Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
I didn’t go shopping for a new novel at midnight – although I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t tempted ;-)
There’s maybe a little bit of a backlash going on against JK and Harry. That’s normal, though – it’s hardly the first time something’s got really popular only to have the critics show their intelligence by moaning about how poor it is. The ‘review’ in the New York Times (if that link asks you for a login, may I recommend BugMeNot.com? – one of those websites everyone should know about, just type in the site and it’ll give you a login to use) makes a very valid point:
Rowling’s gift is not so much for language as for characterization and plotting
Sometimes the writing is a little… not so good. But it’s been a while since I’d picked up a Potter book, and I’d forgotten how compelling and engaging the characters are. And the latest book is definitely much more about character than about plot progression. I like that. That’s why I enjoyed Lost In Translation so much.
I’d been thoroughly underwhelmed with the last book, and didn’t think too much of this one. But for each of them I’d grabbed a copy on the morning of their release and then burned through it in well under 24 hours. Over the last six days I’ve re-read them both, and discovered that taken at a more sensible pace (as sensible a pace as I ever read a novel at, anyway, 1200-odd pages in maybe 5 days – okay, so I am on holiday) they’re both highly enjoyable.
The visible growing-up of the series continues, even in writing style. As an experiment, compare the first couple of chapters of the first book to the first couple of one of the more recent ones and you’ll see what I mean. In happenings, the last few have certainly got much nastier. But before we complain, how do you remember Little Red Riding Hood going…?
There’s a surprising amount of snobbery out there, against ‘grown-ups’ reading books meant for ‘kids’. To that, all I can say is get over it. A cracking story is a cracking story. Just look at The Da Vinci Code – as I’ve said before, cracking yarn, mental plot, but Dan Brown can’t write for buttons. And that’d also be a good lesson in how not to do characters. But if you leave your prejudice behind, I’ll bet you enjoy.
If you’re new to the whole thing, I will say that Potter takes a while to really get going. I’d peg Goblet of Fire as where it all starts happening in earnest (and probably as the highlight so far), but the unfortunate thing is that without the earlier books you may well get a bit lost.
Man, this has turned into a bit of a ramble, hasn’t it? What can I say, I like it.
And I hope you all appreciate the trouble I’ve put myself to avoiding spoilers :-D
—
Now, to the serious bit.
An interesting read from Mark Greene of LICC on the Potter phenomenon and the varied Christian response:
If you’re undecided about whether the Potter books are essentially a ‘good thing’ or not, then the latest instalment, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, is unlikely to help you make up your mind. No darker than Potter 4 or 5 but much easier to read, it is a funny, engaging tale in which, if anything, Rowling’s powers of characterisation are keener than ever.
Whilst the Pope and a number of other Christian commentators regard the series as a portal to the occult, Rowling has constructed a coherent fantasy world that has little, if any connection, with the worldviews or values of real witchcraft or Wicca.
Indeed, the first novel celebrates the willingness of three separate individuals to lay down their lives out of love for others. Similarly, throughout the series, it is not Harry’s skill as a wizard that rescues him from death but his courage and loyalty, the sacrificial love of his mother and the selfless help of his friends and teachers.
It is, of course, entirely right that we should carefully critique the work of the most popular author of our age, but sobering that, back in the school room, our children are studying all kinds of often brilliant literary texts – humanist, existentialist, nihilist, materialist and expressly anti-God – with hardly a pamphlet on how to do so through Biblical lenses.
Alas, the Church’s rapid engagement with Rowling is not an indicator of a wider engagement with literature or the national curriculum in general. Sadly, it reveals the opposite: we are obsessed with the superficially ‘spiritual’, the fantasy world of witches and wizards, and have, on the whole, ignored the superficially ‘secular’ – from Aldous Huxley to Harold Pinter, from the theology of maths to the philosophy of history.
Christ, however, came to reconcile all things to himself – “whether things on earth or things in heaven”. (Colossians 1:20) And that includes the ordinary as well as the extraordinary, the world of pots and pans and performance targets, as well as the world of cauldrons (leaky and sound), kettles, and the Care of Magical Creatures.
Need I say I whole-heartedly agree with him?
I might even go so far to say that the books contain quite a powerful and relevant moral for today. If you take the series as it is to date (1 to 6), then I find one of the major recurring themes to be power and the correct use of power. Another one might be picked up in the trailer for the next movie, the choice “between what is right, and what is easy.”
Am I the only one who finds plenty to appreciate in that?
I don’t like to talk in terms of ‘the moral of the story’. It’s more the assumptions and ideas that are expressed underneath the storytelling. But it’s there.
I do believe we are guilty of not being critical enough of all the various media around us, but I also think we sometimes get a little too critical when something pops up big on the radar. When it comes to Harry Potter, my conclusion is to say relax and enjoy it – there’s plenty of good in there. The Crash Test Dummies are singing in my head, except I really doubt that a book-burning’s in order.
July 31st, 2005 at 11:43 am
read the book – thought it was great. Think Mark Greene’s comments make a lot of sense.
July 31st, 2005 at 11:45 am
I agree with your comments. I am not a Christian, though I was, and from my childhood through young adulthood have read the Bible cover-to-cover. I was even an evangelical as part of a campus-based organization. Christianity, with rare exceptions, has not engaged in analysis of cultural issues and the media in anything but a reactionary and non-critical way.
But I find the following statement by Green to be particularly disturbing:
“It is, of course, entirely right that we should carefully critique the work of the most popular author of our age, but sobering that, back in the school room, our children are studying all kinds of often brilliant literary texts – humanist, existentialist, nihilist, materialist and expressly anti-God – with hardly a pamphlet on how to do so through Biblical lenses.”
First, is he saying that it is the responsibility of schools to give students tools, i.e. “Biblical lenses” for social and literary criticism? If so, I find this astounding and, again, disturbing.
Second, Greens implication that non-Christian texts are “expressly anti-God” is also amazing. While a few may be, the vast majority of evangelical or fundamentalist Christians seem incapable of understanding that just because a text does not mention God or characterize “Him” in their terms, it does not follow that it is “anti-God”.
Ultimately, my departure from Christianity was based on my coming to a larger and very different understanding of the spiritual. But that sort of silly, sloppy thinking that I detect in Green’s statement certainly hastened my exit. If I have misinterpreted Green’s writing, then I apologize, but he should learn to write more clearly.
July 31st, 2005 at 1:47 pm
WeeDram:
Thanks for your comments. Your understanding of what Mark Greene wrote and mine appear to differ slightly.
I would agree that it would be disturbing were he calling for schools to provide these ‘Biblical lenses’ – but I’m sure he, as I, would view that as the job of the church. That job being to equip our children, young people, ourselves with the tools they/we need to engage critically with culture – even that culture that is presented in schools.
Likewise, I don’t think he’s implying at all that a non-Christian text is ‘anti-God’. Surely it’s just a list: not everything we/our children encounter is humanist, existentialist, nihilist, materialist, ‘expressly anti-God’. These are examples, although many humnanist/etc texts would indeed be so ‘expressly anti-God’. But in this case he’s giving examples of what we encounter, rather than making the sweeping statement that you have understood.
Take, for example, Philip Pullman’s Dark Materials books. Expressly humanist, expressly anti-God (as Pullman himself has explicitly stated time and again), very highly regarded by critics and young readers alike (and by me – excellent, excellent writing and plotting), not as high on the radar as Rowling’s books but still very popular. And texts that few young people actually have been given the tools needed to engage with.
But then, it’s easy for both you and I – coming from opposite directions – to understand what we want to understand from what Greene has written, both coming with our own preconceptions (right or wrong).
You may be right on the money with this:
> While a few may be, the vast majority of evangelical or fundamentalist Christians seem incapable of understanding that just because a text does not mention God or characterize “Him” in their terms, it does not follow that it is “anti-God”.
The lesson the church desperately needs to learn is that while we must engage critically with everything we encoutner (incluing our own ‘internal’ church culture), we have to remember that critical isn’t necessarily negative, and we cannot bring an assumption of negativity. Otherwise we end up reading what we want/expect to read as opposed to waht’s actually there. If we don’t read it, we can’t engage with it.