I figured out why the right hates Harry Potter

[XemaSab]

If you read right-wing reveiws of Harry Potter, there's the sorcery angle, which is problematic for many fundamentalists, but there's also a lot of unease about rule breaking and lack of respect for authority. This causes many conservatives to say that the books are immoral.

The real problem for the conservatives is the lack of a "strict father" narrative. There's nobody in ultimate authority whose rules are absolute, and there are many examples of teachers, older relatives, and staff members in positions of authority who make arbitrary rules that are readily questioned or ignored. The primary examples of strict fathers in Harry's world are the Dursleys, Snape, Filch, and Dolores Umbridge, who are all portayed as cruel, and subsequently mocked, hated, and ignored.

When I look at the books I see a deeply moral universe, with a good part of the story concerned with right and wrong on many levels. I think that's in large part because Harry has many nurturant parents throughout the story, including Hagrid, Dumbledore, McGonagall, the Weasleys, Sirius, Lupin, Moody, the memory of his real parents, and even Hermione. These are the people who teach Harry right from wrong through gentle guidance and example. They want Harry to do the right thing, but when he breaks their rules, they're there to explain the rationalization for the rules instead of punish.

[villager]

1. good analysis. This children's book writer...

... agrees.

[MountainLaurel]

25. As does this librarian

If you look at the list of most frequently challenged children's books, one of the themes you see is not obeying authority. The two most famous examples are "The Chocolate War" and "Where the Wild Things Are."

[ChairmanAgnostic]

110. Tom Sawyer, huck Finn fit that same description.

I guess ole Sam Clemmons was a radical, evil, librul.

[KitchenWitch]

2. Very good points

I am a "spirit of the law" type over "letter of the law" anyway.

[The Backlash Cometh]

46. The only problem I have with this approach in America is...

that most people don't see a problem breaking rules, until someone else's rule-breaking infringes upon them. And believe me, no matter how clever you think you are, there will always be someone else more connected than you, or with a bigger stack of dollars.

[EVDebs]

64. Geo. Washington, Paul Revere et al...troublemakers for the King

It just shows ta go ya that Freemason's on a dark night at Boston Harbor didn't get dressed up as 'Indians' and throw tea overboard for nuthin'.

It's in our blood. Conservatives are 'blue bloods' and 'upper crust' who like things just the way they are, thank you very much.

I personally enjoyed the YIPPEE's when they took over the Chicken-Of-The-Sea ship at Disneyland in the '60s. Those were the days.

[Richard D]

3. excellent!

[Canuckistanian]

4. It's sort of like the world Hillary talks about

"It takes a village to raise a child".

And Harry Potter seems to exemplify this. He's always getting guidance and help from other members of this little "community".

[Err]

5. What I don't understand is...

why they cannot tell reality from fantasy. Many of them need to realise that magic is make-believe...

Great analysis, btw. :hi:

[SpiralHawk]

21. Magic is make-believe -- unless you are are Skull & Boner

and have been trained in the Dark Occult Arts, like the Bush Kabal.

[donco6]

29. Skull and Boner?

<snicker>

[Talismom]

79. I know what you mean! When my fundie sister asked if I wasn't worried

that my twins (almost 8) would be drawn into satan worship I almost passed out with shock! First I told her that we'd read all 6 books together and I'd never seen the word satan mentioned. Then I asked her if she hadn't been worried that her daughters would try to fly out their bedroom window when she read Peter Pan to them--since one is just as ludicrous as the other! Just amazing!

[goddess40]

140. Are you being sarcastic or do you mean it?

These are the people that see the purpose of religion to control others. Most people like this think it's rules optional for them, but rules mandatory for everyone else - even those not of their "faith". It stuns me that people of real faith don't go crazy on these jerks. But the truth is they don't and in their own way condone it. Has anyone that goes to church had a sermon about how off base Robertson, O'Reilly, Bush are - I highly doubt it.
I cringe when these fake religious people attack a real person of faith like they go after Jimmy Carter or Bill Press.

[Mutley]

142. Because people of real faith are turning a blind eye...

the way they're supposed to. People of real faith don't go around complaining about what the rest of the world is doing, inlcuding the fake Christians.

[TlalocW]

6. You're probably right but...

The right's insistence on believing in poppycock like real magic is probably the main reason.

I could see someone pointing out the disobedience as a result of practicing magic ala Jack Chick's pamphlets of a girl who liked to play Dungeons and Dragons type games lead her into practicing real magic, which subsequently led her to do things her parents didn't like and even using a mind control spell on her dad to make him buy her more D&D stuff (something she brags about to the dungeon master of the game).

TlalocW

[YOY]

15. "Dark Dungeons"

Oh jesus, It has to be the most hilarious and ignorant think I've ever read...

The whole thing is made more rediculous by the fundie BADD (Bothered About Dungeons and Dragons" in the 80's. The whole crusade led by an incredibly ignorant woman who lost her mentally ill sone to suicide and blamed the only think she could find...

[XemaSab]

16. Here's a link:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp

[YOY]

18. They still haven't changed it or taken it down...

No matter how much evidence (or lack thereof) there is. It's just pathetic.

Hell Chick has retracted his crap before. Fundies never cease to amaze me...

[ScooterKen]

7. No, the real reason is...

.... that they are a bunch of tightasses.

[jobycom]

8. Well done. I'd noticed some of that before, but never thought it through

the way you did. Mega-cudos! True right and wrong versus mindless obedience to rules. That is a fundamental difference between left and right.

[gratuitous]

9. I think there's something to this

The two most conservative, authoritarian figures are Snape and the Malfoy family. Snape is forever lurking, seeking out any transgression to layeth the smacketh down on Harry and his friends. Sometimes he's successful, but often he's overruled by Dumbledore or McGonagall usually for overstepping his authority (Harry's not in his house, Dumbledore is the head of the school).

The Malfoys are latter-day Sadducees, proud of their lineage and wealth to the point of elevating them to the Most Important Things. Folks like Hermione are denigrated for being of impure lineage, Ron for being poor. Harry presents a particular problem because he has all the money he needs/wants and is quite free with it, as well as being the offspring of two very accomplished wizards. By all rights in the Malfoy mind, he should be a natural ally, but because he rejects their materialistic and classist structure, he is a mortal enemy.

[XemaSab]

12. One of the things about the "strict fathers"

that occurred to me after I made the OP was exactly what you're pointing out: the obsession with natural heirarchy and the hatred towards people like Harry who try to undermine it.

All of the strict father examples in the OP believe in some sort of natural heirarchy, be it muggles over wizards, purebloods over mudbloods, wizards over squibs, and humans over everything else.

Thanks for your response!

:hi:

[Berry Cool]

39. Not only that, but it pisses the Malfoys off royally

that Harry is considered "special" for surviving Voldemort's death curse. They can't STAND it that anyone should be considered more "special" than they are. And if he is, he had best be their friend so that they can seduce him and use him to achieve their own ends. Harry proves unseduceable; he will not be driven over to the dark side--therefore, he must be hated and defeated.

[The Backlash Cometh]

50. I think you'll find that Snape may be a bad example to use.

My impressions:

(1) Snape reminds me of Jame Fenimore Cooper's "The Spy." Someone who is forever destined to be perceived to be aligned with "the other side," but who really is a double agent. Remember what Snapes tells Potter when they part? "Don't call me a coward."

(2) Snape is hard on Potter in his Potions class, precisely because he expect more from Potter. Remember how he taunts him in the end for broadcasting his spells? Snape knows that Potter isn't going to survive alone, if he doesn't speed up his learning curve.

(3) Also, Snape had a good reason to hate James Potter. One that we could all relate to.

[XemaSab]

54. I agree that Snape is in some ways a problematic example

but if you discard the connotations of "good" and "bad" for nurturant parent and strict father, Snape seems to be very focused on the rules and strict adherence to the rules. Rule breaking results in detention and the threat of more severe punishments, such as Veritaserum and expulsion. When challenged by Harry, Snape will not rationalize his actions. Snape insists on being called "Sir" at all times. Snape often muses that he wishes that Harry were in his house so he could punish him more severely. Snape even pulls rank on fellow staff members, such as Filch.

When Snape is around equals, such as Narcissa and Bellatrix, he's very different. He's still snide, but he's more willing to answer questions (or pretend to answer questions!). There's still the element of hierarchy present in this scene; he calls Wormtail "vermin" and treats him like a servant.

He's hard on Harry, but it seems like he's hard on all his students except Draco. Neville, Ron, Hermione, Crabbe, and Goyle all get it at one point or another.

I like Snape, but he's kind of a jerk. :P

[The Backlash Cometh]

59. I cannot WAIT, for Alan Rickman to eat up the silverscreen when they

adapt Book 6 to movie form. God! That role was made for him. And that scene with Narcissa and Bellatrix will be a scene stealer!

[XemaSab]

61. What I'm waiting for

is OCCLUMENCY....

Those are the scenes I read and read again.

Oh yeah....

:evilgrin:

[The Backlash Cometh]

63. But he hasn't mastered it yet.

Also, it occurred to me that when Snapes harvested Harry's memories and put them in the bowl, he would do it AFTER he read Harry's mind. That must have meant that he was stealing Harry's memories.

And one of the BIG technical problems I have with the storyline involves the two-way communication mirror that Sirius had given him when he left 12 Graummald Place. If you were a kid and an uncle you really liked gave you a present, would you completely forget to open it? No, you wouldn't. If Harry had opened that present in time and found the two-way mirror, he wouldn't have had to go down to Umbridge's office to Floo communicate with Sirius and eventually be fooled by Kreacher.

[XemaSab]

72. The thing I've been musing on lately

Snape puts three memories in the Pensieve.

We've seen one. What are the other two?

Any speculation?

(And the fact that Snape's been reading Harry's memories is bound to come up. Just the similarity between many of the humiliating memories Snape pulls out of Harry's mind and Snape's worst memory begs it.)

[The Backlash Cometh]

77. I think the memory Snape will put in the pensieve, will be the one

wherthat includes a conversation with Dumbledore, where D. asks him to kill him. And, of course, it will be something that will come out at the very end of the Book, which would have saved everyone a lot of trouble if they had done their homework in the first place.

Because the memories in the pensieve should be the very first thing that Professor M. should peruse, now that she's headmaster.

[Zhade]

94. Um, you haven't read the new book, I take it?

Clearly, he is NOT working for the good guys in any way, shape, or form.

Saying more would be spoiling, for you and/or others.

[The Backlash Cometh]

95. Yes, I did read Book 6. Possible Spoilers follow:

The signs are there that Dumbledore may have already "conspired" his demise with Snape. Look at the evidence:

(1) Dumbledore continues to tell Voldemort that his greatest weakness is the fear of death. That means, that Dumbledore does not fear death.

(2) His arm is dead and doesn't look like it's going to get better.

(3) He was probably poisoned in the cave, which was a trap set by R.A.B., and would have died anyways.

(4) His familiar is a phoenix. A bird that dies and comes back. If that's the case, we may not see the last of Dumbledore, and he knows it.

(5) He has told Harry that Voldemort doesn't allow anybody in too close, but whoever kills Dumbledore, will surely get close enough to Voldemort to find out where the Horcruxes are, and maybe even given the job to retrieve them.

I do believe that Snape made that Unbreakable Vow, because he had already promised Dumbledore to do it.

[lakemonster11]

124. I think he promised Dumbledore he would make

the Vow, too. Or else, he made it thinking that he would just die himself rather than blow his cover, but then Dumbledore made him go through with it.

"Severus, Please."

[Zhade]

134. Interesting...

1) Makes sense - we know death isn't exactly the end, thanks to the ghosts. What we also know is that ghosts have no ability to rule over the material world - so naturally Voldemort fears death, as it's the loss of the ability to rule.

3) Could be.

4) I expect an Obi-Wan to be forthcoming.

I'm rereading GoF yet again, so I'll keep an eye open for your thoughts.

[The Backlash Cometh]

135. Ghosts may not be able to rule, but they certainly can make an

impact. i.e. They have a ghost who teaches. If Dumbledore can manage to do without earthly pleasures, then having him back for what he knows is invaluable to Hogwartz.

I'm resisting a second read of the book because the stories are too easy to obsess over. The first three not too much. They're okay and enjoyable, but not something I put other things aside for. I got through Book 3 just because I wanted to read Goblets before the movie came out but I was a couple hundred pages in when I broke down to see the movie. When I got back, I sat down for the next week to ten days and whizzed through the end of Book 4 through Book 6. That's how quick-reads they are.

I think everybody agrees that the story just gets better and better with each book.

I might go back to see movie 3, however, because J.K. Rowlings stated that she was surprised that certain clues were given in that movie that weren't in the book which will explain what is coming later on in the storyline.

[XemaSab]

136. So you just finished 6 recently?

Lucky you!

I doubt Dumbledore is coming back. Nick says he didn't go on because he was afraid, and I don't think Dumbledore would be afraid of death like that.

[The Backlash Cometh]

137. But the inside info on Book 7 is that we're going to get more data

regarding who moves on and who doesn't. Meaning that Rowlings might add something that even Nick isn't aware of. They specifically pointed out to Moaning Myrtle. It is her unhappiness that keeps her tied to that "S" tube. And if unhappiness is a factor, I'm sure that Dumbledore's concern for Harry may be a strong enough force to bring him back a la Obi Kenobe.

[XemaSab]

105. What did Dumbledore say?

"Severus, please."

That leaves it VERY open to interpretation.

[lovuian]

10. The elves are slaves like Dobby and Harry freed them

and then there is the race thing
Muggles and the purebloods!!!

the Royals like Vordemort

the cruelty and torturing is OK!!!

[Paulie]

27. Voldemort's father was a muggle....

He isn't a Royal in that respect. :)

[Berry Cool]

41. It doesn't matter that Voldemort's father is a Muggle.

Or, put it this way, it matters as much as it matters that Hitler had some Jewish lineage.

In other words, some people try so hard to escape their own hated past that they become the ultimate kind of evil in their attempt to refute it.

[The Backlash Cometh]

48. The wannabes are always worse, aren't they?

[Reciprocity]

11. That and the fact that Voldemort is Bush in disguise.

Not to mention the Pure Bloods are republicans, angle.

[Jade Fox]

13. Very insightful...

Seen from your perspective, the whole witchcraft/satanism argument may be a smokescreen for the Fundamentalists disliking the Potter books promotion of independent judgment in children.

[justabob]

34. independent judgment in children

That is it right there. I agree with the op about the importance of the 'strict father' angle, but what you said really gets closer to the heart of it.

[Arkansas Granny]

14. It appears to me that most of the RW that trash Harry Potter

haven't even read the books for themselves. They have been told what the books supposedly teach and that it's something they should be against, so, therefore, they are.

[MisterP]

17. "Human Events," a neocon rag, published the top most "dangerous" books

13th in line was Theodor Adorno's "Authoritarian Personality," a study on authoritarian character in North America.
Here's the list:
1. The Communist Manifesto (Commies!)
2. Mein Kampf (disclosure of our goals!)
3. Quotations from Chairman Mao (Commies!)
4. The Kinsey Report (sex!)
5. Democracy and Education by John Dewey (Clinton generation!)
6. Das Kapital (Commies!)
7. The Feminine Mystique (banning of uterine manacles!)
8. The Course of Positive Philosophy by Auguste Comte (atheists!)
9. Beyond Good and Evil by Nietzsche (atheists! and he doesn't mention the rich as Homo superior)
10. General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money by Keynes (FDR!)
11. The Population Bomb (helping the poor and disliking consumption!)
12. What Is To Be Done by Lenin (Commies!)
13. The Authoritarian Personality (too revelatory of us and our memes!)
14. On Liberty by John Stuart Mill (too Founding Father!)
14. Beyond Freedom and Dignity by B.F. Skinner (doesn't mention God all the time! determinism by something other than the wallet!)
14. Reflections on Violence by Georges Sorel (syndicalists!)
17. The Promise of American Life by Herbert Croly (Progressives! FDR! lack of blind flag-waving!)
17. Origin of the Species by Darwin (science!)
19. Madness and Civilization by Foucault (memes!)
19. Soviet Communism: A New Civilization by the Webbs (Commies!)
21. Coming of Age in Samoa by Margaret Mead (brown people! sex!)
21. Unsafe at Any Speed by Ralph Nader (customer safety! NADERNADERNADER!)
23. Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir (do I even need to give the neocon response?)
23. Prison Notebooks by Antonio Gramsci (unions! Anti-Fascists!)
25. Silent Spring (these people say Carson was worse than Pol Pot because she made people die of malaria even though DDT helps for only a few years and it was banned only in the U.S. and a few other nations)
25. Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon (anti-exploitation!)
25. Introduction to Psychoanalysis by Freud (science! revelation of neoconservatism's entire foundations!)
25. The Greening of America by Charles Reich (non-consumption!)
25. The Limits to Growth by Club of Rome (non-consumption! mention of sex!)
30. Descent of Man by Darwin

[jonnyblitz]

22. interesting list,

your commentary in parentheses was amusing! mein kampf (disclosure of our goals) was particularly funny!! :P

[MisterP]

24. the worst part is, they DO say that about Rachel Carson;

do a search for her and bilge from soulless PR groups, CATO, and their clients at the Repub chemical corps is always the #1 or #2 result

[onenote]

42. So where's Harry?

Don't see the HP books on the list.

[XemaSab]

49. Harry Potter's been on top

of the ALA's "most challenged books" list for a few years now.

[onenote]

53. right -- its fundies that challenge it

Not conservatives generally, which is the apparent supposition of the OP.

onenote

[justabob]

71. the National Review agrees with you

In the aftermath of September 11, the books are remarkably timely, offering precisely the sort of lessons and examples young persons need to prepare them for life in a nation at war with the evil of terrorism.

Over the past 20 years or so, our popular culture has been preoccupied with a) destructive evil as a form of entertainment, b) freedom as a form of adolescent self-expression, and c) narcissistic individualism as characteristic of ordinary American life. By contrast, Harry Potter insists a) on the clear distinction between good and evil and between both of these and mere entertainment, b) on the importance of the responsible or virtuous use of freedom, and c) on the nobility of sacrifice for the common good.

...

Although the books are always clear about the difference between good and evil, the contrast is never simplistic. There are a rich spectrum of character types, embodying a host of virtues and vices. Even those who are on the side of good can find themselves tempted by vice, momentarily uncertain whether their path is the right one. So struck is Harry by certain unsettling similarities between himself and Voldemort that he begins to doubt his destiny....

http://www.nationalreview.com/weekend/culture/culture-hibbs102701.shtml

[atommom]

58. I love your comments too. (Brown people! Sex!)

:rofl:

[Zhade]

19. Do you know, I think there are zero references to "god" in the books?

I'm rereading the series once again, and it struck me that I can't recall that word ("god") popping up once. If my memory is right, I gotta say: JKR, you rock!

[ticapnews]

23. I don't recall a reference to "God" per se

but their years are measured the same (Ollivander was founded in 300-something B.C.) and they celebrate Christmas and Valentine's Day. Also, there is no mention of heaven or hell, but there is an unknown realm behind that veil in the Department of Mysteries.

[lakemonster11]

126. There's also a "wizard in black" who presides over

Dumbledore's funeral (implied cleric).

[justabob]

36. the word 'god' never does but

symbols of christiandom are all over the place.

on edit:

Consider the rich religious symbols used throughout the novels. We have the character of Lucius Malfoy — that is, Lucifer, surnamed bad faith. We have his son Draco, whose name is Latin for snake. We have Slytherin House, again the snake. By contrast we have Gryffindor House, gryffindor being French for golden griffon — a medieval symbol of Christ. We have, in the third novel The Prisoner of Azkaban, Lupin the wolf, symbol of poverty and St. Francis (the association with St. Francis is apt when we think of Professor Lupin’s ill health, and the rags he wears for clothes) and Sirius Black, the dog, who represents “watchfulness and fidelity” often used in religious art as a symbol of St. Dominic and associated with the Dominicans (who are known as the Blackfriars because of the black capes they wear over their white religious habits). And the villain of the third book is Peter Pettigrew, the rat, symbol of destruction and evil.

Most striking of images in the books is the deer or stag, who represents piety, religious aspiration, solitude, and purity of life. Unbeknownst to Harry it is his father in the form of a stag who appears when he utters the Patronus spell in the third book. Recall that Harry is passing out, about to be overcome by the kiss of a dementor (themselves unsubtle tributes to J.R.R. Tolkien’s ringwraiths.) In Latin patronus means defender or advocate, and is etymologically linked with the Latin for father. Expecto means “I await,” a waiting that may be tinged with hope as in the Nicene Creed, expecto resurrectionem. So the spell expecto patronum means “I await a defender, an advocate.” It turns out that the answer to Harry’s prayer is the father whom he hopes for. The son is saved by his prayer, and then sees himself standing next to the stag on the bank across the lake. Later the wise Dumbledore explains, “your father is alive in you, Harry, and shows himself most plainly when you have need of him…”

Perhaps the most dramatic and striking symbol in The Philosopher’s Stone, however, is the unicorn slaughtered by Voldemort. The unicorn in medieval art was a symbol of purity; legend had it that only a virgin could capture a unicorn. The unicorn would run to the virgin, lay its head in her lap, and fall asleep. For obvious reasons it was also personified as a symbol of the Virgin Mary and Jesus. When Hagrid and the children tell Ronan the centaur that a unicorn has been injured in the forest, Ronan responds by saying “always the innocent are the first victims ... So it has been for ages past, so it is now.” Seen in a religious light and with the association with Mary and Jesus, these words remind the reader of the slaughter of the Holy Innocents at the hands of Herod.

http://www.up.edu/portlandmag/2004_summer/potter.htm

[ContraBass Black]

47. I would call the most dramatic symbol

The pheonix.

[justabob]

51. I agree with you

The linked article does mention the phoenix, but I didn't copy that part. In any case I agree that the phoenix is more dramatic than the unicorn he points to in the article.

on edit: remembered the wrong animal the author said was most dramatic oops! sorry

[ContraBass Black]

65. The Phoenix saves Harry's life by crying into his wounds

And healing them. Surely, all these clergy condemning HP couldn't miss that if they read or watched.

[justabob]

68. I know, its crazy

even us non-religious folks can pick up on it.

I am not sure where catholics as a group stand on Harry Potter, but I have read some articles that suggest that the problem with the series for the fundamentalists is that the religious undercurrent leans catholic rather than protestant... which is almost as bad as the witchcrat angle they howl about. I'll try to find the article I can remember that talks about that.

[justabob]

80. the article

This isn't the one I was looking for, but it will do. The article compares the Left Behind series with the Harry Potter series.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/146/story_14697_1.html

Finally, they both have a theology. It's not, as one might expect, that Left Behind is Christian and Harry Potter pagan, but rather that Left Behind is Protestant and Harry Potter is Catholic. One of the chief theological arguments between Catholics and Protestants has been over whether salvation is earned through faith or by good works. In Left Behind, the only thing that matters is faith in Jesus. Steele explains that church leaders had led so many people astray because they merely "expected them to lead a good life, to do the best they could, to think of others, to be kind, to live in peace. It sounded so good, and yet it was so wrong. How far from the mark!"

While everything is pre-ordained in Left Behind, Dumbledore explicitly tells Harry that even though he carries some of the essence of Voldemort in him, he has the power to do good because he has the power of choice.

In that sense, despite their similarities, at their hearts the two series are different in a fundamental but not obvious way. Left Behind is fatalistic; Harry Potter sees outcomes determined by individual actions. Both provide a roadmap for how to live a good life, but in one case the key is morality, and in the other it is faith.

[Lisa]

123. a lot of the imagery and background is Roman and early medieval ...

So by definition, it would pre-date the 1500s (and Luther). As you say, the types of symbols used, and the language of the spells, are consistent with the Middle Ages -- the Philosopher's Stone, etc.

Mainstream Christianity (at least in Western Europe) would have been Roman Catholic back then. I know some people who are involved in a medieval re-enactment society in the southern US, and they report that new members who might have been raised as Baptists or Mormons are amazed during the orientation talks, when they are told "it's the year 1200, and by the way, you're all Catholic".

I think you're onto something ... this reflects an historical era which some present-day Christian sects might feel uncomfortable with, since they feel that they are "better" and "more advanced". For example, the disorganized jumble of Diagon Alley -- late 19th-century Protestant work ethic and "progress" will straighten that mess out!

[justabob]

132. yes

I agree about the 'better/more advanced' mindset. Hard to argue the more advanced part (technologically speaking), but I wonder sometimes how much we have really changed.

"... and by the way, you're all Catholic" I imagine that WOULD come as a shock to a good southern baptist. :D

on edit: I can't spell

[XemaSab]

74. Holy smokes!

That's quite the analysis!

:toast:

[Zhade]

93. It has all flavors of myth in it.

She's a good writer to be able to pull from all kinds of mythology and weave it in that way.

Clearly NOT an analogy to Christianity, though.

[justabob]

97. Why do you say that?

I agree she is a good writer to weave together all the different layers of meaning that she does, but I wonder why of all the mythology, you say the christian mythology isn't there. I am honestly curious about your take on this.

In case you are interested:

http://www.ev90481.dial.pipex.com/harry_potter_granger.htm

[lakemonster11]

127. I think the poster was just trying to say that,

unlike Narnia, for example, Harry Potter isn't meant as a Christian metaphor. JKR might use some symbols and themes of Christianity just as she does Greek, Roman, Celtic, and Norse ones, but she doesn't only or primarily use Christian ones.

I don't think the poster was trying to say that Christian symbols are absent, just that they aren't the only ones she uses.

[Zhade]

133. Yes, that was exactly my point.

I was just saying that while there is mythology pulled from Christianity there, it's clearly not intended to reference Christianity in any manner other than usage of the mythology itself.

In other words, it's not thinly-disguised pro-Jesus propaganda like Narnia.

You got my point.

[Crunchy Frog]

20. So basically, you're saying they don't like it

because it doesn't promote an authoritarian world view. Makes sense for them, I guess.

I really do need to get around to reading those books for myself.

[XemaSab]

26. According to George Lakoff

conservative morality is inherently authoritarian and hierarchical, while liberal morality is cooperative and nurturing.

No authoritatianism = no morality.

[Crunchy Frog]

30. Yes,

I've listened to RW Christian hate radio people talking about how they'd be out raping and murdering if it weren't for the threat of hellfire and damnation. I don't think they can comprehend that some people will do the right thing, because they want to, not because they're afraid of being punished if they don't. Just doesn't compute for them I guess.:shrug:

[Crazy Guggenheim]

69. Isn't that odd. No wonder they need morality shoved down their throat.

[lakemonster11]

128. I think about that whenever I see

people proselytizing on the street, with their giant "Sinners Repent!," "Do you know JESUS?" signs.

I think you're right---the RW Fundies think that without going to (their) church every week, the rest of us have nothing to stop us from raping and murdering everyone we meet. They don't understand the concept of morality outside of religion.

[klebean]

60. "I really do need to get around to reading those books for myself."

Like many after last years election, I fell into a "post election depression,"
and became obsessed w/news about election fraud. I stationed myself
in front of the boob tube - remote at the ready to surf cable news while
I surfed the web w/my laptop hard at work.

My teenage son would jokingly ask me from time to time, "so mom,
what're you gonna do today?"
I would give him my best Cheshire grin and flatly state, "more of the same!"

Finally he said, "mom, you've got to do something to take your mind off of
all this - go out and rent some good videos or read Harry Potter - I've been
telling you for years to read those books." Of course, he was
right, so I trotted off to our independent video store and came home w/ "the fog
of war" and the "pentagon papers, " - stuff like that. When I returned them,
I explained to the clerk my dilemma and said "how can I distract myself when
all there is fluff....like this crap, "day after tomorrow!?"

The clerk said, "I dunno - I found "day after..." quite therapeutic, watching the
world come to an end"...So, I rented that and Harry Potter, prisoners of Askaban,
which we watched xmas day w/family and friends.

Well...the Potter film piqued my curiosity, so on Boxing Day i picked up the first book
and read the whole series over the following week.

I was cured '-)

PS - my entire RW Mormon family are nuts about Tolkien and JKR - they love 'em.

[Crunchy Frog]

84. Well, I worked myself up into a really horrible depression

when the war started, (and I have depressive tendencies anyway). After the election I sorta just said "fuck it", and I've been gradually pulling myself out of it since then. I still spend way too much time on here, but I am doing productive things like going to school.

I'm really into Tolkien, and am reading his biography right now. I also really want to re-read the Narnia series. I have the first two books in the Harry Potter series (and they're even British imports), but I haven't been able to get off of my Tolkien kick enough to get myself into them yet. I really am going to get off my ass and read them though.

Thanks for sharing your story.:)

[ChairmanAgnostic]

113. Make sure you read the Hobbit, history of events before the Ring trilogy

[Crunchy Frog]

120. Yeah, I've got all that.

Actually, I have this really neat edition of The Hobbit called The Annotated Hobbit. I'm at the more esoteric stuff at this point. I've been slowly working my way through The History of The Lord of the Rings.

[wixomblues]

28. I always thought it was becasue teens holding "wands" made

them nervous.

[Pithy Cherub]

31. The fundies are going to pay big money to see "Chronicles

of Narnia" which ought to be hypocritical on its face. But not to fundies!

Very good analysis. Harry Potter also encourages free will. It is ones choices that determine life's quality. Dumbledore was quite good in the lesson. Fundies believe that piousness is not a choice but an obligation. Harry Potter puts paid to that notion throughought the books where his choices become more adult like and the consequences more life like.

XemaSab, take a big bow! :party: (closest to a Dumbledore hat that DU has...)

[XemaSab]

43. Thank you! Thank you!

:big bow:

:D

[walldude]

57. You aren't kidding,

While working at the Christian Retailers association trade show(before I got dragged out for posting about it on DU.. hehe) they were all about Narnia and C.S. Lewis, an athiest who converted to Christianity. They whine about HP having witches and magic and how satanic it all is, but it's OK when the witches and magic were written about by a "Christian". Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[knitter4democracy]

32. It's this simple:

http://www.cafepress.com/fristvoldemort

or this:
http://www.cafepress.com/buy/Voldemort/-/pv_design_prod/pg_1/p_storeid.10363554/pNo_10363554/id_4130556/opt_/fpt_/c_/hlv_t

I'm thinking of getting one of them for my car.

[KamaAina]

33. Hello? Dumbledore?

Not "strict" enough for them, perhaps?

[robbedvoter]

40. Not infailible and ultimate authority.

[XemaSab]

52. Dumbledore isn't a strict father

because he admits that he's capable of making mistakes (and sometimes DOES make mistakes), he rarely tells Harry what to do but often gives Harry advice, he asks Harry and others for advice, and Harry has been known to disobey him.

He is an authority figure, but he's more of a nurturant parent.

[rateyes]

35. Riding in my car today, I heard on the radio...

a RW preacher encouraging people to go see "Narnia," coming out this weekend--a move I will go see---but, when I heard it I thought: What a hypocrite--There's a witch in that book. They are willing to find "good" in C.S. Lewis, but refuse to see it in J.K. Rowling.

BTW, you hit it right on the head. Good review.

[sendero]

37. Yes..

... and the authority figure they want you to follow is not God, it is themselves. Fuck that.

[robbedvoter]

38. Also, they say "Happy Christmas" instead of Merry....

When the first (second?) movie came out, The Lord of The Rings was out at the same time. I had not seen either and a (very catholic) friend said we could take the kids to a great movie. "Harry Potter?" I asked naively. The woman's face went white as a sheet. It was scary for a moment, I thought she'll either faint or hit me. Eventually she recovered and said : "LOTR"
I remember asking at the time here why one and not the other. Especially since my kid, after watching a bit of LOTR on TV was scared and repulsed by the violence - but became a Harry Potter fan (like I eventually did)
From the good answers I got then here - I remember the one about the setting in time - LOTR (like Narnia) had all those goings on long before "we've all been saved' - while Harry Potter dared assumed that a wizarding word exists TODAY!!!
And challenging authority was mentioned.
Consider the social commentary in Harry Potter - the press lies as pressured by the minister of Magic, the headmaster Dolores Umbridge loves torturing children, censoring their reading, activities and making learning devoid of interest.
Harry has to "look into his heart" for answers - rather then up there- and that's BAAD!

[mcar]

62. Happy Christmas is very British

[robbedvoter]

70. British=furriners. Europeans too. Not good.

[TheBaldyMan]

99. I beg to differ

I have always said Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Only recently have the politically correct brigade tried to expunge this usage from the English language because 'merry' has connotations of drunkeness.
Read Dickens' A Christmas Carol.

[onenote]

44. interesting theory, but I'd like to see a link

I know that many religious fundamentalists and hard-line Catholics don't approve of the Harry Potter books, but I am unaware of any general opposition to them from conservatives (not all conservatives are fundamentalists when it comes to religion). In fact, I know a number of conservative repubs (anti-tax, pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-"small" government)who are not fundies and who have bought the books for their kids and have no problem with them.

I'd be interested in seeing a link to a "conservative", but not fundie, review of the books to see if the OP's theory has legs.

onenote

[The Backlash Cometh]

45. Harry Potter is not just about the struggle between good and evil.

It's also about doing what is right instead of what is easy.

If you notice, Harry's fight with the Ministry of Magic is not a good vs evil conflict. The MM is more concerned with presenting a perception of competence, and in so doing, creates a lot of unnecessary barriers for those who try to fight evil.

And the, there is the usual patronage bullshit:

"'Blantant corruption!' roared the portrait of the corpulent, red-nosed wizard on the wall behind Dumbledorf's desk. 'The Ministry did not cut deals with petty criminals in my day, no sir, they did not!'"

[grannylib]

55. You've been reading Lakoff! Good for you! I wish EVERY DUer would

pick up "Don't Think of an Elephant" - it's a VERY clear picture of why reThugs are the way they are.
I think you hit it on the head.
I would argue that the 'strict father' model is really one of a non-loving parent. Any parent who loves a child tries to steer that child along the correct path; it's what loving parents do. So extrapolating that model into one where we look at the nation as 'child,' the progressives are the ones who love and care MOST for the 'child' while the regressives are those who are willing to write that 'child' off unless it toes the line.
Our love for our country makes us want to help steer it in the correct path; this is what regressives call 'hating 'Murka.'

Go figure.

[LiberalPersona]

66. I read that book

Don't Think of an Elephant recently, but I'm not totally convinced that it is accurate about how we think differently. Is his other book, Moral Politics more convincing?

[XemaSab]

76. Don't think of an elephant sketches it out,

Moral Politics develops it further.

There are gaps in the theory, but it's a model, and if you see the framework, it can be used to explain a lot.

Like Harry Potter, apparently. :D

[grannylib]

131. Not sure, haven't read that one yet. I had a few problems with his premise

in "Don't Think of an Elephant" but overall, I found it to be pretty accurate.

[tavalon]

56. Yep

and, hey, as well, the books are written well. They don't talk down to children as far too many books for children do.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

67. K & R.

[Shallah Kali]

73. It is both the magic and the lack of mindless obediance

I have read reviews that seemed almost as horrified by the characters lies to authorities (like when they stole and lied to made the polyjuice potion).

[msongs]

75. MOSES was a witch/sorcerer practicing witch craft ->

remember the story of him throwing his staff on the ground and it turning it into a serpent? or raining fire and frogs? and the mist that killed the first born of egypt (god of the jews as serial killer).

then, there is parting of the red sea......

funny how the witch craft and sorcery in the bible is ok but harry potter is not.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/chinamart.htm

[IndyOp]

78. A step further: Parents are virtually cut out of the picture

because the children's lives are at Hogwarts. The vast majority of the interactions are among children, then betweeen the kids and teachers, the kids and others Rita Skeeter, Sirius Black, and so forth. Parents are, for the most part, relegated to the beginning and end of the film unless they are sending letters, sweaters, or remebralls by owl post.

Think how scary the absence of parents (much less the absence of parental control) is for the right-wingers who don't want schools teaching their children ideas that differ from theirs - science, sex ed, world culture. You can't trust that your children can be exposed to different ideas and experiences and find their own way - you have to limit their exposure to the 'right' kinds of ideas and people, and control their behavior to force them to 'become good'.

[XemaSab]

82. Excellent point

The absence of parental authority and control must just eat the fundies up.

:toast: :7 :thumbsup:

[Crunchy Frog]

86. What I don't understand is why they would approve

of the Narnia books then, since IIRC, you don't see any parents in them either. Is it just because their preachers tell them that they are "good" Christian books, and they uncritically swallow whatever their preachers tell them? Wait, don't answer that.

[XemaSab]

87. I doubt they've read Narnia any more than Harry Potter

but an uncomfortable truth about the Narnia books is that they're very pro-monarchy and slightly sexist. The children are *destined* to be kings and queens, and the monarchy is seen as a natural good.

[Matariki]

81. good analysis - a page out of george lakoff's book?

[XemaSab]

83. You know it

:D

[Talismom]

85. Another factor that is stressed throughout these books is that what you

become in the course of your life is not due to what you were born with (wealth, family background, magical prowess, good looks, sports ability, great intelligence, etc.)but due to the choices you make. Dumbledore stresses this early on and it returns over and over again. It is the essence of real morality--to take responsibility for and live with the consequences of the choices you make in your life--free will.

[XemaSab]

90. As an above poster said

it's salvation by good works and not belief.

There's an argument floating around on the internet that the house elf narrative is a communist narrative. There's also an interpretation that the houses are different social classes in Britain, with the Slytherins being the monarchy, the Ravenclaws the intellectuals, the Hufflepuffs the proletariat, and the Gryffindors the middle class.

[Talismom]

103. I saw that in the union-like organizing that Hermione was doing. n/t

[Lisa]

121. the different educational philosophies of the house founders ...

... seem to back up the latter interpretation. (They're stated in verse -- in book 5, I think.)

Slytherin -- education only for "the right sorts of people" -- it becomes a trophy and ID badge for the aristocracy. Many universities used this model, well into the late 20th century ("legacy admissions" like Yale during George W.'s day, etc.)

Ravenclaw -- education to those with the intellectual ability, regardless of social background -- e.g. high scores on your SATs (Sorcery Aptitude Tests?)

Gryffindors -- education to those with the initiative to demand it, regardless of social background -- e.g. getting college admission on a football (or Quidditch) scholarship

Hufflepuffs -- universal education -- including people from all socio-economic and ethnic groups, even if they aren't topflight intellectuals (they may discover hidden abilities), or are too timid to lobby for it (they may get their consciousness raised as they learn more), or who lack other talents (such as athletics) which are valued by school administrators



My guess is that the Slytherins would dislike the Ravenclaw and Gryffindor approaches, but would especially hate the Hufflepuff philosophy -- which removes any admissions criteria. (Slytherin might grudgingly accept smart or ambitious people, since they might be useful -- but not fully. And they would really loathe a universal educational policy, because there would be nothing they could single an individual out for ... not like "you only got in because you're good at sports".)

[Shallah Kali]

88. HP books "amplify the natural thirst for justice in millions of children"

http://www.opednews.com/hersh1103_harry_potter.htm

Harry Potter Lessons in Political Action
Mike Hersh

opednews.com

An eMedia Wire press release reports: "Harry Potter Fans Unite in Global Protest." This is the right wing's worst nightmare as the Harry Potter books nurture and amplify the natural thirst for justice in millions of children and adults from feelings into action.

JK Rowling's Harry Potter books nurture and amplify the natural thirst for justice in millions of children - and adults. Examining philosophical principles at least as old as Socrates, Rowling's books force readers to ask fundamental questions like, "What is justice?" and "What makes a person, society or law 'good' or 'bad'?"

Critics and skeptics ask, "What makes these books so special, so influential?" Like most fantasy books, Rowling's protagonists prevail over dark powers. However, some antagonists are truly evil, while others - truly mean though they may be - ultimately do "good." Irresponsible people - even bums and criminals - do good and bad, as do highly placed officials and wealthy aristocrats. Some characters who appear "bad" end up as friends - and vice versa.

Is it silly to mention Rowling along with Aristotle? No, and not just because of the extensive classical references laced throughout the books. Like the Ancient Greek philosophers, Rowling has people of all ages thinking about the ways they should approach life in all its complexity.

Rowling shows some leaders as petty, corrupt and inept, and depicts the dangers of public delusion in the face of "leaders" who abuse their power and influence. This spectrum of grays defies the cookie-cutter "black vs. white" approach usually used in children's books.

The Harry Potter books present politics and the media in realistic and troubling complexity. The media and Ministry of Magic officials work together to manipulate the public and even lie to cover up their failures. Reporters make up fake stories, blaming and defaming innocents. Some in law enforcement make grave mistakes and punish the most honest and decent people.

Uniquely, Rowling's heroes encounter injustice which flourishes because of wide-spread indifference. The Dursleys, Harry's Aunt, Uncle and cousin are petty and mean. Duped wizards and witches blame the wrong people, giving corrupt abusive Ministry officials and teachers at Hogwarts opportunities to do harm. The worst of all - Lord Voldemort and his evil "death-eaters" - violate fundamental laws to dominate and destroy.

In the Harry Potter books, as in real life, people don't wear tags identifying their morality. This flies in the face of simplistic efforts to divide the planet into "us vs. them" and "good vs. evil doers." As in our world, mundane corruption and mismanagement builds in Harry Potter's as the general public blindly supports the misguided and malign who employ counter-productive rules and punish innocents while ignoring real threats. Harry, Ron and Hermione overcome obstacles even though many in power won't help and most people refuse to even listen to them.

In typical children's literature, only "bad kids" disobey adults, and they get hurt or into severe trouble. Heroes seldom question authority, and if they do, they quickly learn their folly. Not in Rowling's realistic view. Her heroes repeatedly defy adults, break rules, and exemplify bold courage in the face of oppressive authority. The Potter heroes' "subversive" attitudes refute rigid right wing dogma. Their example - offering loyalty and respect only to those who earn them - prepares young readers to question authority and think for themselves.

This is the right wing's worst nightmare, because right wingers see the world - especially morality - in stark, simplistic black and white. They see only right or wrong, good or bad. They disdain, even suppress dissent. Right wingers support authority and favor harsh, often excessive punishment for those who - like Socrates - ask too many questions.

We see this today when right wing government officials warn citizens to "watch what they say" about important policies and accuse their critics of helping "evil doers." By contrast, moderates and liberals - like Rowling's young heroes - see life in shades of gray. They navigate currents of ambiguity unique in children's literature and even rare in adult fiction.

Most importantly, children who learn these lessons are putting them into action. This is already happening, in a surprising way. An eMedia Wire press release reports:

"Harry Potter Fans Unite in Global Protest. There is nothing more loyal than a Harry Potter fan. Warner Brothers Pictures understands that to the tune of a record-breaking 1.8 billion dollars in world-wide box office receipts. Now, these same movie executives will get to experience the unusual sensation of having Harry's loyal fans united in protest - against them."

The present controversy pits an ad hoc group called "SaveGOF" (Goblet of Fire) against the media giant. The eMedia press release quotes "SaveGOF spokesperson Amanda Caskey (a.k.a Andaxia Moonstar)":

"So when I learned that screenwriter Steve Kloves had been asked to submit a single 2½ hour screenplay for the fourth movie, to be based on the epic-length novel Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, I became extremely upset ... and now they've actually decided to make a single short movie? It will never work!"

Fans of TV shows sometimes organize to save their favorites, but note the passion, scope and consideration behind this effort:

"(The) movement to save Goblet of Fire ( www.savegof.com ) Harry Potter fans spanning the globe - from Brazil to Pakistan - quickly united in an unprecedented e-mail, petition and letter-writing effort with one goal in mind: to convince the decision makers at Warner Brothers to not let Harry down, to not let his creator J.K. Rowling down, and to not let his devoted fans down."

The press release identifies "adult Potter-fan David Balsam (a.k.a C.H. Snorkack)" as saying:

"ust to be sure, we are going to let them know... in no uncertain terms... that we expect more from them!" He tells fellow fans, "Only a really impressive show of support for Harry will force them to change their minds. Start a SaveGOF campaign at your school! Post messages on all the Potter websites! And of course sign the petition and write letters to Warner Brothers. All the information is available at http://www.savegof.com/. "

The international grass-roots SaveGOF effort tells Potter fans "to use the power that they have to influence the movie executives," insisting Warner Brothers do the long, complex fourth Harry Potter book justice when translating it to film. See: Harry Potter Fans Unite in Global Protest, eMedia Wire, September 3, 2003,

These books transcend their genre and parallel current-day social struggles and political controversies - the clash of world-views pitting right wing reaction against needed progress. Newsweek magazine asked Alfonso Cuaron, director of the third film based on Rowling's "Prisoner of Azkaban" if the villainous wizard Voldemort still reminds him of George W. Bush. Cuaron confirmed:

"In combination with Saddam," he says. "They both have selfish interests and are very much in love with power. Also, a disregard for the environment. A love for manipulating people. I read books four and five, and Fudge" - the blindly ambitious Minister of Magic - "is similar to Tony Blair. He's the ultimate politician. He's in denial about many things. And everything is for the sake of his own persona, his own power. The way the Iraq thing was handled was not unlike the way Fudge handled affairs in book four."

See: Caution: Wizard at Work, Carla Power and Devin Gordon, Newsweek magazine, Aug. 4 2003:

The Harry Potter books deserve this political treatment, and director Cuaron shares the author Rowling's insights. Rowling is a progressive, but writes for everyone. She reworked the fifth book in the series to incorporate - and decry - current events and trends. Libertarians and others claim these books as their own, but that's fine. Only good can come as millions of people all across the political spectrum take these lessons to heart, acting with a Harry Potter philosophy.

From overturning the unfair Slitheryn house cup victory in book one (which paralleled the Gore / Bush struggle's painstaking tabulation, but sadly not the outcome) to struggles against the abuse of power in book five (like the Bush/Blair rush to war and suppression of dissent), Rowling highlights essential themes:

Might does not make right. Struggle against oppression is necessary, even if it entails heartbreaking costs. In the end justice will win out if ordinary people refuse to accept anything less. Harry, Ron, and Hermione resist unfair rules and faulty decisions so unjust outcomes cannot stand. They teach Potter fans to demand better.

Will these lessons taught to millions of readers and movie-goers translate into political action and social justice? They will if young people resist apathy and work hard to resist abuses, change reality, and support leaders in tune with this philosophy.

The Internet-powered SaveGOF movement shows the seeds Rowling planted are taking root already. This confirms JK Rowling's stories reach readers in ways which translate into action. Her profound lessons include: Decisions have consequences for good or ill. Nothing negative is settled if people resist and stand up for what matters to them.

Protest can prevail over poorly exercised and abused power. Potter fans show they understand all this.

======================

Bio: Mike Hersh is a writer, lawyer and activist living in the Washington, DC area. He is a pioneer of Internet debate and discourse, writing essays about politics and economics online since the mid 1980s. He graduated from Cornell University and the Washington College of Law. This article is copyright by Mike Hersh ([e-mail] ) and www.MikeHersh.com , published by opednews.com . Permission is granted to forward this or to place it on a website as long as the article is included intact, including this statement.

[Bouncy Ball]

89. I think they just hate it because their church told them it's evil.

They don't think for themselves, they don't read it themselves, and they HAVE to have something to have their panties in a wad about (currently it's the non-existent jihad against Christmas).

[crispini]

91. Wow. Lakoff meets Harry Potter! Good Job!

:thumbsup: Nice post!

[northzax]

92. ahh, but on the flip side

it works as well. The key lesson of Harry Potter is that the ends justify the means. Because Harry has the right goals at heart, it doesn't matter that he constantly breaks the rules to get what he wants. it's a neo-con's dream.

[XemaSab]

106. I'm not sure that that's the message

Sometimes Harry breaks the rules and it has a happy ending, but other times, not so much.

It's an interesting and thought provoking question though.

[northzax]

109. but he always gets away with it

they overlook the minor transgressions in favour of the big ones, which end heroically. He can't win within the rules, see, so he has to make them up as he goes along. It's all very neo-con.

[XemaSab]

112. In Book 5

He spends the whole book blowing off Dumbledore and Snape, breaking rules left and right, but instead of ending well, it ends in tragedy. As the fake Moody says, "Decent people are so easy to manipulate." Even Harry looking in the Pensieve at Snape's thoughts ends unhappily.

Also, Harry frequently feels very guilty about his behavior. He recognizes that the rules are set in place for his own protection, while I strongly doubt that most of the neocon cabal really understands that rules against torture, for example, are as much for our own good as for the good of others.

Rowling has a lot of sympathy for everyone in her world, even people on the "other" side. She works very hard to humanize people such as Snape, Narcissa, Draco, and Voldemort. Even people who are shown as morally weak, such as Wormtail and Slughorn, are given sympathy. The neocons are all about dehumanization of the other and very firm distictions between good and bad. There's a difference between Harry's perspective and the perspective of the book that makes even Harry's idea of moral absolutes questionable. Rowling herself has got a million shades of gray.

I'm not sure that the ends justifying the means is a strictly neocon philosophy, but you're right, there is some moral relativism present. But I think that's an important part of teaching children to make moral decisions, letting them decide for themselves when to adhere to the rules and when the rules are best bent or broken for the common good.

[JNelson6563]

96. I find it odd since they subscribe to magical thinking

All-powerful invisible beings and their magical feats.....

I guess ol' Harry is the wrong kind of magic.

Julie

[triguy46]

98. You ascribe a level of thought and analysis that exceeds the fundies.

Simply put, its witches they loathe, anything with witchcraft. All else is interesting discussion, but would have the 20 something suburban SUV driving stay at home mom cross eyed. For her and hubbie of just the darn cutest little kids, its simply "witches".

[theboss]

100. It would be a good theory if the Right actually hated Harry Potter

But one or two kooky Christian groups aside, the Right does not hate Harry Potter.

[dogday]

101. Considering the success of Harry Potter

it is really hard to believe the right has a problem with it. Maybe the far right extreme fundies, but the regular right is part of the Potter hype... Every time a book gets published, kids lined up around the block to buy, same with the movie....

[theboss]

102. Yea...you don't sell that many books if half the population hates you

It's not like it's just a New York phenomenon or something.

[garthranzz]

104. I think it's more subtle

Dumbledore is a "strict father," but he is more than just that. He is also a "loving father," a "teaching father," etc. And I think one theme here is that authority, if it is to be a true authority, must earn respect and be flexible. The "good authority" figures, who give Harry & co. room to grow, which means, make mistakes, include the Weasleys, Lupin and McGonagall; the "bad authorities" who impose by force from without, rather than elicit obedience from within are Voldemort, Lucius Malfoy, Umbridge. (Hence, Harry's declaration that he's "Dumbledore's man" has particular significance, because it means he has accepted, voluntarily (and that's a key word) Dumbledore's authority.

Snape is not a "bad authority" though he is strict. He is a very good teacher, despite the personal animosity. He and Sirius are opposites, the one too strict, the other too indulgent, but both dedicated to something greater than themselves (and that's a telling indicator). (I'm assuming that Snape's actions in Book Six will end up keeping him in the Order of the Phoenix rather than return him permanently to the Death Eaters.)

Someone mentioned "Where the Wild Things Are." That book is ultimately about rejecting the "wild things" and appreciating the fact that, when one returns, mom has kept dinner warm.

But in Bushland, there are no warm dinners, and those who visit the island of wild things can never come home. Except members of the royal family who remain untamed wild things themselves.

[XemaSab]

107. "Strict father" and "nurturant parent"

are George Lakoff ideas.

I was trying to explore the books from the standpoint of left-wing and right-wing morality as defined by Lakoff, and I'm not using the terms to strictly define "good" and "bad" characters within the book. For example, Slughorn and the imposter Moody may have been working within a Nurturant Parent framework, but neither of them is what I'd call a good moral leader.

Harry has made the choice to accept Dumbledore's authority (and made the choice to NOT accept Snape's authority), and that's not an option under Strict Father morality. Under the Strict Father system, a student should never question or challenge a teacher or parent. When Harry questions Dumbledore, Phineas Nigellus' portrait berates Harry for challenging authority, but Dumbledore himself treats most of Harry's questions with respect (except why Dumbledore trusts Snape!).

But note well that in Freeperland, you're not allowed to question Bush. Questioning authority is bad. But in the universe of Harry Potter, authority should be questioned.

[Marr]

108. I think they dislike Harry Potter simply because it's

incredibly popular. Hating the Potter books gets them attention. Since it deals with sorcery, they've got an easy excuse.

Most of the regular fundies you see who hate Harry Potter are just stupid sheep who've been *told* to hate it. I seriously doubt they've read the books.

I doubt that most of these fundamentalist "Christian" leaders have read the Bible, let alone the Harry Potter books.

[VaYallaDawg]

111. I think they dislike it because it's fun!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

114. well put marr. Didn't I read the JPII read them and enjoyed?

the pope before the Rat.

[onenote]

115. you realize that "the right" is not all fundies, don't you?

As a few others have posted, there isn't any evidence that conservatives in general have any problem with Harry Potter (as opposed to the subgroup of conservatives made up of fundies). As a result, a lot of the psycho-babble in this thread trying to figure why conservatives in general (as opposed to the fundie strain of conservatives) would have a problem with HP is just silly.

onenote

[XemaSab]

117. You're aptly named

this is your fourth post in this thread saying exactly the same thing.

:hi:

[onenote]

129. thanks

And now that I've got someone's attention, what's your thought on the substance of my post. Agree? Disagree?

onenote

:hi:

[XemaSab]

130. You're correct; the right are not all fundies

My original idea was using the theories of Lakoff to explain a lot of the criticism that the books have no moral grounding. Lakoff's ideas are a model, and like any model, there are things that it explains well and things that it doesn't explain.

Most of the conservative reviews I've read have also had a Christian approach, however there's a running theme among the negative reviews about a total lack of morality in the series. This idea that there's a total lack of morality has made me wonder if the reviewers were even reading the same books, but it occred to me that the reviewers might be using a different definition of morality. You're free to agree or disagree with Lakoff, but I find his ideas very enlightening about a wide spectrum of conservative thought.

[ComerPerro]

116. And he's a long-haired hippie freak

[IronLionZion]

118. Harry Potter is raised by the "village"

And the rich powerful Malfoys are evil, but the poor government-employed Weasleys are good.

Dirty pinko commies :sarcasm:

The Order of the Phoenix seems eerily familiar. When I read it, I immediately thought of Fudge representing Bush and Umbridge representing Ashcroft. That's probably not what Rowling intended but that's the symbolism I drew from it.

[XemaSab]

119. There's a lot of social commentary

and a good deal of it is about prejudice, the distribution of wealth and power, bias in the media, and many other very timely social issues.

:-)

[Mutley]

122. I really don't care what the right thinks of Harry Potter.

If they don't like it, then they can keep it away from their kids. But they have NO RIGHT to tell anyone else what they can and cannot read. Period.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

138. except in Kansas

[Mutley]

141. Right, well, Kansas is alway excepted.

:P

[Patsy Stone]

125. Nice theory, but waaaay too involved.

The right hates Harry Potter because they can't make any money off of it. If JK Rowling contributed to any of their causes, they'd be just fine with all of it.

As with everything else: follow the money.

[theboss]

139. Does the Right really hate Harry Potter?

I disagree with the whole premise of this thread.