Book ban appeal
| That Georgia lady is at it again. Burn the Harry Potter books! Incendio!! Or, what's the word for the banishing spell? I would say that's a good way to ensure people, especially kids, read them, but they are successfully enough anyway, so it's just merely tying up the courts and making religion look dumb. I threw a comment on Travis's site awhile back about a theory about what is at the root of this Potterophobia. It has to do with an unnatural, unnecessary and dangerous, I believe, separation and dichotomy of symbolism and revealed truth. I link to a speech by the famous Calvinist, Abraham Kuyper, who asserts such a dichotomy in a speech. But I don't really want to call out Kuyper or Calvinists and lay blame on them. Albert Magnus, who is also Saint Albert and one of only 33 people who has been give the title"Doctor of the Church", had contemporary co-religionists accusing him of witchcraft and what-not long before Kuyper or Calvin or Rowling. This was due to his practices of alchemy and (gasp) studying Aristotle. He also supposedly created some type of Frankenstein monster (inferi?) as well as uttering the Medieval heresy "Natural science does not consist in ratifying what others have said, but in seeking the causes of phenomena." If you're like me then you like the simplest explanation of things. I think that moral problems often hide behind intellectual problems and that jealousy and envy of Rowling and her phenomenal books are behind the attack on them, not unlike the feelings which led people to refer to brilliant St. Albert and his greatest student, St. Thomas Aquinas, the "ape of Aristotle" and the "dumb ox" respectively. But although I submit that those who go to court over Harry Potter have some real deep problems, I'm sure there are plenty others who merely stay away from the books based on purely intellectual belief. Someday I would like to develop this thesis of the false dichotomy between revelation and symbolism being the ostensible intellectual basis of fundamentalist religious attacks on mythopoeic literature. But if someone would like to beat me to the punch, go for it, I don't really possess the topical depth of knowledge or the "free time" at this point, whatever that is |
Comments on "Book ban appeal"
-
jkr2 said ... (June 15, 2006 7:26 PM)
:
-
Pauli said ... (June 15, 2006 9:10 PM)
:
-
jkr2 said ... (June 17, 2006 8:47 AM)
:
-
jkr2 said ... (June 17, 2006 8:52 AM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (June 18, 2006 3:02 PM)
:
-
Pauli said ... (June 18, 2006 4:09 PM)
:
-
jkr2 said ... (June 18, 2006 6:17 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (June 18, 2006 10:02 PM)
:
-
jkr2 said ... (June 19, 2006 5:38 AM)
:
-
Anonymous said ... (June 22, 2006 1:08 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (June 22, 2006 1:51 PM)
:
post a commenti couldn't believe the other day i actually had the first encounter irl with someone over potter.
i commented on an article in a magazine, saying i would read it.
she looked at me and raised her eyebrows and said 'oh we won't be reading that. we prefer the bible.'
i nearly fell over. she is otherwise a very tolerant and intelligent person. takes foster babies, the lot!
i was wrongfooted and kind of mumbled 'oh yeh, i like that too' or something equally inane....
*sigh*
i'd love to read that paper when anyone writes it!!!!
jo
"We prefer the Bible." Yeah, I definitely second the *sigh*. I do think the Bible is more important than Harry Potter, but it's also more important than Ladies' Home Journal and the evening news.
Just another note: I went back and waded through the Kuyper speech and there's a lot of extraneity there, but I hope it doesn't obscure my point too much. (Lord Salisbury winning elections in England, for instance.) Presbyterian worship stresses the written word of God, both read aloud and silently, over other manifestations of religious piety, e.g., prayers, sacraments, images, rituals, gestures. So you find a lot of grand churches, but inside they often have a sterile feel. They can be beautiful, don't get me wrong, but it's definitely more austere, to be generous, than a Roman Catholic, Anglo-Catholic or even Lutheran or Methodist church.
Kuyper is decrying some of the compromise he saw in England where some Presbyterians were adopting Anglo-Catholic ritual. He states near the end "Symbolism replaces Revelation and makes us fall back from conscious to unconscious religion." I would contend that if a religion, like Christianity, is what it claims to be then it should speak to our consciousness and our unconsciousness. Possibly the more symbolic aspects like the church steeple pointing to heaven, the bells ringing, the seasonal colors, candles, the baptismal font, etc. speak more to the sub-conscious. That's maybe as far as some people get -- they don't read the Bible like JKR2's ardent, caring friend. So they might not be consciously religious which I would agree represents something lacking. The words read from the Bible speak to our conscious, and maybe more directly to our conscience.
I would posit that both are necessary and that they are not at odds. "The darkness and the light are both alike to You" (Ps. 139:12) Arguably the most symbolic book of the Bible is named "Revelation." Why didn't guys like St. John or Daniel or Ezekiel complain about God's preferred method of dreams, visions, parables -- basically a bunch of symbols half the time? I suppose they would afford God the luxury of doing this but not Ms. Rowling.
Harry Potter is symbolic literature with a moral message and it's not the Bible, but we happen to believe that the message is compatible with the Bible. It's not an alternative morality. This isn't good enough for these folks and I don't claim to have an antidote for "Harry-hatred".
I have heard Catholics attack the stories on the basis not that symbols are inherently wrong, but that the ones she chooses are incorrect. For example, a "witch" should be a term reserve for someone who engages in evil activity, some witches are good in HP. "Magic" of any kind likewise should simply not be practiced at all for any reason. This to me is simply hair-splitting on the part of those determined to dislike Harry. Michael O'Brien is in this camp, here's a piece explaining his position. I believe he and Granger have squared off on this....
i will borrow that wording for the next time it comes up, pauli.
compatible
i don't know that getting into the hairs that need splitting is the deal irl most of the time.
but thanks for that link which i will now go and devour.
cheers,
jo
ok. i just read that article (quickly) and he makes a strong sounding case i guess. but ..... yes.... i would like to read a transcript of the discussions with granger.
Ok,
I have decided to go ahead and comment on this one because I really want to and have finally thought through my take on it and think I can get it out in succint order ... which is important because I really need to busting on this editing work (I copped out last night ... I was on a piece that was simply making my brain really sore - and then my cel phone rang and it was our friend Nathan saying he and his wife were just sitting down to watch Harry Potter 4 which she had gotten at the library because she had not seen it, andI had been tempted recently to buy it or at least rent it and I though "this'll be a good refresher and curb that urge" ... so I gave my brain a break and still have the abomnibly written article to fix and much more to do)
(REAL CONTENT BEGINS HERE)
Anyway, I think Pauli is right about the connection with Kuyper and symbolism. Modern thinking has a huge problem with symbolism ... and if you haven't started down a specific path of thinking that is pro-symbolist it is very difficult not to be subconciously anti-symbolist - it's so ingrained it's like it's in the water. This is true across the board, ie for Christians as well.
True symbolism (of which Granger has a pretty good diagram in The Hidden Key to Harry Potter, is directly antithetinal to both materialism and gnosticism. Materialism obviously says that everything is material, there is nothing above the physical. Gnosticism says that the material is evil, and spirit is the only thing true at all.
Both assume that there is no real connection between matter and spirit: Materialism says there is nothing beyond matter for it to be connected to and Gnosticism says matter is evil and so why would spirit want a real connection with it?(the gnostic tendency that creeps in a lot of times in contemporary Christianity is the limiting of the concept of justificatino to the purely juridical and the Incarnation as simply a "means" to that end).
Symbolism is precisely the fact that there is a reak connection between spirit and matter ... that the Incarnation is not simply Apollinarius' concept of the Logos imperiously dominating the flesh Christ and the human person is more than Descartes system where the spirit is simply a "ghost" in the "machine" of the flesh.
The symbol and the reality behind it have an ontological connection (ontology is the philosophic study of "being" and an "ontological connection" is primarly a rreal connection ... ie not simply mental metaphor). This is not to say that it is a material connection though. We Catholics believe that the Eucharist has a material connection to the sacrifice on Calvary because it is the physically same substance, the Body and Blood Christ (which is maybe the reason I got aruond to writing this today, because it is the feast of Corpus Christi) - it is in the mode of a sacrament and is an unbloody mode of that sacrifice, but it is the same sacrifice (and properly mysterious). St Ambrose, though, spoke also of the "Old Testament Sacraments" - which are the types or precursors, the foreshadowings in the OT. But they aren't merely metaphors, he speaks of them having an "ontological density" with the sacraments they forshadow. This is not a material connection the way the sacraments after Christ are (especially the Eucharist) but it is a ,real Connection, more than a mere metaphor
Harry Potter and Merlin's Maniacally Meticulous, Meandering Metaphor
The best way I can think of to explain this to explain how I am contrasting "metaphor" against the "ontological connection" and participation of the symbol.
A metaphor exists only in the mind, it is a mental construction. By means of words people can express them to each other and see if the metaphor works for others. This can be done in the more explanatory form of the simile (a methaphor using "like" or "as") or just in straight metaphor, but it is always sort of the thing of saying/asking "I think that this is sort of like this, what do you think?" In a symbol the connection objective, not just real inside the mind (which is in and of itself a reality, but not on as high of a level).
In a way, symbol differs from metaphor mainly in degree. Symbols are usually commonly accepted (the Gryffin as Christ Symbol etc). In metaphor it is the case that an individual persons mind, because of their experience makes mental connection between this and that, which in genuine cases is the circumstances of that writer's life predisposing them to pick up much more readily on connections that are more latent than the symbol level and bring them to the attention of others. The connections remain latent in the objective world, but some otehrs pick up on the metaphor as true. Look at it in terms of Response - when you learn about a symbol
This is, I think, why one of the most noticible differences between the metaphor and the symbol is that a symbol can function on the larger range of plot funtion (even when it is only sporadic, such as taht there is something in Buckbeak's regality version fo genuine pride makes him, as a Christ symbol, bring out the need of respect on Harry's part, in that he must be respectful in even rescuing BB so that they can ride him to save Sirius - but especially makes him the aprt savior of Harry in HBP - really the regal power of the Hypogriff, symbolic of Christ, is the only thing that can stand between Harry and a very competent wizard like Snape) whereas a metaphor usually occurs in an isolated incident - if you take the simple metaphor beyond the local instance you usually getinto bad allegory.
Harry Potter and the Bible
Now, in regards to fiction like this, Harry isn't an actual person ... but he is a compilation of characterics and expereinces encountered and pondered by a real person, and what she has seen ... those connections are real, not just metaphors in the mind of the author etc They are metaphors in the mind of the author but the connections are strong enough that she is able to develop them into more than isolated metaphors, they are able to go to the level of the plot and especially through the aid of established medieval symbol systems, such as the 4 humors, 4 elements, Alchemy, Christ symbols - she is able to draw out the connectinos she sees in the human peron on an extended level in such a way that it is more than a "metaphorical suggestion" from one mind to another but actually particpates in a wider, established sybolism ... the objective and ontological is solid and close enough to the surface that it is commonly acknowledged.
The upshot of all this in connection to somebody saying "we read the Bible instead" is that:
1. people often take that approach to the Bible (it is meant for 2 things only, first to give us a merelu materially accurate "work log" of creation and salvation etc, and second to "lay down the law" - to give us the cut and dried version of "what am I allowed to do and what am I strictly forbidden from doing" - for a lot of people, on the wider level of life it goes beyond this but when it comes to the conscious level of addressing how to approach the Bible "officially," there's trepidation about going beyond those two things and often defensiveness/combativeness.
2. In this world there is supernatural revelation and natural revelation. The Bible is supernatural revelation and it materially the word of God. Natural revelation such as imagination has a natural and positive ontological connection to the Way the Truth and Life. And when I say "positive" I mean that in the practical realm it's usually not "you can take it or leave it" - I mean that the ability for it usually exhibits itself in a positive propensity to it, so to thwart it entirely causes disorder (meaning to categorially and programmatically teach yoru kids that imagination is intinsically wrong in general), willng abstinence from an officially recoginzed good for the purpose of sacrificial mortification is another matter) - the thing is to give the imagination good exercize so that it doesn't become either glutted or rapaciously starved.
The thing is, Christ is the fullness of humanity, the Church is His body etc ... in 2000 years I don't think we have unpacked the fullness of that, and I don't think we will unpack in even another 2 million, or 2000 million ... each new person is some a unique manifestion of some part of that complete humanitty that Christ gave, and each imagination has it's own unique ability and way of putting things, way of using the established symbol sets, or the language, or personality types, or meter and rhyme, or melody, or percussion, etc. etc.
The Bible has a unique thing going in in that it is supernaural revelation, we read it together in liturgical worship ... it's unique. But it's healthy for the human imagination to exercise in a variety of styles and venutres etc etc on the level of "natural revelation" too.
Anyway, not sure I expressed that as clearly as I thought I was going to be able to (actaully, I am sure ... that the answer is clearly that I did NOT) ... but I hope theres something helpful in there
Merlin, there is a lot of helpfulness in there, thank you. I think that a goes a long way to answer the "Kuyperian/Symbolism is bad" argument.
The other argument is the "O'Brien/Bad symbolism" argument. I'm going to throw up a post soon answering some of his objections, but suffice it to say for now I think his arguments are very weak, especially those contrasting Tolkien's Middle Earth and Rowling's "Potterverse".
merlin, would you mind if i copied that post to read through at my leisure? i went into overload about 1/2 way down.
jo
LOL .i re-read and went into overload at about a quarter
you are free to copy it out for better reading as long as you don't mind the obvious typos and such (such as, there is on such thing as a "merelu material" anything - that was "merely material" etc)
thanks merlin.
jo
Just one doubt,Merlin, concerning your opinion that gnostic worldview is anti-symbolist. How can you then explain the fact that Gnostic art and wrtings are so full of symbols?
"full of"? ... I'll go you one better ... They ARE symbol ... by definition
What else are they going to be full of, that's what language and art are. Were a gnostic to be completely honest he/she would simply go commit suicide.
Simply because gnostics are heretics (and that is the Christian tradition) does not mean that they are stupid ... they can be quite effectual salesmen, and synbols sell very well.
Hence, the Manicheans had quite a few followers, and they said "well, if you're one of the true forego the whole sex thing altogether ... marriage is every bit as degraded as prostitution ... but since it's hard to do that, ok, go ahead and satiate your lust through marriage, or a concubine, or a prostitute ... whatever ... it's all the same ... fine, go ahead and do it, just admit that it's all the same ... as long as you realize that marriage and a one night stand perform basically the same "
They weren't going to be stupid enough to require complete abstinence from sexual intercourse, as would be consistent with their gnostic doctrines. ... That would be just plain bad business and marketing.
In the end this kind of "practical approach to gnosticism" is about controling the symbol, using it like a good marketing tool etc, not being open to that which is ultimately behind and investing the symbol.
Add to that that most classical gnosticism is actually materialist ... for them, often, the "spirit" was actually a more refined or rarified level of matter (opposed to the lower matter) ... I would argue that it took Enlightenment rationalism to give us the true and pure gnosticism and things like truly iconoclast art.
The only true iconolast is a corpse, and even there ...