|
| |
REYNOLDS |
|
 |
Harry Potter: 3 More Things I Learned
by John Mark Reynolds [author,
academic] 8/1/07
I am warning those who have not finished the series . . . and there must
be still a few of them by now. . . that there are spoilers ahead. I
have just finished the last book . . . having spent an enjoyable
evening with it thanks to Sam’s Club and an indulgent wife.
 I am done with Harry Potter and enjoying the literary aftertaste the
way one enjoys a fine meal almost as much after it is done as when it
is being consumed . . . though it is a bit sad that the series is
finished.
And it is really finished . . .
Contributor
John Mark Reynolds
John
Mark Reynolds is the founder and director of
the Torrey Honors Institute and Associate Professor
of Philosophy at Biola University.His
personal website can be found at www.johnmarkreynolds.com and
his blog can be found at http://scriptoriumdaily.com.
[go to Reynolds index] |
Will one be able to re-read the books with pleasure?
I think the answer is only a tentative “yes.” If one knows the
“puzzles” and “the secrets” of the book, it will not take away the
charm of the characters or the fun of a good Quidditch match, but the
first read will always be the best.
The strength of these books is in the plot and the second read, when
everything is known, will be satisfying for finding all the clues to
what happens . . . but I am hard pressed to know if I will want to
re-read them a third or fourth time.
A really great book is as good on the fourth read . . . and some children’s books (Little White Horse) are better.
I deeply enjoyed the last book and thought the ending satisfying.
For those who found them quite Christian, they will find much in this
last book to give strength to their idea. Whether intentionally or not
the Christian heritage of Britain (and there was never a book more
British) is obvious in the mythology . . . which is otherwise simply a
confused hash of “cool magical stuff.” Think like a British Christian
“redeeming” culture for Christ in a late twentieth century context (and
these are twentieth century books) and it all makes sense.
Secularists who find the Christian images obscure missed a good bit of reading in school.
Perversely this book has been discussed so much that the ending was
simpler (no harm in that) than many of the clever schemes I have seen
discussed on line!
Some immediate comments on the series while I am still most roused
by the conclusion. (We liked the books enough to order four copies . .
. as each family member completed their own set who had read them to
date.) These are very good books!
The conclusion displayed many of the strengths and weaknesses of the series.
The weaknesses are obvious: an inability to write about beauty as
well as the rest of her prose demanded, a tendency to fall into
“contemporary” jargon that will seem very dated with time, and editing
that can only be described as scandalous in a book with this much
potential. Did Rowling have no Inklings to tell her when to cut?
Rowling writes well . . . she plots fabulously . . . she creates
lovable characters . . . but her prose fails her when she gets to
scenes of great beauty or pathos. Her battles, to cite just one
example, end up reading like her Quidditch matches.
The less said about how dated parts of these books will be in fifty
years the better. I shall not live to see it in any case . . . a new
generation of parents will make sure their children read these books
they loved so much in the early twenty-first century so they will last
my time.
Some dated references occur in all fiction, but the World War II
backdrop to Narnia at least is educational and a more enjoyable tale
than having to explain more trivial pop-culture type references.
(”Posters on walls of rock stars? What’s a poster? Why would someone
hang an advert in his room?” my grandchild said looking at me with a
puzzled expression. “You see, young Lewis,” I said, “groups were
marketed way back then to mass number of teens by giant companies run
by people who did not make music but sold it, which exploited . . .”)
I am already getting ready to explain to my grandchildren references
to semi-profanity twenty years or so from now. (”Dad, what is up with
the letter “f”? Was there something wrong with it?”).
The more famous Rowling got the less she seems to have listened to
the editor. Some of the middle books are bloated and this one is as
well . . . in one way a fan (and I am one) cannot get too much of
Rowling, but one could not help wishing that there was such a thing as
a “director’s cut” of this book for later. The book would have been
better with less on the first read as one grew impatient in the middle
with more “Harry is morose” than was needed.
Yet still . . . Rowling sustained our interest over hundreds of
pages (though the word count is pretty scanty on those pages!) as well
as anyone. She wrote strong characters as well as any children’s
fantasy writer before her . . . though (unexpectedly) her female
characters were not as strong as her male characters.
It is the people one remembers about the Potter books . . . (which
is not true about Narnia where Narnia is the star) . . . and some of
the people are classics of children’s literature. The Potter books are
often first-rate portraits with second-rate frames in a slap-dash room.
Her books were plotted with Dickensian care. Unlike many reviewers I
thought her “alternative world” or myth not so carefully contrived or
convincing, but it was fun . . . and this sense of fun and the care
taken in all the jolliness to keep the clock-work plot moving . . was
done with enough mental dash that we granted her premise.
I think there are three things that the series (as a whole) taught that I will add to my previous list:
First, Potter is sometimes described as merely “lucky” and some in
our meritocracy have resented him for it. Harry does not “deserve” his
starring role, but he gets it.
Harry shows that the “mediocre” or merely “above average” can become great if they persevere in learning virtue.
Harry is saved by his mother not because he has great merit, but
because she loves him. Mothers don’t love their sons because they
deserve it, but because they are their sons.
That is enough. Others love Harry for the sake of his mother and father, but eventually learn his merit.
What is that merit? Harry does not think himself the “chosen one”
based on his skills. He perseveres and so learns courage, moderation,
practical wisdom, justice, faith, hope, and love. He is great in
character and it is better to be good than to get the best marks in
wizarding.
Second, there are worse things that can happen to a man than an
honorable death. Christians believe this . . . as did the noble pagans,
but it is message badly needed in our secular age. Rowling drives this
point home as she paints the damage one does to the soul (as well I
know!) when one acts shamefully.
There is another world with swift and true judgments and no magic can fool it.
If Harry had died, then it would have been better than clinging to life as a Death Eater.
Finally, the character of Dumbledore is one of the best in
children’s fiction. His life is complex and he is a flawed man, but a
hero because he learns to live with his flaws. His life reminds us that
out of great error can come a life of genuine service and heroism.
Acceptance of pain and of limits can produce a life well lived. This is
(of course) true of Snape and of several other characters as well.
Is the series a classic?
Perhaps, but I would bet against it (though narrowly).
Time will tell and the century needed for the judgment will not
allow me to know if I am wrong, but I suspect fame will carry it fifty
years, where it will have the relationship to books like Lord of the Rings that Agatha Christie now has to the creator of Sherlock Holmes, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
Agatha Christie was a fine writer . . . one of best “fun reads” of
her time. Is there anyone who helped some of us make good use of
airplane time (in the age before hand held movies and games) than
Christie?
She was not, however, creative or seminal in the same way as Doyle.
His London of 1890 is less dated than her London of the 1930’s! For
quite a few, Christie remains a good read. . . but she is “merely” that.
In the same way, I suspect the Potter books will remain ripping good
reads for those who can get over the period references (as one does in
Christie!) and as absolutely necessary to understand the period if only
for their sales (Christie sold her millions too) and the hype, but not
classics. ExileStreet
copyright
2007 John Mark Reynolds
§
|
q