Our Hero Harry, the Snaped Crusader (Issue #1)

January 26th, 2008 · 7 Comments · Harry, Hogwarts School of Literature

by Dave

Harry is a hero. That Harry Potter draws from long established literary heroic traditions is well documented. Nearly every book length treatment or anthology concerning the series addresses this subject and examines the link between Harry’s more traditional literary roots in alchemical and mythic-heroic traditions and his postmodern deconstruction of the hero by figuring him through a Christ-like narrative wherein he never becomes an alleghorical avatar for Jesus. In some ways, the emphasis on Harry’s human-yet-transcendent character development has been the subtle spark driving the discussion among Christians about Harry’s place as a role model and/or tempter.

Yet, in postmodern popular culture, Harry also finds a conceptual home among superheroes of our day. One might look at him as a parallel to Superman — tragic orphan who learns who he is when he learns the truth of his parents and evolves into the savior of humankind; or Batman — orphan haunted by the horrendous murder of his parents and springboards into a larger, seemingly undending, often doubt-ridden crusade against a larger malevolent force. I’ve always found Batman the more compelling character because Bruce Wayne’s greatest strength, his ability empathize, is also his greatest weakness; and it is one the character often tries to mask, both literally and figuratively. Unlike other major superheroes from mainstream comics, Batman is one of the few of the bestknown characters not working under the influence of some sort of superhuman ability, whether inherent or coincidental. He is neither bitten by a radioactive spider, nor an extraterrestrial benefitting from a boost in his physiology due to the Earth’s influence. And he is not a mutant or science experiment gone awry. Batman is gloriously and bitterly human — a symbol of hope dogged by an imperfect justice and imperfect solutions. To my mind, his closest comparison is from Marvel’s stable of antiheroes: The Punisher, aka Frank Castle.
***
Punisher is an outright vigilante and is often inexplicably violent, employing military hardware and open guerilla warfare to fight crime on the streets of New York. He is a former police officer, thought to be dead after the brutal murder of his family. Castle often succumbs to his aggression, needing no alternate identity, hence never developing quite the same crisis of self. His focus is strict and narrowminded. He has no compunction being judge, jury, and executioner.

The idea here is not that Harry is a straightforward analogue to these superheroes, like Batman. But, if we, as erudite readers steeped in literature read Harry in the contexts of legend, theology, and tradition, then many younger readers are coming to Harry’s narrative in the context of graphic novels, videogame character conventions, and summer blockbusters. They know Luke Skywalker, Master Chief, Solid Snake, and V much better than they know Hamlet, Odysseus, or Gilgamesh. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, comic book movies, and videogames have all exploded into the consciousness of popular culture within the same time period. A comment from comic historian Peter Sanderson in his recurring column in IGN’s comics channel raises an interesting point:

I do not know if whoever it was who first dubbed the United States a “superpower” was thinking of the comic book Superman. But it seems appropriate that the word “superpower” both means one of the most powerful nations on Earth and the superhuman ability of a comic book hero. It makes sense that so many superheroes were created in the 1940s when the United States left isolationism behind and asserted itself as a world power in the Second World War. Surely one of the reasons that the superhero is a specifically American icon is that it is a metaphor for the United States’ military might as a nation. (para 13)

The most obvious of these is Captain America, who has went to war in the pages of the Marvel Universe against America’s enemies since the 1940s.

(Quite literally a walking American flag.)

But, as American power has shifted and evolved, so have the heroes. Batman has undergone some flatly radical alterations in appearance, personality, and story development, with much more emphasis on Bruce Wayne’s personal backstory and motivation. I can remember all my friends in middle school reading X-Men at the time. Looking back, it makes sense that they gravitated toward superhero mutants that fought not the incarnation of evil, but other mutants led by a survivor of Auschwitz — how very meta and self-reflexive.

So, the early 90’s saw something of a dearth in the hero, focusing more on antiheroes and cynical dismissals (instead of informed criticism) of metanarrative tropes in the culture-at-large. America’s world power fell from the public discourse, not because the US became less powerful, but because it’s primary enemy, Soviet Russia, ceased to exist. An important component that defined the identity of American power for decades seemingly vanished, and vanished in a wave of reconciliation. Who can forget watching young Germans chisel away that segment of the Berling Wall in the midst of late-night euphoria? But, the collapse of the chunk of concrete also meant our role as protector and enforcer were instantly antiquated. We were then given comical parodies and self-effacing 20-somethings (seemingly always played by Ethan Hawke!) functioning as reactions to (primarily conservative) social and political philosophies that formed the West’s policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Oddly enough, winning the Cold War seemed to unleash some figurative angry 15 year old upon us. Once we felt confident enough not to worry about a massive Red Army invasion a la Red Dawn, people became aware that our own cultures and economies had plenty of problems to solve and we had nowhere else to really turn our attention, nothing to divert us toward a more glorious and heroic conflict.

The time was also a transitional period in superhero literature — DC Comics killed Superman in 1993, while Batman came back to life in two films by Tim Burton, and a brilliant animated series (one of my favorite television shows ever, animated or otherwise). Partially, this was the result of Frank Miller’s seminal 1986 ressurrection of the character in The Dark Knight Returns. Miller’s darker, more cynical Bruce Wayne/Batman, recovered from the steady downward spiral intiated by the campy 1960s Adam West version (which I still love for all its own qualities), is still the benchmark and primary influence on every incarnation of the character to this day, 22 years later. The Dark Knight Returns, along with the work of Alan Moore (V for Vendetta [1982-88] and Watchmen [1986-87]) and a handful of others is usually credited with elevating graphic storytelling to a true artform.

The headscratcher here is that this cynical hero (who fits the 90s rather well) remains largely intact now in our 21st century, shaped by a discourse dominated by Communism’s spectral replacement: terrorism. But, it makes sense in some ways. Whatever one’s political persuasion, terrorism, though our new malevolent antithesis, still raises questions of self-doubt. How much have our actions and policies in the Middle East influenced the current state of affairs, either positively or negatively? The answer isn’t simple. It’s true that we at least seeded some of our current problems decades ago, but it’s true that we’ve tried to help the region, too.

This self-doubt is standard for both Rowling’s fictional world and is rather commonly encoded into the way superheroes are contrasted with their nemeses. If you’ve seen the most recent (and now saddening) trailer of The Dark Knight, Heath Ledger’s Joker tells Batman “You’re a freak…like me!” The tactics and strategies of terrorists the world over (targeting civilians in open declarations of ideology) is unsettlingly similar not just to Voldemort, but to the Rogues Gallery of Batman’s greatest nemeses, and of Bats himself. Instilling fear is the number one weapon in Batman’s arsenal.

Joker, Penguin, Poison Ivy, and Ra’s al Ghul (and virtually all others) can all be examined as not just archetypes of evil, but as archetypes of terrorist strategies, especially when read within the contexts of the heroes themselves.

Though he is a British character set within some solidly British literary traditions, a couple of comparisons strike me that might shed a different light on the reception of Harry Potter, especially here in the United States and I hope to pursue this over a series of posts to follow this one (at least two, maybe three):

While not really a true “superhero” in the strictest sense, Harry can certainly be understood in this context. His similarity to conventions in comic book heroes is quite striking. Reading his motivations and concerns through the lens of these tropes as they are deployed in some graphic novels tells us something about the modern hero (super- or otherwise), and might even tell us something important about how Harry is understood as a human-yet-transcendent character within the relationships he shares with other characters. Different characters reflect something very different about Harry’s character. Voldemort is the obvious one, but Harry’s relationship with Snape is incredibly defining, and I think one of the reasons Snape is such a compelling character in his own right. Whatever Snape’s actions and motivations may be, whatever he may have accomplished on behalf of Harry and The Order, he still occupies the role of Harry’s nemesis in many ways.

Looking at serialization of narratives also tells us something about the abilities and limitations of these characters to connect with readers, especially in an age of instant transition when a “cultural moment” seems more and more fleeting. In this age, the transitory nature of these moments is complicated even further when a narrative competes not just with other narratives, but with simultaneous retellings of its self through different media forms.

If I’ve learned anything from writing for Travis and Sword of Gryffindor, it is that the readers are a heck of a lot smarter than me. So, please comment and correct anything you think I miss.

***All images in this post are taken from the characters’ respective pages on Wikipedia.

Tags: Batman·comic books·Harry Potter·heroes·postmodern

7 responses so far ↓

1 Shirley // Jan 26, 2008 at 10:06 pm

That was a mouthful Dave, I’ll need to read it again.

I’m familiar with popular comic book and movie characters although I don’t read or watch most of it and I know precious little about video game characters. I am however up on the history of this country and it’s place in the world.

I love the way you’ve tied all these things together and showed the why of it. I’d never thought about the timing of these characters in relationship to world events and America’s place in it.

Thanks for putting it all together in a neat package. I look forward to hearing more.
2 Travis Prinzi // Jan 26, 2008 at 10:59 pm

Excellent thoughts, Dave. A few things strike me on first read.

1. I think you’ve accurately placed Harry in the context of the modern day “enemy,” and, despite political rhetoric to the contrary, it’s not quite as easy as “There a the evil guys” in this day and age. I mean, we can point to Bin Laden and say, “Bad guy,” but who made Bin Laden? Who supported him in the 80s? Whose foreign policies motivated his planning of 9/11?

2. As I think this is the accurate context, it makes perfect sense that Rowling writes “shades of evil” and makes it very clearly that those who are supposed to be the “good guys,” in the political rhetoric of the Ministry, are dysconsciously in league with Voldemort himself, while attempting to oppose him. And even here, Rowling doesn’t let us off easy…Scrimgeour, who whose policies we’ve learned to hate, dies protecting knowledge about Harry.

3. Harry then represents a third and better way, an alternative to the political “good vs. evil” rhetoric that Rowling would have experienced post-9/11 in England almost as much as we heard it here. That better way is individual courage and self-sacrificial love. Here’s where the “transcendent” parts of Harry’s hero status come together: he transcends modern day good and evil categories (which are largely for political purposes and terribly shallow), and he transcends history in doing it (reaching back to all the great archetypal self-sacrificial heroes, while remaining accessible to the postmodern reader, primarily because of his own self-doubt).

Great stuff, and excellent cultural analysis in light of the rise of comic book heroes.
3 korg20000bc // Jan 26, 2008 at 11:23 pm

Nice one, Dave.

I had noted the change of super-hero dominance/popularity previously but not connected it with specific world events.

My brother “Black Angus” wrote this after Deathly Hallows was released- sorry about the long re-post.
“I’m not sure where to post my thoughts, so I thought I’d throw them here.
I’ve been thinking about the WWII connections. I know Korg has posted on another site that Grindelwald=Hitler rather than Voldemort=Hitler. I agree, but I want to take it a bit furhter and look at the issue from a Muggle perspective.
Now I’m sure JKR doesn’t want us to think that Grindelwald actually was Hitler, but at the same time Grindelwald was running amok, so was Hitler. Both of them were defeated in 1945. Could we then better understand Grindelwald from a Muggle perspective as a ’spirit of the age’ or even like the Prince of Persia of Daniel 10:13?
Think of the Muggle Prime Minister in OotP: he receives a terrifying and perplexing visitation from a powerful being who tells him not to be afraid, but know that he is caught up in a battle he cannot see but is nonetheless a part of. He receives assurance that these powerful (to a Muggle) beings are on his side and are battling the forces of evil in (to him) the unseen realm. Just like the angel’s visit to Daniel in Daniel 10.
So could Grindelwald be a ‘Prince of Germany’ whose work is echoed in the Nazi regime? Perhaps then Dumbledore personifies the spirit of the British who had to overcome their reluctance to join battle but eventually triumphed without destroying Germany/Grindelwald.
So what of the Voldemort challenge today? Could it be that Voldemort represents a spiritual threat, another evil ’spirit of the age’? But how can I be a part of that battle as a reader? Well sadly, as much as I want to identify with Harry or the members of the Order, I am mere Muggle. Muggles have been killed by Voldemort and his death eaters, so I am part of the battle. How can I stand up to the threat? Well I can take courage that there are others in this battle, operating outside my normal senses. I cannot rely on governmental structures. They are ineffective at best and easily overtaken by evil at worst. I see the courage and loyalty and love of the good wizards and seek to play my part in the battle with the same qualities.
I feel that the wars in HP reflect the spiritual warfare we read about in the Bible.
Has anyone ever explored exactly how we Muggles are meant to identify with the books?”

I think it interesting that the actual events of our time may be reflecting spiritual realities. It think a clue to this may be at the start of HBP when Fudge explains to the Prime Minister that the recent problems in the country are NOT the natural disasters that the muggles assume.

Harry’s struggles as a hero ie. his turmoil when he doing other than fighting the good fight, is a theme tha I think M Night Shayamalan explores in Unbreakable. Heroes can only find fulfillment when they are fighting against injustice.

It can be tempting to think that “Good” needs “Evil” to fight against, otherwise it cannot define itself- and vice versa. Many fantasy novelists and story writers that I have read seem to express this view. But I think that a better understanding of it is that evil is the absence of good. Just like cold is the absence of heat and that darkness is the absence of light.

I hope I made sense there.

I need to read your post again.

Matthew
4 reyhan // Jan 27, 2008 at 12:27 am

Dave,

There are so many strands to your narrative that I’m only going to try to comment on one - maybe two.

I love the idea of Snape as Harry’s defining nemesis. Because it’s true. While Voldemort is Harry’s stated enemy “out there”, closer to home it is Snape (in addition to Malfoy) who threatens and frustrates Harry on a day-to-day basis. And it is Snape, almost as much as Hermione but not nearly as compassionately - who holds up a mirror to Harry’s weaknesses. It is possible - just - to see Harry as Snape sees him: lazy, of middling wizarding talent, arrogant, conceited, and thinking that the rules don’t apply to him.

I certainly see the similarities between Harry and the comic book superheroes. While most do not come with a pre-ordained destiny, there are many parallels: the episodic nature of the story telling, with each episode corresponding to a battle with the supervillain (or one of his henchmen / henchwomen); the two teams composed of the supervillain and his henchpeople, and the superhero and his sidekicks; the super powers, of course; the wise professor/sensei/scientist back at the lab/headquarters who explains at the end of each episode what it all means; and the ongoing battle against evil. All that is missing is the colourful spandex outfits.

By this analogy, Voldemort can take his place next to Lex Luthor and the Joker and Magneto and Darkseid and Galactus and Dr. Doom and the Green Goblin.

One comment about the evolution of the superhero. For much of the later part of the last century there were two main comic book publishers: Marvel and DC. The evolution you describe, from heroes to anti-heroes, was more of a DC phenomenon. Marvel heroes (Fantastic Four, Spider Man, X-Men) were always more anti-heroic in their orientation. They had doubts, they made wise-cracks, they did not take themselves seriously or were riddled with guilt and angst. This in comparison with the fairly two dimensional DC characters. Harry Potter is definitely more of a Marvel hero. In fact, Professor’s Xavier’s School for Gifted Children is not entirely dissimilar to Hogwarts. But this does somewhat reduce the strength of the parallel between America’s status as a world-power and the profile of comic book super heroes.

There is a part of me, however, which doesn’t like the comparison either way. Comic books tell stories - sometimes very compellingly - but they are not books. They are mainly pictures with dialogue; the little text they present either slows down the narrative or makes you think the writer is a frustrated author (a la Chris Claremont, whose work on the X-Men I adored). To compare Harry Potter to comic books devalues, to me, the writing in the books.
5 korg20000bc // Jan 27, 2008 at 12:44 am

Reyhan,
Wait until Rowling releases “Harry Potter-2200 The Children of ASP“. Then we’ll get the latex house uniforms.
6 Travis Prinzi // Jan 27, 2008 at 12:58 am

I think the value in raising the book/comic book comparison is not in the direct one-to-one compare-and-contrast type of analysis, but in thinking about their place in our culture, and how they are both shaped by and shaping forces within culture.
7 Mark-Anthony // Jan 29, 2008 at 5:49 pm

I love that someone brought this up! I’m a big fan of both Harry Potter and comic books (mainly Marvel), and there have been times where I try to figure out which I like better, or why it is that I like both. I think its very fair to call Harry a superhero. I think what makes comic books a unique medium is that over the years the goal with popular comic books was to keep
them going as long as possible, and to do that you needed to give the protagonists, the superheroes, a never ending motive, and I think Harry has that same motive. I like how Dave compares Harry to Batman. Their parents were brutally murdered in front of them at a young age and they seek revenge for it. Batman fights low level crime in the city of Gotham, the same that killed his parents, and Harry seeks to defeat the route of the current evil in the wizarding world, Voldemort. How many times is Harry in a situation were something horrible and saddening is happening around him and he thinks about it and says that Voldemort is causing this, and Harry has to defeat him to stop causing pain in the people around him.
To Reyhan, I just want to say that I think Harry is very similar to superheroes in the realm of preordained destiny. I do not think Harry or superheroes have a destiny. I would compare the situation of many modern superheroes to what Dumbledore says to Harry about the prophesy, that he does not have to kill Voldemort because of it but because it is in his personality not to let Voldemort live and threaten his world. This is similar to what drives many superheroes, they do not have a choice to be superheroes, because they could never stop doing it, superpowers or not.
By the way, I love the idea of Dumbledore and Grindelwald being the spirits of Britain and Nazi Germany in WWII. I really like the way that subplot looks from this point of view. I might add that Hitlers racism did not apply to Great Britain and at the beginning of the war he almost admired them and there history and strength. and the same my be said for Grindelwald. He may not have loved Dumbledore but I’m sure he respected Dumbledore’s power and would have loved to have him as an ally.