First Harry Potter Supported Libertarianism, Now This One Says Liberalism

[Khephra]

Paranormal Progressivism
The eerie similarities between Harry Potter's politics and ours.

By Ashley Glacel
Web Exclusive: 8.22.03
Print Friendly | Email Article

Millions of children (and many adults, too) are just now finishing their 870-page adventure through Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, and they may have learned more than just magic. Released in late June, the fifth book in British author J. K. Rowling's series had an initial print run of 8.5 million in the United States alone -- and many stores still sold out of the book. True to Harry's prior successes, the U.S. publisher, Scholastic Inc, had to order additional books. Good thing, as Harry Potter might just be the kind of brain food needed to grow a new generation of little liberals.

more.................

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/08/glacel-a-08-22.html

[wtmusic]

1. Harry Potter, if anything

is a validation of an unflattering liberal stereotype--he is whiny, loutish, self-absorbed.

Read all the books except one and they are overrated.

[legin]

2. Even better

Is the tapes of the whole books read by Stephen Fry the comedian/actor.

Brillient for listening to in the car. You actually want to get stuck in traffic jams so that you don't get to where you are going.

[wtmusic]

3. Umm, yeah...

even better is driving over all those brillient tapes with my car!

[bpilgrim]

4. i like the fact that my daughter loves to read them...

not to mention the LIBERAL SLANT... can't get enough of both ;->

peace

[wtmusic]

5. Yeah, I guess there is a liberal slant

OK, JK can be the richest woman in England for a while.

[GreenArrow]

18. you completey miss it

Harry is not a liberal stereotype--he a teenager, a group whose members are known for being whiny, loutish, and self absorbed.

Liberals are often painted as "whiny", but seldom as loutish and self absorbed. Loutish, in particular, is a straight repubican stereotype.

[redeye]

6. I've only read the first book...

...and, the terrible writing style aside, the book isn't political at all. The book takes an overly simplistic view of good vs. evil - Dumbledore vs. Voldemort, Gryffindor vs. Slytherin, Harry vs. Malfoy - definitely too simplistic for any political theme to be evident. The only controversial position that the book seems to take is a continuous bash of the British educational system, epitomized in private boarding schools.

[AP]

7. The books are very liberal.

They're very critical of tradition and, interestingly, all the full/pure-blooded witches are evil, and the good people are mixed-blood, and Scottish. (And this is just one example of dozens and dozens.) These books are so anti-fascist, it isn't even funny.

Rowlings, who wrote these books as a single parent on welfare, is definitely creating a new tradition which is far more liberal than the traditions Britain has been brought up on for centuries.

AS Byatt wrote a scathing review of JK Rowlings's books, and it was idiotic and pretentious. Byatt's books are the opposite of Harry Potter (and Rowlings is probably mostly jealous that her more conservative version of English society doesn't make as much money as Rowlings's liberal representation of British culture.) Look at what Byatt writes about. Look at Possession -- a book which I enjoyed, for the most part, and which was turned into a competent movie, directed by an American, with an American grad student replacing the character of a British grad student. For Byatt, the greatest thing in the world is for her heroine to be related to not one, but two famous centuries-old English poets. She's a full blood!

Byatt's last book is a biography. It's about how her family was really rich once, but lost the sugar factory, and how poverty was really devestating for her family, so Byatt ended up having to teach literature for a living, which she then turned into cultural and monetary capital, by writing well-selling books about high-culture. And her fictional books reflect that same obsession with class that her biography (unconsciously?) reveals.

In Byatt's criticism of Rowling, she said, basically, that something that sells that well, can't be relevant culture. What Byatt is saying, really, is that she wishes that literature were not democratic. She wants literature to be something for the elite, that is inaccessible, and that makes her and nobody else lots of money.

I'm surprised that more people here don't see that Rowlings is quite liberal. And I highly doubt that she's a liberterian. The woman was on welfare, and she probably understands that that social safety net which allowed her to take a chance and write some of the best books in modern world culture is best provided out of progressive income tax.

[AP]

10. Vanity kick. Since I seem to be disagreeing with most other posters

in this thread, I thought I'd get at least one response. Also, I spent a lot of time writing this. No comments, questions?

[Mairead]

15. AOL

I quite agree. She's only a Scot by election, but her books are very much in a Scottish vein- pro working class, pro personal merit, pro social solidarity, and against snobbery of all kinds.

Judging from her books, I'd bet she agrees completely with Burns:

The rank is but the guinea's stamp;
The man's the gold, for a' that

[w4rma]

14. I fully agree with your assessment, AP (n/t)

[Solly Mack]

16. What AP said..and said so well

From the 1st book to the 5th (and counting)...Rowlings is clearly anti-fascists and quite liberal.

[MisterP]

17. Note the character Salazar Slytherin.

Rowling spent some time in Portugal in the 70's...

[radfringe]

8. when the first Harry Potter movie came out

I went head to head with a guy that believed kids reading Harry Potter books would try to cast spells on people...

:eyes:

yes this guy is a born-again... so I asked him if reading the bible was a much better alternative? as expected, he said yes

then I asked that if kids imitate what they read, then wouldn't it follow that by reading the bible that kids would try to raise the dead, part the red sea, turn water into wine, cause a world-wide flood, reign fire and destruction down on selected cities, walk around a city blowing horns very loudly (ala Jericho)?

the counter argument: errr, no, that's different

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

12. I'm a born again Christian as well,

but I think a lot of the more conservative types are overrreacting. Reading books and watching movies are one thing, and actually engaging in witchcraft is another. The Bible prohibits dabbling in things like witchcraft, divination, familiar spirits, etc, (see Deuteronomy 18) but Harry Potter's just fantasy.

P.S. Doesn't really matter, Lord of the Rings is a hundred times better anyway.

[Iverson]

9. may have figured it out

The Harry Potter books support librarianism.

[ryharrin]

11. Hmmm.... I've read the books and I'm going to school to be a librarian

spooky. I bet you're right. :)

[LWolf]

13. Grin

Librarianism and liberalism...all in one series of books.

The order of the phoenix is such a close match to the overall US political climate that I don't see how anyone could have missed it. If you work in the public school system, you cannot fail to see the correlation. We've met Umbridge and Fudge, and they are NCLB.