The Oracle Speaks

Warning: This post refers to the ending of the sixth Harry Potter book. Procede at your own risk.

Rumor has it that Pope Benedict XVI has issued a formal statement that the Harry Potter books are bad and should not be read. If I find this statement (and learn how to add links to my posts), I will make a new post including it. But before I look at it, I want to issue my own opinion. I know you’ve all been waiting for it.

The problem with the Harry Potter books is not the presence of magic. Nor is it the use of “witch” with positive connotations. Even the super-abundant grammatical errors are not the biggest problem. And, in the books’ defense, they are extremely enjoyable to read (I read all six one week last summer, and only became tired of them on the fifth).

Harry breaks rules, which is not necessarily a problem. Sometimes he breaks rules because there is a peculiar circumstance where Harry is able to avert a calamity, and the intention of the rule (protecting students) can only be achieved by breaking it. But at other times he capriciously breaks rules which are acknowledged to be just and were created for his own good, but in the end no distinction is made between the two—it’s always good that Harry breaks rules, though small minded people might think otherwise at first. The last word is, “Awww, it’s Harry! You’re the best, Harry!”

But the greatest problem is that although both evil and good are nominally present, there is no substantial difference between the two. They are simply a matter of definition. Draco Malfoy (Harry’s youthful nemesis) and Harry act in exactly the same way. They both follow in their fathers’ footsteps. They are both protégés of the master magicians whom their fathers served (Voldemort and Dumbledore). They both have a favorite teacher (Snape and McGonagall). The favorite teachers are heads of their respective houses, and are almost equally unfair, favoring the boys in their houses. The primary distinction between the teachers is that the bad one has bad hygiene. Malfoy mocks Harry to a cruel degree, and uses magic to humiliate him. Harry mocks Malfoy cruelly (taunting him when his father is sent to the horrific prison, Azkaban), and also uses magic to humiliate him. Harry’s father before him mocked Snape in really evil ways, and when Harry stumbles across the memory (lying in a bowl), he is momentarily sobered, but he never changes his behavior towards Snape, and in the end the moral is that unequivocal hatred of Snape is the correct choice. One of the best things about the earlier books was the fact that Snape was on the good side, despite his greasy hair and crankiness, but an important person causes his own demise and the greatest disaster in the series by believing in the possibility of goodness within an unappetizing exterior.

There are three “unforgivable” curses: the Cruciatus Curse (horrific pain), the Imperius Curse (which allows one to take over another’s body), and the Killing Curse (which kills on impact). These curses are said to be so bad that no use of them can be forgiven, and one is automatically sent to the Prison of Azkaban for using them. I loved this idea, especially the primacy given to respect of free will. It is also the essence of the struggle between good and evil that there are some tools which are so evil that anyone who uses them will—by that very fact—have become very evil. This is what makes the fight so exciting—the evil side has the advantage over the good in the tools that they use. Yet the instant the good side uses those tools, the evil side wins—because the good will have become evil. But in the end the destruction worked by the evil side within their own souls by using those tools is so great that their advantage becomes a disadvantage. But all of this about souls damaging themselves by their choices is a bit beyond Ms. Rowling (who honestly seems to be trying to make a real difference between the two for dramatic purposes). By the end of the book which introduces these curses, Harry himself is trying to use them. It turns out that he isn’t successful, because righteous anger (his motivation) is not as strong as simple hatred (the evil side’s motivation). He is weak because he is good, but he keeps right on trying, attempting to use all of the curses several times in the rest of the series. Well, we can admire his persistence. But any sense of the essential evil of these curses is now gone—the evil only belongs to the person who is able to use them successfully, so the curses are in a way morally neutral, being simple vehicles. And the evil of the person is not determined by their own actions, but only by their parents and the kind of mentor they are attracted to. The latter is generally a key factor in a person’s progress in good or evil, but is not a sufficient cause. The former has nothing to do with a person’s character when that person is—like Harry—an orphan.

The first half of the first book is so badly written that it is hard to slog through, but the second half and the second and third books are really enjoyable. J.K. Rowling’s complete naivety in matters of good and evil steps forward in the fourth book (not coincidentally the same book where she tries to be a little deeper), and the books decline rapidly after that. But even so, if I happen to be visiting a house that has the seventh book, I will probably read it, because I am curious to see how it ends. She has no clue about human nature, good, and evil, but she does write a fun adventure.

Laundry

Somebody had left the laundry to its own devices for a little too long, so I had to take care of it before the pile started making lunges at my feet as I walked past. I've been having trouble with my socks disappearing, and have dealt with it by combining the pebbly-textured sock with the pebbly-stripe-textured sock (No One Will Know). However, I felt that the situation could easily worsen to the point of having to combine different colored socks, which means that I would have to wear rainboots with long trousers (Somebody Might Guess). I'm living in Texas, so I started a "No Sock Left Behind" program. Unfortunately, I had forgotten that my socks (being Texans) are big fans of Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins. The ensuing panic was even worse than the time two years ago when the cardigans spread a rumor that ethnic clothing was being rounded up and put in "washing machines" that were really gas furnaces (although a big part of that broohaha was the debate over what constitutes "ethnic clothing"). Anyhow, if it had simply been the socks, which are a docile clothing group, the trouble would have ended easily. The business casual clothes keep themselves apart from the common lot (on the previous occasion their motto had been "Better to burn than to be unclean," which actually caused more harm than good). However, the flare jeans tend to be incendiary, and they seized the opportunity to start a campaign for stocking dignity, with mottos like "Downtrodden no more." They also recommended integrating socks into the closet, rather than keeping them segregated (and not equal) in the dresser. The worst part is that socks are very earnest, and they have a hard time telling when they are being made fun of ("I'm sure an appropriate hanger could be devised if it were really wanted"). In the end riot police had to spray them down with Shout and throw them in the washer.

Howlin' Wolf

The weather has suddenly turned cold, and as I walked my dog, Sam, this evening, I was enjoying that crisp alive-ness which only comes in cold weather when one has a cozy coat on. Sound seems to carry better in the cold, and I could hear a song well enough to know it was one I liked but had not heard in some time. Then the song changed and I could hear it clearly (having also walked closer)--some undergrads across the street were playing the Doors, and Jim Morrison was singing "The men don't KNOW, but the little girls UNDERSTAND!" But I think what I really heard was my dad singing from across a decade or so, and seeing the wide-open-mouth-and-scrunched-up-eyes expression necessary for rendering the italicized words with the proper emotion (KNOW to rhyme with YOW!)

I dithered over the appropriateness of this post for a family oriented weblog, but Sam maintains that though the song may seem to be charged with a certain something, it is actually quite innocent. "I am myself a back door man," he explained earnestly, "particularly at the times immediately after breakfast and supper."

Great Thought #2 or Purpose

This morning when my dog Sam burst out of the front door, eager to start another day of Things To Be Done, he disturbed a delegation of wildlife. As the two cats, one kitten, three squirrels and four sparrows scattered, faint cries of "Deny your public no longer!" and "Sweet, be not so unkind" drifted back to me. After serious pondering I have decided to dither no longer. The purpose of this blog is to afford the general public greater access to Flannery Thought (not to be confused with Mao Tse-Tung Thought). Helen Gurley Brown was motivated by a similar principle when she took over the struggling Cosmopolitan magazine, intending to use it in lieu of personal responses to fan mail from readers of her book Sex and the Single Girl. It should go without saying that I'll begin where she left off (that is, with a permanent face-lift smile).

Great Thought #1

The problem with the first post is that it must be a great post--it must give the defense for all other posts to come. But you say that you do not see the problem? It is true that all thoughts proceeding from me are a fortiori great thoughts, but my massive humility (which wins in all out wrestling matches against my bulky intellect) prevents me from sharing your insouciance, dear reader. And so I feel myself under a certain obligation for my wit to sparkle as few wits have sparkled before. However, there is another way out. As a wise tutor of mine once said regarding the students' studious avoidance of the front row at school lectures, "the problem is easily solved by removing the first row." And this is what I shall do. Proceed to post number two.
(If you are curious as to which wise tutor, I need only say that if you accidentally added an "s" to his name he would courteously inform you that he was not plural).