Harry Potter: Spokesman for the Me! Me! Now! Now! Generation

In My Humble Opinion
1

Over in IMHO there is yet another book thread going on (high coorelation between bookworms and dopers) and I couldnt help but notice that Harry Potter came up regularly and with unqualified approval. This is actually a paper I wrote for an advanced comp class, but I would like to see the opinons and arguements of my fellow dopers on the subject. (For the record, this paper aper has already been turned in-I am not using y’all to do my homework).

Entertainment for children is dominated by modern media-television, recorded music, computers, and gaming consoles. Amongst the glitter of these flashy media the written word has slipped into a decline, to the distress of parents and educators alike; everyone agrees that reading for pleasure ought to be encouraged (Roe 15), but no one seems to be able to find a way to reverse the trend. Thus, when J.K Rowling’s Harry Potter books became a runaway success in the late nineties parents and educators reacted with unqualified approval: here was a series of books with complex plots, sophisticated dialogue, and advanced vocabulary that school age children loved. However, excitement over the fact that children are reading at all should not bleed over into uncritical acceptance of whatever they are reading. It is a truism that the protagonist in a children’s book stands as a placeholder for the child reader, representing a fantasy of what that child’s life could be like. A close reading of the Harry Potter books reveals that Harry Potter ought not be encouraged as a role model for any child.

Children’s literature is typically written from the point of view of a disenfranchised child. The typical narrative is that of a marginalized individual in society taking a more central position. This pattern is repeated from Huckleberry Finn to the Catcher in the Rye. Harry Potter is exempt from that struggle, however-his central role in the universe is established from the onset of the series. Even as an infant, it is acknowledged that “Every child in our world will know his name” (Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone 13). On the train to the magic academy, people whisper and stare and young girls scream his name (Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone 97)-Potter is a rock star from birth, destined to be “one of the most popular and admired people at the school” (Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone 244).

Rowling attempts to include the quality of marginalization that is so important in children’s literature by making Potter’s friends token representatives of unpopular groups. However, this attempt leaves a taste of condescension in the mouth of a critical reader: the fact that Harry’s best friends are the poor kid and the kid with a prosaic background serves not to teach Potter anything about being a member of these groups but rather to give Potter a redeeming feature when compared to his arch-enemy, Draco Malfoy, who has the same benefits of wealth and breeding as Potter but who is also an unambiguous prig. However, just because some of Harry Potter’s best friends are poor people does not change the fact that his own money and family connections manage to smooth over many of the rough spots of a normal childhood. To add insult to injury, Potter is so incapable of truly emphasizing with the problems of his friends that when the group suffers a brief drop in popularity, the fact that his two friends “were suffering, too,” is qualified with the statement: “they didn’t have as bad a time as Harry, because they weren’t as well-known, but nobody would speak to them, either” (Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone 245). Here, Potter’s popularity is his cross to bear-rejection apparently does not affect unpopular children nearly as much.

Potter’s lack of empathy is even more noticeable in the third book in the series, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Angst, and the feeling that no one in the whole world has every suffered like oneself is a normal emotional reaction in adolescence. A major component of maturation is the development of empathy-the ability to recognize that other people also have problems. Potter, however, gets to avoid this realization-the uniqueness of his suffering is confirmed by his schoolmasters and supernatural agents. In Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban Dementors are introduced as magical creatures that make you relive your worst memories. Potter is affected strongly by these monsters, and his professors assure him that he is not weak, but that rather that “[t]he dementors affect you more than others because there are horrors in your past that others don’t have” (Rowling, Prisoner 187). The “horror” referenced here is the murder of Potter’s parents when he was an infant. While this would certainly be a traumatic event, the idea that Potter is the only student that gets to be a tragic hero serves to justify and reinforce the worst type of adolescent angst.

Another example of the self-absorption of Harry Potter is the matter of Christmases. In each of the four installments of the series a detailed list of Potter’s Christmas gifts is given (Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone 200-201; Chamber 212; Prisoner 222-223; Goblet 409-410). He receives gifts from his friends, but it is only in the fourth book that his gifts to them get even a passing mention. It is the getting, not the giving, that is important to Potter. This is a very egocentric approach from someone in their early teens. Furthermore, Potter receives gifts from his teachers-something it is safe to assume is not the norm at the enormous boarding school. This continues the motif of Potter as the only “real” person at the school-destined to be noticed and admired not because of his virtues, but because he is the protagonist in the novel.

One of the most disturbing qualities of Harry Potter is his status a quiditch champion. Quidditch is a sport introduced in the novel as a sort of broomstick basketball, a uniquely wizardly sport. Potter is a remarkable Quidditch player-he makes the equivalent of varsity his first year, something that hasn’t happened in over a century (Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone 152). Although having a protagonist be a jock is unusual in children’s literature, that in itself would not be disturbing. Two details, however, make Potter’s status problematic for the critical reader. First, Potter is a natural-from the first moment he straddles a broom everyone can see that he is a champion. (Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone 151). There are no tryouts for the varsity team, no competition, no effort. He is good because he was born that way. Second, the sport of Quiditch is totally unworkable, a farce constructed by Rowling so that Potter can be a hero every single game. Although ostensibly a team sport, the bizarre scoring system of Quidditch makes it so that the “Seeker”-the position Potter plays-almost inevitably wins the game single-handed: “Which ever Seeker catches the Snitch [a flying ball] wins his team an extra hundred and fifty points, so they nearly always win” (Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone 169). The obvious extrapolation is that the other members of the team do not really matter-the only one that could ever possibly be carried of the field in triumph is Harry Potter.

Although some religious groups have lambasted Rowling and the Harry Potter books for the fantasy elements of witches and magic and broomsticks, the more dangerous fantasy is that of a world where one person is handed everything they want or need for no better reason than the fact that they are the main character. Potter doesn’t have to struggle, he doesn’t have to care about his friends, he doesn’t have to empathize-all he has to be is himself, and all the people around him will recognize his greatness and settle into orbit around him. However, the fact that Potter is not a good role model does not mean that children should not read these books. Reading ought to be encouraged. Rather, Rowling’s novels are an excellent opportunity for parents and educators to introduce children to the concept of reading critically, to outgrow the childhood tendency to identify solely with the protagonist in a story. Today’s media surrounds children with millions of bits of biased data, and critical reading is one of the most valuable skills they can learn in order to navigate through life. Discussion and careful questioning of the assumptions behind the Harry Potter books can begin the process of introducing these skills to children.

So, tear me a new one. Children’s literature is something I can get passionate about, and we have a long weekend coming up.

2

Yeah, and who the hell decided to give Dorothy those ruby slippers? It’s not as if she aimed the house on the Wiked Witch’s head!

3

I seem to recall Tom Sawyer had it pretty good.

Nice idea for an academic paper, tho. What grade level? What was the assignment? Have you gotten a grade yet?

4

Very interesting paper, though I’ll say that I don’t always agree with the points you make.

Generally, the impression that I get is that Harry’s fame/popularity is thrust upon him, and he doesn’t always enjoy what it brings him. (Rita Skeeter, for example) This This teaches kids that popularity isn’t always what it’s cracked up to be. Popularity, in Harry’s case, makes him the target of some very nasty treatment from the Slytherns, and from others that are jealous of him. Harry doesn’t strut his popularity… in fact, he tries to avoid the spotlight. But more importantly, Harry is basically a good person. He cares about his friends, and other people. He shows, at times, that his popularity is more of a cross to bear than something that he enjoys. He is embarrassed when his money comes up in comparrison to Ron’s poverty. (“He would have gladly split his gold with the Weasleys”, but knows that it would offend their pride. He tries to block his wealth from view when the Weaslys go with him to Gringotts.) He is kind to Ginny, who has a crush on him, rather than teasing her as her brothers do. He’s kind to Collin, who trails after him annoyingly, instead of telling him to get lost.

Harry also befriends people not because they are members of a certain group, but because they, like him, are basically good people. What makes them more realisitic are their flaws. You can’t expect characters to be perfect paragons of virtue. It makes for very boring reading.

And Harry doesn’t always win. Digory (before his untimely demise) had beaten Harry in Quidditch, and was, in his own way, more popular with the children at Hogwarts than Harry was. Hermione beats him academically, not because she’s naturally super-intelligent, but because she studies hard. (Good lesson for any kid.)

All in all, I think that the Harry Potter series is more good than harm to the children that read it. The books teach children some very important things: kindness, the value of friendship, etc, that there are good people in all walks of life, and bad people as well. I don’t think that most children are negatively affected by any of the flaws that you described.

Other children are shown as having tragic pasts as well. Collin’s parents locked away in a mental institution, for example. I think we’ll see bigger things from Collin in the next few books as he gains more confidence. Collin, due to his clumsiness, is tormented even more than Harry is in some circumstances. Hermione is despised for her “mud-blood” parentage, something that she cannot change. Ron is teased for his poverty, something he cannot change as well.

Not so. In almost every book, Harry has to redeem himself in some way. Bad things are believed of him (for example the “Heir of Slythern” incident) and must prove himself. That he manages to do so should not be counted against him. This shows the fleeting nature of popularity. He faces down characters that WANT to believe the worst of him, and still doesn’t win their admiration. He doesn’t win everyone over, and not everyone is around him in an adoring orbit. Harry may win in the end, but there is a price to pay.

5

Lots of good points, Lissa. One minor quibble:

The character who suffers from the problems you mention is, of course, Neville Longbottom, not Colin Creevey (Colin is the younger student who worships Harry and follows him around in a fashion that anyone would find annoying).

6

What I like about the books is the focus on academics. Unlike some fictional schools, Hogwarts students have to go to class, study, pass tests, and learn. I also like the focus on research. When Buckbeak gets in trouble, they go to the library to research previous cases of Hippogriff violence. The books emphasize the importance of learning.

I agree that Quidditch is stupid.

7

Lissa:

This is jsut part of the fantasy–everyone likes to act like they don’t care what others think, while secretly wishing others thought well of them.

Same thing–it is a hell of a lot easier to be embarressed about having money than to be embarressed about not having it. Were Ron black and Harry white, and he got embarressed by the fact that he belonged to the dominint group, that wouldn’tmean that his disadvantage was as great. (This is actually more like Hermoine situation.) “Some of my best friends are poor” does not remove the benefits of being rich. And it is the fact that Potter has every possible benefit that really bugs me. Rowlings didn’t have to make him rich and famous and well liked and smart and a natural athletic star. I believe you were the one that said flawless charecters are boring?

But both the desire to achieve academically and the need to work in order to achieve are both attributed to a secondary charecter. The fact that this is the one area that Harry is merely good at, and not the absolute best, is telling. Main charecters don’t need to bother with such things as academics, and every child knows, deep in thier heart, that they are main charecters.

But it is made clear to everyone involved that this was an accident–in fact, the only reason Diggory won ws because Potter was overcome by supernatural agents. Even then Diggory is nothing but apologetic that he did something so presumptious as win–he immediatly “tried to call it off” (Azkaban 180). Furthermore, winning against Harry Potter, even though Potter was several years younger and unconsious at the time is so remarkable that Diggory’s father predicts: "Ced–That will be something to tell your grandchildren, that will . … *You beat Harry Potter. * [Emphasis Rowling’s] (Goblet 72). If wining aganst those odds is a lifetime achievment, well then beating him when he is awake and all must be impossible. And then Rowling goes and kills Diggory off.

See, this is exactly my point. All these children have problems, but when the Dementors come–supernatural agents who have the incredible ability to objectifly define whose life sucks the worst–Potter wins. No one else even comes close. Even though we know all these kids have problems, the experience of reliving thier worst memory leaves them feeling uncomfortable, while Potter is propelled into a catatonic state. The message is clear that these problems you have listed are not even on the same scale as the one tragic thing that happened to Potter as an infant. Remember Harry is told: “[t]he dementors affect you more than others because there are horrors in your past that *others don’t have *” (Rowling, Prisoner 187). [Emphasis mine].

Oh, I never said they were doing HARM to children. I just don’t think that they are particularly well thought out or gripping, and I think that Harry Potter, himself, as a charecter, represents a fantasy life that I find to be self-absorbed and facile. This dosen’t mean that these books shouldn’t be read and enjoyed (I loved the Hardy Boys For Crisssakes), merely that parent who read these books with there children might well take the oppurtunity to ask some leading questions that illuminate the fact that Potter is not a paragon.

And, I must admit a slight bias here, I am somewhat resentful that some great children’s fantasy authors, such as Robin McKinnley, Dianna Wynne Jones, and Lloyd Alexander never get this kind of press and exposure. I suppose the obvious answer to that is that children prefer or better identify with the egocentric worldview of The Potter books. Seeing as the age group that the books are aimed at is the age group when children are supposed to be moving out of the egocentic view of childhood into a more complex and empathic paradigm, I feel like it is a good idea to expose young adolecents to other, more balenced stuff as well as these books.

8

Kids are self-absorbed - just talk to a few.

Harry himself is a kid, but his horizons are expanding with every episode. What’s wrong with that?

Back off and enjoy the books, OK?

9

ElvisLives:

I have an English degree. This is how I enjoy books. If you don’t like to think crittically about literature, that’s cool. I don’t like to think critically about film (though the SO does) so I stay out of film threads. I don’t pop in and tell the poeple there to back off.

10

I don’t know how appropriate it is to call spoiler on a Harry Potter plotline in a message board for adults (although I’ll admit that I’ve read every one so far), but better safe than sorry…

Spoilers below, don’t look if you don’t wanna know…

Actually, the target audience for the Harry Potter books changes as the series goes on. As Harry ages, the stories become more mature, also. The last one (Goblet of Fire) is not for the 8-10 year olds the first one is. It’s longer, more complex, one of the characters is killed on-scene, and Harry is almost killed. Add the X-Files type ending (nobody believes that Voldemort is back and the wizardly government refuses to prepare) and it’s not a kiddie book.

11

To address the rest of ElvisL1ves’s post:

The problem is not tha Potter is self absorbered, rather that his enviroment reinforces that absorbtion. He is the center of everone else’s universe as well as the center of his own. He really is faster, nicer, richer, more famous, more tragic, and more destined to do great things than anyone else around him, and everybody knows it.

12

Not quite - in artistic terms, “criticism” is a synonym for “analysis”. But it seems that you’re simply looking for something to criticize here. I hope you’d agree that there’s much more to admire than denigrate in the Harry Potter books, but I see no mention in your post of any sentiment of the sort. I do enjoy literature as much as almost anyone, but not to the point of simply tearing down good authors to make myself feel their equal.

I’ll omit the hoary quotes from others about artistic critics, but I’ll point out that most engineers, like myself, know how to at least SPELL “criticism”.

13

Just read in some mag that a local school around here says that teachers cannot read Harry Potter books to kids, or hand them out.
They must be asked for in the library.
Seems someone complained about the antichrist hidden in the books.

14

That was for advanced comp.? What level? As another abhorred critic, I give you kudos for that one, especially if you’re an undergrad or even early MA.

The thing for other posters to keep in mind is that analysis and literary criticism are only sometimes synonymous, but not always. Most of the current politically-based theories require critique and judgement; New Criticism has evolved into a basis for reading rather than a theoretical style. One can’t deal with feminist/racial/post-colonial/new-historical/ad infinitum styles without making critical judgements, without pointing out ideological flaws in the text, without making readers think about a text in ways they perhaps would rather not.

Perhaps, Elvis, in “artistic” terms, criticism is synonymous with analysis, but in academic and literary critical terms, the two parted ways a few decades ago. BTW, cheap shot on the typo–even English majors get fumble fingers.

15

The horrors in Harry’s past are objectively worse than anyone else’s. He survived an encounter with Voldemort–where Voldemort tried to kill him and almost succeeded. Nothing in any of Harry’s friends’ past even comes close.

16

I think the Potter books are great for kids. Harry is rich and famous, yes, but he is a pretty lonely kid. He has good friends, true, but he is becoming more and more aware that a huge hunk of his life is missing – and that’s his family. Ron envies Harry his wealth and fame, yes, but Harry envies Ron his loud, loving, flawed family. I don’t even think you can compare the two.

17

[Moderator Hat ON]

I think literary criticism threads should go in IMHO. Not that there’s anything particularly humble about literary critics, but I’ll just pass it off as my own satirical interpretation. :wink: Off it goes.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

18

Manda JO, I disagree with your analysis/critique. In general, one knows that the protaganist of a story, be it fantasy or otherwise, is going to survive and grow, merely by virtue of being the protagonist. Think of The Lord of the Rings; the success of Frodo’s quest is never in doubt. Gandalf, acting much like Dumbledore in the Potter books, “anoints” Frodo by marking his door and by telling him that he has been chosen for his quest (IIRC - it’s been a while since I’ve read the Ring trilogy). And before you say that a comparison to Tolkien is unfair, remember that Rowling did not set out to write children’s fiction (or so she says, and having read all four books, I can well believe it).

In Stephen Donaldson’s “White Gold” series (again, I can’t remember the titles and am too lazy to look them up), we are certain that the protagonist will survive, and will surmount his obstacles. Why? Because he’s the protagonist.

One of the books that got a boost from the Potter phenomenon was “Holes”, by Louis Sacher (sp?). I read “Holes”, and enjoyed it. But I had no doubt that Stanley Yelnats would prevail: because he was the protagonist, because that’s what fantasy fiction is about, AFAICT, because it was his birthright. Each character’s birthright is whatever his or her creator (author) gives him or her; how the author goes about getting the protagonist to his or her destiny in the internal logic of the story is another matter.

I think that Rowling has created an archetypal character in Harry Potter - he is an outcast in our world, and “escapes” to a world where he is revered. He is special only to wizards, which can, I assume, be a stand-in for any group that recognizes and celebrates an individual’s uniqueness - the SMDB, for example, or a gang, for a darker example.

Harry Potter the character is growing, as are his friends. I, for one, am looking forward eagerly for Book 5. (I am a 36-year-old male, btw.)

19

Stofsky, thanks for the vote of confidence. I have my English B.A., but am working on my secondary certification. I turned this into an undergraduate corse, but really the assignment was more of an excuse to finally write the paper than vice-versa.

Greenbean said:

Actually, I think that Having your parents both rendered permanetly stark raving mad would be at least comprable. Second, you have to remember that Harry is effected more than all the adults at the school as well–most of whom also suffered mightily at the hands of Voldemort (and at least one or two of whom presumably have had other horrible things happen to them). Last, the issue is not whether or not Harry deserves to win the pity party but rather that Rowling decided that in addition to being the best Quidditch player, the richest kid, the most well liked, and the most famous, he is also the biggest victem.
PunditLisa:

I’ll concede that the only thing Potter dosnt have is a family, although the Weasely’s adopt him pretty quickly (gets the Xmas presents from the mother, goes on vacation with them, etc). However, seperating the protaginist from his family is a strong convention in children’s literature. Middle childhood and adolecence are about the movement away from the family and into independence–virtually all children’s fiction involes a seperation from one’s family members. For example, it is diffucult to name a Disney protagisist with two living parents. For middle school and young adolecents, being essentially on you own is not that big a tragedy to conteplate in the abstract.

Gaudere:

This breaks my heart–you know that don’t you? :slight_smile:

Cantrip:

Yes, of course the reader knows it. What I am objecting to is that Potter knows that he is the hero and everyone around him, including the adults, knows that he is the hero.

20

Yup, I can certainly see how spending the first 10 years of his life undergoing child abuse at the hands of his aunt and uncle exempts him from the struggle.

And Rowling is careful to maintain the dichotomy in Potter’s life between the Muggle world and the magic world in each of the books. This contrast between abuse and yhr attainment of a much more glorified position is a fundamental part of children’s literature, witness, for example, Cinderella. Basically, the qualification has always been an underlying goodness or virtue of character in the face of adversity which Harry Potter possesses in spades.

True, he has one special ability in that he’s a natural Quidditch player, but he is otherwise pretty normal – not a great athlete or scholar and not even particularly well-versed in magic. He spends most of his time at Hogwarts being basically miserable for one reason or another, and his triumphs come not from privilege but from hard work and a fair bit of dumb luck.

So I would have to say that your basic premise, that the Harry Potter books are flawed due to the main character’s charmed life and vaunted position is pretty much groundless.