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.
