Harry Potter News and Commentary
More on the fundamentalist response to Harry Potter; H.P. Lovecraft Month; “The Last Dementor”
There will be another podcast in just a couple of days, which will be an official introduction to H.P. Lovecraft Month, with biographical information.
I’ve added an H.P. Lovecraft section to the Store of Gryffindor.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Previous post: “The Tale of the Three Brothers”
Next post: Responding to Berit Kjos
Jessica on Harry Potter “Feeble”, Rowling’s Success “Depressing”
divaalix on Harry Potter “Feeble”, Rowling’s Success “Depressing”
AstreaMartinez on LOST: “Dr. Linus”
janet on Harry Potter “Feeble”, Rowling’s Success “Depressing”
Eeyore on Harry Potter “Feeble”, Rowling’s Success “Depressing”
Minerva on The Next Harry Potter?
jensenly on Harry Potter “Feeble”, Rowling’s Success “Depressing”Minerva on Harry Potter “Feeble”, Rowling’s Success “Depressing”
Jenna St. Hilaire (Library Lily) on The Next Harry Potter?Jenna St. Hilaire (Library Lily) on Harry Potter “Feeble”, Rowling’s Success “Depressing”
Loading ...
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
Forgive me, but I rather dislike the term fundamentalist. In the sense of Harry-lovers use of the word, it seems almost derogatory to the Harry-haters persons. I know some wonderful harry haters who are quite nice wonderful people, just hate Harry. It’s perhaps not good but that doesn’t necessarily make them bad people. It’s just good to remember that God loves Harry-haters and we should to.
And there are of course Harry lovers who are complete jerks. I’m sorry for the rant, but it’s been annoying me for awhile when I hear it.
Thanks for the unduly good read, Travis! I think you gave the poem more meter than it actually manages on paper (or screen, rather).
Shane, I’m sorry the term bothers you. Unfortunately, words are that way; one person means one thing, and another person means another, and you can’t please everyone. As I’ve taken pains to explain what I mean when I use the term, I’ve no intention of not using it. Yes, there are many nice, wonderful people who hate Harry. I’m referring to a separatist ideology present within many Christian churches that hate Harry for exceedingly flawed and biased reasons which drive them to the point of lying about J.K. Rowling and deliberately misrepresenting the series itself in order to attack it.
Travis, Indeed, forgive me for objecting. What I was trying to say was that we ought to be careful not to do the same in our responses. No need to change your use of it, thanks for the clarification.
Shane, you make a good point! Even when we’ve clarified a term, it’s easy, with frequent use, to lose its meaning or attach other kinds of baggage to the word that we never intended. “We ought to be careful” is exactly right.
What Fundamentalism Means to Me
Or what it ought to mean, I guess. I see Fundamentalism meaning that you go back to the basis for the beliefs and follow the original intent, rather than following traditions and beliefs that have come into being over the years and may or may not have any real meaning. So, for a fundamentalist Christian like myself, that means going back to the Bible, to the words of Christ himself, and making them the basis of my beliefs, rather than traditions and rituals that have been brought about by the church over the years.
To me, this means some specific beliefs that are not part of mainstream values in our secular society, including believing that God truly created the world in 6 literal 24 hour days like it says in Genesis and that abortion is the same as murder and therefore wrong in God’s eyes. But it doesn’t mean believing that a certain type of music is wrong just because of its style. These are just examples. I teach my children to have discernment based on what the Bible says and to evaluate things based on that. When I see something that is against what the Bible teaches, I point it out and we talk about it. I believe my kids won’t learn how to do this if I shelter them from everything in our culture, so I don’t keep them away from TV shows, books or the internet. In my own life I try to find a balance between the idea that we’re to be “in this world but not of this world” but also the idea that Jesus ate with sinners and taxgatherers.
Travis, I’d like to read your definition of fundamentalism. I must have missed that. I wasn’t raised as a fundamentalist Christian — maybe that’s how I can consider myself to be one and also to be a Harry Potter fan. I know I’m very careful which of my fellow church members I tell about my affection for Harry Potter. But I don’t see fundamentalist Christians as being bad or even dangerously narrow-minded. They are trying to protect themselves and their children from temptation and in some cases they go too far, especially when they try to control more than just their own children’s access to — whatever it is that’s in question — music, books, etc.
Melissa Anelli from The Leaky Cauldron and Pottercast interviewed Laura Mallory recently. She spoke about it on Pottercast episode 118 and said she’ll air a clip of it on episode 119. The interview is mainly for a book she’s writing that’s due out next year, so we might not learn all about it till the book comes out, but Melissa mentioned that she found Mrs. Mallory to be a loving mother who was trying to do what she thought best for her family, and not the horrible monster many of us feel she might be based on what we’ve heard in the media. Sometimes I think this is how people see those of us who are fundamentalist Christians, as narrow-minded and unloving. It’s not true for me at least, nor for most of those I go to church with. I think sometimes we as fundamentalists forget that Jesus told us to go and make disciples, and get confused that we’re supposed to go and stop people from swearing, or drinking, or smoking, or whatever our current morality issue is. But we mean well.
I hope this all makes sense. I haven’t said all of this to offend anyone. I think I mostly agree with you, Travis, I just take a bit of an issue with your wish or desire that fundamentalism is dwindling or dying out, or whatever you said. I wouldn’t want that to be true, myself.
I enjoyed the podcast. Thanks!
Interesting one, Travis. I read L’Engel last year, and found her books to be quite interesting. Even though there are four of the Time books, they really aren’t like the HP books that tie closely together. And I’m not sure why I hadn’t read any of them before either.
But you asked what we’ve been reading since Harry Potter. Before Half-Blood Prince was released, I decided to start reading some of the authors that JKR had mentioned. I’ve found that, not only have I enjoyed a lot of books I’d never read or had read a long time ago, but I also see so much of all those authors’ influence cropping up all over the Harry Potter books.
Here’s a list of authors and/or specific books:
A Tale of Two Cities–Dickens
(I liked it so much that I also read Oliver Twist and am currently reading Great Expectations.)
All of Jane Austen’s books, except Northanger Abbey–which I started but haven’t finished.
Jane Eyre–C. Bronte (I’ve read it several times before, but never noticed the imagery quite as much as after paying attention to it in Harry Potter.)
Wuthering Heights–E. Bronte (finished it, but didn’t like it at all)
The Moonstone–Wilke Collins (good mystery, told from different POVs.)
The Return of the Native (I’ve read it before and enjoy listening to Alan Rickman read it) and Under the Greenwood Tree–Thomas Hardy
Brothers Karamazov–Dostoyevsky
The Little White Horse–Goudge
Five Children and It–E. Nesbit
I Capture the Castle–D. Smith
The Ball and the Cross–Chesterton
Voyage of the Dawn Treader (I think it’s my favorite of the Narnia books, all of which I’ve read several times)–C.S. Lewis
Trilogy by Charles Williams–interesting, but sometimes hard to follow.
A variety of books by Lewis on Christianity.
And I re-read all the HP books before Deathly Hallows came out. And I finished Deathly Hallows again in September.
Yes, I read a lot–I’m thankful that I have the time to do it. When I have the house to myself during the day, it’s easy enough, but my favorite reading spot is a rather uncomfortable chair at the Barnes and Noble Cafe with a raspberry mocha and something chocolatey. I go once or twice a week, listen to my mp3 player and read for at least two hours uninterrupted.
I’m way behind on SOG at the moment since we went to Disneyland with friends in the middle of September, and hubby and I are now working on a World Vision AIDS Kit build this coming Sunday. So I’ve not read Lovecraft–actually, I’d never heard of him. But it sounds interesting–maybe I’ll get to that tomorrow after I run some errands in the morning.
Pat–sorry for the length. (We have Dave the Long-winded; perhaps I should be Pat, the Verbose, or something along that line.)
Pat,
That’s a life-time of reading you’ve done since 2004? 2005?
So you didn’t like Wuthering Heights? They’re not very nice people, are they? Cruel and mean and selfish. Heathcliff and Snape are well matched, except that Snape is by far the better man.
I’d like to ask what you thought of Brother’s Karamzov, except that is such a huge question. Let me narrow it down: what did you think of the parable of the Grand Inquisitor?
What books have I been reading?
While I waited for the last Harry Potter book, I read A Team of Rivals, by D. Kearn Goodwin, about the cabinet chosen by Abraham Lincoln. It was excellent.
Because JKR mentioned that she loved Jane Austen, I decided to read Austen’ other books. I loved PRIDE AND PREJUDICE already, but in the last month I have read SENSE AND SENSIBILITY, which I enjoyed very much. It was in that book which I encountered “half-blood” for the first time outside of HP, and the 10 year old son of the disagreeable Mrs. Dashwood was named Harry.
I also read EMMA. The first reading was not easy-I didn’t particularly care for Emma, as she is a bit of a snob. I reread it a second time and enjoyed it much more, because I could appreciate all the misunderstandings that were occurring, including a huge misunderstanding when Emma and her friend Harriet misunderstand who the pronoun “he” refers to in an important conversation. The third time, I thought it was really funny, and enjoyed it even more.
I started NORTHANGER ABBEY but didn’t finish it. I think I will read PERSUASION next instead.
My youngest daughter is reading JANE EYRE for school, so I read it again also, and enjoyed it even more. It is one of those books which I can read and enjoy over and over.
Due to one of the essays on Hero here at Sword of Gryffindor, I found a wonderful book by Barry Strauss entitled THE ILIAD. It was published last year and contains the latest in understanding of Homeric archaeology and language. The book was so good that I got Barry Strauss’ book SALAMIS and am reading it right now.
I love language and words; so another book which I read was EMPIRE OF THE WORD by Nicholas Ostler-if one is interested in the development of languages, this is very good.
Because I am interested in genetic genealogy, I read the 3 following books in the last few months: Stephen Oppenheimer’s THE ORIGINS OF THE BRITISH: A GENETIC DETECTIVE STORY; Bryan Sykes’ THE BLOOD OF THE ISLES; and FACE OF BRITAIN by Robin MCKIE. these books are actually relevant to HP story because the discussion regarding Heir of Slytherin and how we classify others in separate categories which really are not, in fact, correct. It ties in well with Travis’ discussion on prejudice.
I, too, didn’t like Heathcliff. But I can see no comparison between Snape and Gollum.
I love Tolkien, and had the wonderful experience last Friday of hearing the Lord of the Rings symphony played by the Cincinnati symphony orchestra-truly a fabulous musical group-with the May festival Chorus singers and the Cincinnati Children’s choir. While the music played and the singers sang, we were shown on a screen above the orchestra projected drawings by Alan Lee(I am not sure if this is his correct name, but the British artist that did so much of the watercolor illustrations and sketches for the LoftheR book and movie. Fabulous.
Finally, for relaxation, I listened the the CD version of Patrick O’Brien’s DESOLATION ISLAND last week. I have to drive to and from football and play practice for a son and a daughter, so I often listen to books on CD or tape. (I listened to all the previous HP books while on vacation in July). I love of all of O’Brien’s Aubrey/Maturin series. I know that this is not relevant to HP, and won’t mention it again, but they are wonderful books. Interestingly enough, he (O’Brien)also considered Jane Austen the finest writer of English novels.
I thought I’d chime in on books I’ve read since DH. Eeyore mentioned E. Nesbit. She’s well known for Five Children and It, but JKR specifically mentioned The Treasure Seekers and other stories of the Bastable family (the Would-begoods is another one). These are harder to find but well worth the effort. Here’s a quote from a foreword in the edition I have out from my library:
“One of the methods of deciding how well a writer has written a book for children is to imagine meeting the characters in a train. You are sitting in a railway carriage when a group of people get in. Could anyone not recognize the March girls from Little Women? Dress them up in today’s clothes, but you could not disguise Meg, Jo, Beth and Amy [nor Hermione and Ron, I daresay]. . . The Bastable family from The Treasure Seekers and The Wouldbegoods are like that. Whatever you dressed them in you could not fail to recognise them. Never once in her books about the Bastables does one of the children behave or speak out of character. They are built solidly and carefully as the best literary characters should be built. This is partly done by telling the reader about the people in the book, but partly by knowing infinitely more about them than is in the story.”
Sound like anyone we know? Another great thing about these books — I’m near the end of the second one, and there’s a third about these kids as well called New Treasure Seekers, though you’ll sometimes find at least two of them combined in one volume — I’m enjoying #2 as well or even more so than #1. The characters are laugh-out-loud enjoyable. I’m reading this to my 15 year old son, he’s laughing right along with me.
I also read Over Sea, Under Stone by Susan Cooper. This is first in the Dark is Rising series. I very much enjoyed it, lots of references to King Arthur. Wikipedia says the movie their advertising on TV right now doesn’t closely follow the book at all (they quoted many people who worked on the movie to say they hadn’t even bothered to read the book and such things like Michael Gambon would relate to) so don’t take this as a recommendation for the movie, but the first book, at least, was very good. I’ve got the second one sitting on my bedside table, maybe I’ll start it tomorrow.
I do three kinds of reading: for work, for comfort, and for pleasure. Depending on my stress level, I do more or less of the second and third categories.
Pleasure reading has been sparse of late. I always read the latest Le Carre (Mission Song) and the latest PD James (The Lighthouse), the latest Dick Francis (Under Orders) and the latest Patricia McKillip (Solstice Wood) as soon as they come out, but it’s been a while since those came out (2006?). I tried to read some Orhan Pamuk, but could only handle so much of his stream-of-consciousness style. I liked lullabies for little criminals by Heather O’Neill. I read Hannibal Rising, but it didn’t quite do it for me. Lovecraft would have loved it: the Lithuanian militia ate (italics) Mischa! (close italics). I finally read – tried to read – Sense and Sensibility. Too tame. I missed Eliza Bennet’s vivacity. I finally read Oliver Twist and was amazed by how little people have changed in one hundred and fifty years. I’ve also been reading a bit of Roald Dahl (with my 6 year old) and I will confess that I keep reading past the time he falls asleep.
Reyhan, I think you probably appreciate and know a lot more about fictional literature than I. I am always interested in learning others’ opinions on this list, because you all are so knowledgable of books which I haven’t read. I never even heard of Lovecraft, Pamuk, McKillip and O’Neill. I naturally gravitate towards histories and biographies. I usually don’t like a lot of fiction, but obviously there are many new authors for me to explore.
By the way, I agree that the characters in Sense and Sensibility are not as interesting as in Pride and Prejudice. SandS was excellent for its depiction of the way people, especially women, were supposed to live in that time period. The contrast with Elizabeth Bennett makes her all the more special.
The librarian recommended that I try Bernard Cornwell’s new series on Anglo-Saxon England. Has anyone else read these books? The first one is entitled THE LAST KINGDOM, and the vocabulary and setting reminds me a lot of the background that Tolkien was using.
Speaking of Anglo-Saxon England and Middle Earth, does anyone besides me wonder how fantasy fiction writers decide upon the level of science and technology available in their world?
Take a random trio of fantasy writers: R.E. Howard (Conan the Barbarian of Cimmeria), JRR Tolkien (Middle Earth), and Patricia McKillip (The Riddle-Master of Hed. The Book of Atrix Wolfe). Conan’s world has swords, and sophisticated buildings, and the wheel, and quills and scrolls (not, as far as I remember, books, thus no printing press), and oil lamps, and woven cloth. No guns or gunpowder, no internal combustion engine, no electricity, no indoor plumbing. No machines (except for the hand-cranked kind). I can’t remember if they have glass. The technology seems somewhere in the Dark Ages.
Tolkien’s world is similar, but there are pipes (and tobacco, which is interesting because I think tobacco came from the New World in the 16th or 17th century and rings an anachronistic note). MI can’t remember if he allows books, but if he does, I think they must be hand-written and hand-bound: no suggestion of the printing press. My observation that the technology is from the Dark Ages would match Mary Jo’s (see above) that Tolkien’s background resemebles Anglo-Saxon England (400-800 AD?) There are no machines, with one exception : Saruman’s orcs build machines for nefarious purposes.
As for McKillip and the Riddle Master trilogy, I remember scrolls, and oil lamps, and fire-places and wood-fired ovens, sailing ships and palaces. There are books, but again, hand-written and hand-bound, no indication of printing presses. No machinery. Again, Dark Ages level technology.
This is not a comprehensive survey of fantasy fiction so my conclusion may be premature, but I ask myself: why is the technology of the Dark Ages the norm for works of fantasy?
BTW, our JKR is a clear exception to this rule: wizards live in parallel with Muggles and 21st century Muggle technology. But even so, they seem quite removed from the post Industrial Revolution advances in technology. They write with quills, they brew pitions in cauldrons, their halls are lit by candles. In fact, just about the only concession they make to technology past the Dark Ages is the printing press (and indoor plumbing): books there are aplenty and I vaguely recollect that Xenophilius Lovegood runs a printing press. Arthur Weasley’s interest in Muggles technology makes him an oddball.
So why this embracing of the Dark Ages and distrust of post Renaissance technology?