Defend Fiction's Famous Wizard
ST. PAUL, Minnesota, MARCH 16, 2003 (Zenit.org).- Monsignor Peter Fleetwood made
headlines around the world when he appeared to give the Vatican's official
blessing to the Harry Potter series.
At a news conference Feb. 3 on a
Vatican document on New Age, he was asked about the fictional adolescent wizard.
Monsignor Fleetwood, who helped draft the New Age document when he was a member
of the Pontifical Council for Culture, responded: "Harry Potter does not
represent a problem."
That seemed to cap -- or reignite -- the long
debate among Christians over the appropriateness of the Potter series for
children. Some have condemned its author J.K. Rowling for promoting relativism
and sorcery.
Catherine and David Deavel see things differently.
Professors at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota, they have
written and spoken on the merits of the series and are contributors to a
forthcoming book on "philosophy and Harry Potter" to be released by Open Court
Publishing. They recently shared their views, in writing, with ZENIT.
Q:
Father Fleetwood noted that J.K. Rowling was Christian in her manner of writing.
What do you think he was describing?
A: The books are Christian in at
least two senses. First, the books place love and truth as the objective goods
at the heart of what it means to be a human, magical or otherwise.
The
initial premise of the series is that the infant Harry has survived the attack
of the evil wizard Voldemort through his parents' sacrificial love. And Albus
Dumbledore, the wise headmaster of Hogwarts, cautions Harry repeatedly to always
prize truth. Give things their proper names, is Dumbledore's advice. In other
words, don't be afraid to name evil for what it is.
Second, the books
are coming-of-age stories that follow the development of Harry Potter and his
friends, particularly their moral development. It's important to note that
nowhere in the books published thus far does Harry or any of his friends defeat
the forces of evil through their own magical skills.
Instead, the
characters always find victory through universal virtues such as courage in the
service of honesty or friendship. Self-sacrifice, the willingness to put oneself
in danger for another's sake, is one of the constant threads running through the
series.
Q: How should readers understand the use of magic and witchcraft
in the books?
A: One almost wants to say that it's simply a whimsical
plot device that helps transport readers to the wonderful place Chesterton
called "Elfland" in his book "Orthodoxy." But magic also raises the stakes of
the moral tale.
Magic really is a talent, something like mathematical
ability or perfect pitch, but with a much greater possibility for good or evil
use. Rowling certainly uses details from the history of the occult, for example,
names, figures of speech and certain paraphernalia, but it is not the case that
Rowling is promoting "real-life magic."
Most of her spells have no
real-world parallels; and perhaps the only one that does, divination, is
represented by a figure -- professor Sibyl Trelawney -- who has only made a
couple of accurate predictions in her life, and is generally treated with
skepticism by students and faculty alike.
Rowling even has Dumbledore
tell us that prediction of the future is most difficult because of the diversity
and complexity of the consequences of any of our actions. Not only is divination
mocked, but knowledge of how to use the dark arts is considered too dangerous
for the curriculum, even if learned only for self-defense.
Q: Is the
interest in the books endemic of the growth in New Age spirituality the Vatican
recently condemned?
A: Undoubtedly some children (and adults) are going
to be interested in the books because of their magical quality. Again, to cite
Chesterton, what is so intriguing about fairy tales is that they assume,
roughly, the same rules of logic and morality, but don't assume that the world
of physics or biology or chemistry have to be the way they are in our world.
This is the basic story of these books.
They could be thought of as a
world in which magic simply proved to be like the natural sciences, another way
of manipulating the world around us. But to say that these books promote or even
encourage New Age spirituality seems laughable.
As we pointed out,
divination and fortunetelling are pretty much dismissed out of hand -- and for
what seems to be a sound philosophical observation about the complexity of free
will.
The spirituality of the books, if such a thing can be found, is
concentrated almost wholly on good old-fashioned virtues and vices, which are
developed in the normal human way.
Q: What are the particular virtues of
the Harry Potter series? Are they good literature?
A: J. Bottum had a
wonderful comment in the Weekly Standard about how Rowling's books are like the
classics in that she has a wonderful way of putting together clichés. This is a
good way of thinking about it.
Her plots are simple -- in fact, the
first two books have almost identical plots, formally speaking -- yet have
delightful twists and turns in them. She gives names in a way that one can only
label Dickensian.
The wording of the spells is done in a sort of
mock-Latin and the spells and magical items are a nice mix of the practical and
the ridiculous. The characters themselves remind one of so many characters of
classic literature -- we have several times said or written "Gandalf," from "The
Lord of the Rings," when we meant to refer to Dumbledore -- and yet, through it
all, the books are charmingly unique.
The simple plots really do work --
in part because the books build upon each other -- and the dialogue,
particularly that of the children, is both funny and realistic.
Rowling
juxtaposes the mundane and the epic. The children alternate their efforts
between studying for their courses and defending against Voldemort's return.
Finally, the books t each the lesson that people cannot be judged by first
impressions.
Q: The books have been often criticized for allegedly
promoting relativism and teaching children to subvert authority. Why do you
think the books promote freedom in the service of truth and the good?
A:
We really haven't been convinced by those who have said the books promote
relativism. As we noted earlier, the books clearly assume that goods such as
love and truth are objective.
But generally the complaints about the
Potter books focus not on any real evil deeds, but on infractions such as
breaking the school curfew; and these cases of rule-breaking are overwhelmingly
attempts to block some great harm.
Even if Harry did get away with real
moral mischief -- which his detractors have not convincingly shown -- the point
of literature, even literature that has explicitly moral themes, is not to show
that in every case crime, or perhaps sin, doesn't pay. Sometimes it does in the
short run, but it never does in the long run.
The way one portrays moral
development in literature is to make it like moral development in real life.
People make choices for good or ill. Sometimes they learn lessons immediately
and sometimes they don't. Mostly they grow morally in fits and starts as they
reflect on long chains of events in the light of good advice. And even the good
advice is not always comprehended immediately.
But with the advice that
has already been given by Dumbledore regarding the duty to always seek and tell
the truth, and always use one's freedom to serve that truth, we can see that the
lessons Harry can and will gain are significant.
For example, Harry
refrains from an act of vengeful killing at the end of the third book. The
person in question set up his parents' murder and the murder of numerous others,
yet Harry refuses to take this revenge himself.
He cannot articulate
why, but he concludes, from reflecting on his parents' self-sacrificial lives,
that such acts of vengeance are wron g. This type of moral learning is
profoundly Catholic in that one watches virtuous lives and learns to do as they
do, while the intellect catches up with the habit.