Hi all,
I wanted to post the 10 Things to Hate About Harry Potter list that I mentioned in class. It is very interesting how arguments about children's literature tend to repeat themselves throughout history. Censorship/banned books debates in general tend to use the child as their "test case"--interestingly, given that not all of the books that are banned are actually meant for children in the first place.
In any case, the point that I was trying to make in class about evaluation is that the work we're doing in our class--that is, interpreting children's literature--is at the heart of these discussions about appropriateness for children. After all, one must decide what a text means, where it comes from, and what effect it is likely to have on children in order to come to a conclusion about what books are "good" or "bad." Being aware of the arguments that get made in the name of children's welfare helps us begin to situate ourselves critically vis a vis the texts we are reading.
BTW, you are allowed to comment on my posts, as well as those of your classmates, for credit. I'd love to hear what you think about the anti-Harry phenomenon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Wow! I was taken back and startled by the arguments which Kuby made against Harry Potter. Obviously, this is someone who has both read the books and thought long and hard about them. I found my self reading the other links on the page, and in one letter she stated that Harry Potter prevented youth from having a "properly ordered sense of good and evil." I personally feel that there are a lot of other things in the world that may confuse a child's sense of good and evil, and wonder if Kuby could possibly present a case of an actual person whose moral conscience had been significantly altered by reading Harry Potter. And her claim that "Harry Potter is a global long term project to change the culture"? Hmmm....
It is interesting that Kuby values stories that portray good and evil in an "unambiguous" way, and slams Harry Potter for complicating good and evil, and causing "intellectual confusion." Many people, of course, think that ambiguity and intellectual confusion are great things that can lead to analysis and critical thought. Kuby's issues with Harry Potter seem to speak to the larger issue of children's literature in general, whether stories for children should unambiguously present accepted ideas of good and evil, or whether they should question things and encourage children to be "active" in their reading.
I think i can echo Emily's comment by starting with Wow. As a Harry Potter fan, as interesting as this was and it's a great post, it's so laughable to me when hearing these types of reactions to these books. She calls Harry Potter manipulative, 'an assault upon the young generation,' and seductive. Emotional manipulation and intellectual confusion? In my opinion, these books in relation to children have been positive in its assault (the word just makes me think of the book making war upon society), children WANT to read them and have waited patiently for seven installments. And by reading them, I think the author does a good job of making readers question the ethics and values of the hero, it is confusing, i think that was an intention of J.K. Rowling in her writing, is Harry acting in the best interest of others or being selfish? Children are taking a role in literature and making their own values and opinions and showing that everything doesn't have to be so black and white, or in this case, good or evil.
I have to agree with you Jeff. I laughed at a few of the arguments as well.
Particularly:
3. "While Harry Potter appears in the beginning to fight against evil, in fact the similarities between him and Voldemort, the arch-evil adversary in the tale, become more and more obvious. In volume five, Harry is being obsessed by Voldemort, which leads to symptoms of personality disintegration"
Apparently, Ms. Kuby didn't examine "Half-Blood Prince" and "The Deathly Hallows" quite close enough. Those books, I feel, went to great efforts to show the reader how different Harry and Voldemort really are. In fact, even Harry realizes how different he is because he...
Hmmm, I don't know whether or not I should say. It is kind of a spoiler for those who haven't read that far...
Anyway, this isn't the first time I've heard these types of arguments. I believe when "Pokemon" started becoming popular, these kinds of arguments popped up as well. The same can be said for the current card game/tv show "Yugioh".
This is probably the clearest denunciation of Harry Potter I've seen yet, and I still find it as laughable as everyone else. I was most struck, I think, by argument #2: "Hogwarts, the school of magic and witchcraft, is a closed world of violence and horror, of cursing and bewitching, of racist ideology, of blood sacrifice, disgust and obsession. There is an atmosphere of continuous threat, which the young reader cannot escape." This reminds me of our discussion about what different critics consider "appropriate" for children. Interestingly enough, both the critics we looked at agreed that children SHOULD be exposed to concepts like violence at a young age, so they're not dumped into the real world unprepared. All of those things may be present at the fictitious Hogwarts, but aren't most of them common in the real world as well? Aren't the ones that are not common just allegories for very real dangers? The children in the Harry Potter books recognize what is wrong and stand up against it; it is in no way glorified. Some of them are maimed or killed in the process, but isn't that realistic as well? Arguments like this make me wonder what, precisely, people from this school of thought feel is appropriate for children.
Also, I hope I'm not the only one who caught the irony in "Those who value plurality of opinion should resist the nearly overwhelming power of this peer pressure, which is being accomplished through a gigantic corporate and multimedia blitz--one which displays elements of totalitarian brainwashing." I wonder what it's like to have the mindset "Brainwashing children is awful...unless we're the ones doing it." I don't think I could get up in the mornings.
For a dogmatic website that promotes unwaivering stances on controversial topics, it only makes sense that the muddled, magical world of Harry Potter would be deemed a threat.
While we often find it tempting to polarize life, dividing aspects of it into neatly labeled categories, the undeniable truth is that the majority of it falls into an ambiguous "gray" region. Literature may feature the dueling binaries, but it also captures the tangled truths of humanity. Bettelheim celebrates works for being rich and layered, and he praises stories that can continue to be enjoyed on many levels as the audiences mature and grow. The Harry Potter series epitomizes this flexibility; its seven books increase in darkness and intensity as the reader's awareness of the world grows. Though Harry's journey may not be as clean-cut and didactic as Kuby would like, his fans, both young and old, appreciate escaping the condescending tone of a morality tale in favor of developing their own conclusions and beliefs.
Kuby's argument was a little startling to me as well. I agree with Jeff in that the books go to great lengths to show children how different Harry and Voldermort are completely different. They make a point of showing readers that Harry is truly good, though there may be some similarities between him and Vodldermort. They show that Harry has friends, and that he has to ability to be happy, while Voldermort does not. I don't think that these books would cause children any moral trauma, after all, children have access to MTV, and sitcoms, which could be more morally degrading than reading Harry Potter. I wonder if Kuby would think that "A Dialogue between Christ, a Youth, and the Devil would be more suitable for children to read...
WOW. (echo echo echo)As a Harry Potter fan and developing Harry Potter scholar, I found this list remarkable. It is obvious that Kuby read the books, and carefully, but it seems her mind was made up before she began. Most of her opinions are based heavily on the existence of magic in the hands of the heroes as a bad thing and completely disregard the underlying messages and overlying meta narrative of the series. Over the summer at the Children's Literature Association's summer conference I heard a very good argument that the series followed a basic Christian Meta narrative and, after reading the Deathly Hollows I have to say I agree with that assessment. The virtues that are upheld in the series are loyalty and friendship, kindness, and more than anything else it is about the power of love over hate. Kuby should also perhaps read Tolkien's essay "On Faerie Stories" and then see if she thinks representing magic as belonging to the good guys is 1) bad and 2) not in line with original fairy tale magic. Conclusion: This author is good at making it look like she knows what she is talking about, but in the end she is full of sh--.
I find it really interesting, as Mark mentions, that she uses the "similarity" of Voldemort and Harry as a negative. In reality, the emphasis of people's CHOICE in Harry Potter is pretty important. People in the books make choices...sometimes right, and sometimes wrong, but each time the consequences are certainly felt in the end. This importance on the choices people make and how it effects their lives is pretty important in terms of children, and this point is made without ever being preachy...which of course is also important in a children's book. No one wants to read a book resembling Little King Pippin today.
(Although, as a side note, I think the controversy surrounding Harry Potter only makes it more appealing to read...especially for kids)
I just have to say that the most impressive part of this blog is everyone's extremely thoughtful responses to courtney's post. I think the biggest mistake of the list is its lack of citing examples to support each number in the list.
I myself can think of specific examples to contradict each statement and I am pleased to see that some of my classmates (Mark for example) go as far as to list some examples that contradict the list. I mean, if you're going to have reasons, than at least back them with something so I can understand where you're coming from!
Mariko, I also love how you really critically examined what was said and found the inherent contradictions in the statements themselves. Children should have an active part in what they're reading, I whole-heartedly agree.
I think the list is a bit blind in certain respects and would be written better if it were supported more thoroughly. Despite the list's defincincies, I can also say with great dissapointment that Rowling doesn't support herself so well either.
She should never have made such a bold statement about Dumbledore's sexual relations with Grindelwald when it is hardly supported (except extremely ambigously) in the text. Just another reason for crazy parents to keep the books from their children. :(
Post a Comment