A few points on the article as I'm reading it;
The article seems to be objecting to some of the truly evil creatures in the "Harry Potter" universe: the dementors are evil, as is the voice of the basilisk leaving murderous threats. Mandrakes are mythological creatures-- I certainly doubt Rowling meant anything sinister there. I'm not sure what point they're trying to make with the slug-spell gone awry. There is a girl ghost who haunts the girl's toilet, but she's mainly used for comic relief. Also keep in mind that if you're going to object to all ghosts in literature, you're going to have to throw out "A Christmas Carol" and "Lord of the Rings," which both contain ghosts (the ghosts of Christmas spirit and The Paths of the Dead).
Now to their "seven hedge" objections:
1) "Tolkien and Lewis confine the pursuit of magic as a safe and lawful occupation to wholly imaginary realms, with place-names like Middle-earth and Narnia worlds that cannot be located either in time or in space with reference to our own world, and which stand outside Judeo-Christian salvation history and divine revelation. By contrast, Harry Potter lives in a fictionalized version of our own world that is recognizable in time and space, in a country called England (which is at least nominally a Christian nation), in a timeframe of our own era."
I beg to differ on this point to an extent. unto itself. While the land of wizards is located within our world, it is magically concealed so that it is very much a world unto itself. "Lord of the Rings" takes place prehistoric England-- in this world. While Narnia is very much its own world, there are instances of people from Narnia and, of course, people from are world, crossing the
boundary. A prime example of this is "The Silver Chair." There are many places where Narnia and this world intersect-- the wardrobe, the Wood Between the Worlds, the cave in "Prince Caspian", etc. The "hedge" also points out that both worlds take place outside Judeo-Christian revelation. Well, since "Lord of the Rings" is supposed to take place in this world, isn't that somewhat arguable?
2) "Reinforcing the above point, in Tolkiens and Lewiss fictional worlds where magic is
practiced, the existence of magic is an openly known reality of which the inhabitants of those worlds are as aware as we are of rocket science even if most of them might have as little chance of actually encountering magic as most of us would of riding in the space shuttle. By contrast, Harry Potter lives in a world in which magic is a secret, hidden reality acknowledged openly only among a magical elite, a world in which (as in our world) most people apparently believe there is no such thing as magic."
As I've said before, they world of "Harry Potter" is very much a world unto itself, and magic is known within that world. Do you expect magic of Narnia to be known or believed in this world? And, apparently, in "Lord of the Rings" all the knowledge of magic in this world is lost throughout the ages. The magic in "Harry Potter" is also very scientific, very much "say gibberish Latin word" and "so and so happens".
3) Tolkien and Lewis confine the pursuit of magic as a safe and lawful occupation to
characters who are numbered among the supporting cast, not the protagonists with whom the reader is primarily to identify. By contrast, Harry Potter, a student of wizardry, is the title character and hero of his novels."
I beg to differ. Lucy, a main character uses a spell to turn the Duffers visible in "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader." Susan, a main character, uses a magic horn throughout "The Chronicles of Narnia". And I think it is debatable wether Gandalf is a supporting character or not-- he could definitely be considered a main character. And besides, does it really matter if its only the supporting characters who use magic? If theyre protagonists, and well-written, theres just as much a chance that the readers will sympathize with them.
4) "Reinforcing the above point, Tolkien and Lewis include cautionary threads in which exposure to magical forces proves to be a corrupting influence on their protagonists: Frodo is almost consumed by the great Ring; Lucy and Digory succumb to temptation and use magic in ways they shouldnt. By contrast, the practice of magic is Harry Potters salvation from his horrible relatives and from virtually every adversity he must overcome."
There are examples of corrupting magic in Harry Potter. One is the Mirror of Erised a mirror that allows the looker-on to see what their heart desires most. Harry discovers it in the first book, and, seeing his parents in the mirror, comes back night after night to look at them, becoming obsessed. One night, he is found by Professor Dumbledore, who tells him the truth about the mirror:
Now, can you tell me what the Mirror of Erised shows us all?
Harry shook his head.
Let me explain. The happiest man on earth would be able to use the Mirror of Erised like a normal mirror, that is, he would look into it and see himself exactly as he is. Does that help?
Harry thought. Then he said slowly, It shows us what we want. . . whatever we want. . .
Yes and no, said Dumbledore quietly. It shows us nothing more than the deepest, most desperate desire of our hearts. You, who have never known your family, see them standing around you. Ronald Weasley, who has always be overshadowed by his brothers, sees himself standing alone, the best of them all. However, this mirror will give us neither knowledge nor truth. Men have wasted away before it, entrance by what they have seen, or been driven mad, not knowing if what it shows is real or even possible.
The Mirror will be moved to a new home tomorrow, Harry, and I must ask you to not go looking for it again. If you ever do run across it, you will now be prepared. It does not do to dwell on dreams Harry and forget to live.
Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone, Pg. 214, Scholastic Edition
As for Harry being "saved" from his relatives by magic, couldnt I also say the same thing about the Pevinsives? In The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe theyre saved from war-torn England and go through a magic wardrobe to a land overflowing with magic where they are the fufillment of a prophecy. And magic doesnt save Harry from every adversary that he must overcome It is made clear over and over again
that it is his bravery and good heart that saves him. Magic is only used as a tool.
5) "Tolkien and Lewis confine the pursuit of magic as a safe and lawful occupation to characters who are not in fact human beings (for although Gandalf and Coriakin are human in appearance, we are in fact told that they are, respectively, a semi-incarnate angelic being and an earthbound star.) In Harry Potters world, by contrast, while some human beings (called Muggles) lack the capacity for magic, others (including Harrys true parents and of course Harry himself) do not."
Is Lucy not a human? Is Susan not a human? Is Dr. Corneilius or the Bard at the Gate not human? Whatever Tom Bombadil is I'm almost certain he's not a Maiar-- and neither are the elves-- they're a different species from humans, but they're just as earthbound. Not to mention, doesn't Isildur-- a human-- place a curse on those kings who refuse to help him, trapping them in a mountain? A curse which only Aragorn can undo?
6) "Reinforcing the above point, Tolkien and Lewis emphasize the pursuit of magic as the safe and lawful occupation of characters who, in appearance, stature, behavior, and role, embody a certain wizard archetype white-haired old men with beards and robes and staffs, mysterious, remote, unapproachable, who serve to guide and mentor the heroes. Harry Potter, by contrast, is a wizard-in-training who is in many crucial respects the peer of many of his avid young readers, a boy with the same problems and interests that they have."
I don't see how Galadriel, Tom Bombadil, Isildur, or anyone else in "The Lord of the Rings" who practices magic besides Gandalf and Saruman fit this wizard archetype. Lucy and Susan in "The Chronicles of Narnia" certainly are the peers of many of the readers, go to school, etc.
7) "Finally, Tolkien and Lewis devote no narrative space to the process by which their magical specialists acquire their magical prowess. Although study may be assumed as part of the back story, the wizard appears as a finished product with powers in place, and the reader is not in the least encouraged to think about or dwell on the process of acquiring prowess in magic. In the Harry Potter books, by contrast, Harrys acquisition of mastery over magical forces at the Hogwarts School of Wizardry and Witchcraft is a central organizing principle in the story-arc of the series as a whole."
To think of Harry as an example to readers to go out and try to get magical power is ridiculous, because, by the rules of the story itself, they can't. Its made very clear that to be a wizard you have to have the gene. Its not something you can tap into. Not to mention that the Rowling describes most classes as -- "and they said "Wingardim Leviosa" and the feather flew up" or something along those lines. Any person who tries Wingardium Leviosa will see that nothing happens. And while the learning process isn't covered in "The Lord of the Rings" or "The Chronicles of Narnia", it is at least made clear in Narnia that magic is learnable (Dr. Corneilius.)
-- To make two points on certain parts of the rest of the article (as this post is already long enough) the writer of the article said that Lucy using the spellbook to spy on her friends was proof that the spellbook wasn't meant for her to use. This doesn't make sense, as it is said in the book that any little girl is able to use the book-- surely that's not just by accident? They also point out that the use of astrology in "Prince Caspian" is simply a pointer to the use of astrology by the Magi. Is the same true of the two times that astrology is used by the centaurs in "Prince Caspian" and "The Last Battle"?
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Fletcher again.
