The official blog of the American Chesterton Society where we talk about anything Chesterton talks about or writes about; including everything and everything else.
"You should not look a gift universe in the mouth." GKC
The following confusing and contradictory passage is from the recent article of Mrs. Brown:
“Magic” is Rowling’s fictional name for “human ability,” neither good nor bad, except as to how one chooses to use it. The students must study and learn how to use their talents and skills for a purpose.
And does any child fail to recognize the Harry Potter stories as stories? Does any child read Jack and the Beanstalk and begin to wonder if they can use magic beans to solve their problems?
Real witches, wizards and magic are not tame or harmless. Real witchcraft is evil and to be avoided. Real witchcraft is nothing to be dabbled in. And there are those who, without guidance, may go astray reading Harry Potter.
So what is a book worth if even educated and intelligent adults need guidance not to go astray when reading it? What dangers are there lurking for unguided or improperly guided kids? And why do we need to be guided anyway to read books?
It seems, Harry Potter can be defended only by total disregard for the meaning of plain facts, words and reason.
The whole point of Chesterton's assualt on Modernity was to fight against such mental breakdown in all areas of life, from journalism, politics, science to literature and novel writing.
Some people have written guide books for the Bible. Gee, who would need a guide book for the Bible, written by God himself? No one can go astray reading the Bible, can they?
Bible is not an ordinary book in the sense of a trashy penny novel. One may need guidance to more fully explore the Bible and the truths it conveys, but, in general, there will be a rather positive effect even if one reads it without any guidance. Also, the guidance requires "authority", and that is one of the functions of the Magisterium, being the highest organ of such authority.
If we need to be guided to properly understand a trashy penny dreadful, (most of which Chesterton loved to read and didn't mind at all), there is a serious problem -- not with us, but with the penny dreadful, its author, and possibly with a person who is elevating such "trash" into the status of a profound and serious book like the Bible.
It seems to me though that it is adults who do not have a childlike heart who do not see the difference between the fairy tale magic and the real world occult. For it is they that seem to be making the biggest fuss over this book.
But does that make Harry Potter worth defending?
It also opens the question in my mind that has been floating around as long as I've read this blog: Would Chesterton, and for that matter Lewis, Tolkien or George MacDonald, like the Harry Potter series?
Some of you may have your thoughts on this, and I am working on finishing the Philosophers Stone so I can give my thoughts on that but that has been a debate I have been itching to have with some of you for a while.
But like all debates, and Anon above needs to remember this: Don't let a quarrel get in the way of a good argument.
Mrs. Brown, respectfully, what do you expect if there is a deep controversy about this even among Chestertonians? We are not talking about you. You may be the nicest lady and mother, and you probably are, but you are the "public defender" of Potter, and the debate is about the reasonability of your defense of Rowling.
Gramps, if a savage reads the Bible for the first time at face value, with an open mind and heart, whatever he picks up will definitely have a positive effect on him. Heresy is introduced later by sophisticated prigs who think they know better than to seek authoritative guidance.
Adam, (re "It seems to me though that it is adults who do not have a childlike heart who do not see the difference between the fairy tale magic and the real world occult..."). I say neither Lewis, Tolkien or George MacDonald,or GKC would have liked Rowling's magical world, because it is confusing. So take Mrs. Brown's first fallacy -- “Magic” is Rowling’s fictional name for “human ability,... -- Would you say the Muggles are not "human" because they don't have the "magic" ability? Are wizards "super-human" and Muggles "sub-human'? And what is a child (even with guidance) to make of such confused fantasy world? (Remember, the same argument was used for racial theories and slavery.) So is it OK to stick the Muggle's head into the toilet? Or is it OK for a wizard to marry a Muggle?
Mr. Anon, a savage does not read the Bible with any kind of heart sincere or otherwise. The savage is an illiterate (or "preliterate"). If he is taught the Bible by a missionary, he will adopt the prejudices of the missionary. When he is taught literacy, he is no longer a savage. ~ Gramps
Mr. Gramps, point well taken about real savages. Still, the root of the word has to do with being wild and untamed or uncivilized, not necessarily illiterate.
In wider sense there have been and there are many individuals or "primitives" who have been taught how to read, yet don't have "education", as Chesterton was well aware. Many of them have never read the Bible. So take a person like that. The ignorance of the masses is increasing, the fact also well understood by Chesterton, who, I fancy would quite agree with Shaw on this.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." -- Mark Twain
"The only time my education was interrupted was when I was in school." -- George Bernard Shaw
My schooling not only failed to teach me what it professed to be teaching, but prevented me from being educated to an extent which infuriates me when I think of all I might have learned at home by myself. George Bernard Shaw
"Still, the root of the word has to do with being wild and untamed or uncivilized, not necessarily illiterate."
Definition by etymology can be interesting, but it is not authoratative. Savages are not particularly wild although they may be warlike. Savages are not untamed although their concepts of what is tame may differ from ours. Savages are uncivilized, it is true, but that is like saying farmers are un-urbanized. Literacy makes philosophy and theology possible. Without literacy there can only be folktales and myths passed along by word of mouth. ~ Gramps
I would agree with you that CSL, JRRT, GMD & GKC would not like the Harry Potter series. I don't think because of the common controversy, but just at a literary level. Rowlings dumbs down for the kids, and that is just horrific. Lewis, Tolkien, MacDonald all talked to the readers in there children fantasy but never as if the reader couldn't understand.
In a different vain of this topic. Another Chestertonian author I prefer once wrote about his fantasy world.
"In this I owe a debt to G.K. Chesterton, who pointed out on many occasions that the fantastic, when looked at properly, is much less interesting (and a lot less fantastic) than the everyday. Take Magical lights, for example, A wizard snaps his finger and light appears. Where's the fun in that? He's only doing what wizards do." -Terry Pratchet "The Art of the Discworld"
I read that a few years ago and then went and saw the Prisoner of Azkabam in the theatre and thought, there is nothing fantastic about the Harry Potter world, the wizards and witches never do anything with out magic. Where's the fun in that.
"I would agree with you that CSL, JRRT, GMD & GKC would not like the Harry Potter series. I don't think because of the common controversy, but just at a literary level."
The literary quality or appeal, like taste, is an arguable thing. Rowling's style may not be appealing to literary aficionados, yet she has sold millions of books, so her style is good enough for the dumbed-down masses, who, one must conclude, are lured to her books mainly by the "magic" she flaunts. It's like the appeal of sex or pornography, it doesn't have to be refined or artistic to draw those who are drawn by such things, (all humans are to some degree), as the movie and TV industry knows very well. But the lure of magic is even more insidious than the lure of sex, and it can be wrapped in white clothes even if its soul is dark as hell. Why such a recent upsurge of magic and supernatural in the movie industry?
"G.K. Chesterton, who pointed out on many occasions that the fantastic, when looked at properly, is much less interesting (and a lot less fantastic) than the everyday. ... there is nothing fantastic about the Harry Potter world, the wizards and witches never do anything with out magic. Where's the fun in that."
A very good and quick point. Demonstrating why Chesterton didn't dabble in magic and occult literature, and clearly proving why he would not have been ecstatic about Harry Potter.
We do not know what Chesterton would have said about Harry Potter, just as we do not know what he would have said about George W Bush. What we do know is that he loved fairy tales, and these were full of magic. Cinderella went to the ball in a pumpkin transormed by magic into a carriage. Chesterton loved George Macdonald, and thought "The Princess and the Goblin" was unsurpassed story telling. Chesterton gave his opinions on most of the controversies that still vex us, but there are things he didn't discuss and none of us can speak for him. But more important than Chesterton's opinions on this or that is Chesterton as a teacher of "How to Think" and "How to Argue." ~ Gramps
"We do not know what Chesterton would have said about Harry Potter..."
Mr. Gramps, So why do many people read Chesterton, why do they go to Chesterton conferences, publish Chesterton magazines and blogs or form Chesterton societies? These people have accepted Chesterton's authority of a great & insightful thinker, and thus they want to apply his insights & arguments to solving our modern problems and controversies!
Actually, Chesterton did discuss magic in its several forms in many of his works and essays, and it is baffling why many who have access to these works, and have presumably read them, could possibly misconstrue what Chesterton meant in each case, and what Rowling supposedly means.
"But more important than Chesterton's opinions on this or that is Chesterton as a teacher of "How to Think" and "How to Argue."
I couldn't agree more. The current controversy revolves around the misunderstanding about the meaning or meanings of magic, including its etymology, which the defenders of Rowling seem to have mixed up, (or they accept Rowling's mixed up notion of magic), or which they possibly ignore, because it is otherwise supposedly a "good story" in their opinion. (That's a very cheap end of any story or argument.) Chesterton repeatedly attacked the modern mental or intellectual breakdown in all forms of literature, and he would have had no truck with modern confused novels just as he had no kind words about such novels in his time.
Mr. Anon, they have not. Chesterton has no authority beyond his ability to marshall facts and to reason logically from those facts in support of his claims. In these skills he is unsurpassed by anyone in recent times. That is why he is read and discussed. But he is not infallible. He is not an oracle. And he certainly is not an encyclopedia in which we look up answers. ~ Gramps
Mr. Gramps, I wrote "these" people, indicating all fans and "fanatics" of Chesterton. Otherwise what you are saying is a blatant controversy - Why would they all become such "devotees" of Chesterton and waste a lot of time trying to understand him, quote him, etc. ? And if these people accept his opinion as such, than he has become an important authority to them. Just read some of the glorification of Chesterton, even on this blog. Some of it sounds almost cultish. (And I mean pure faith of a blind devotee.)
"Chesterton has no authority beyond his ability... But he is not infallible."
Chesterton is one of the most logically consistent thinkers, a real rarity among thinker, on par with Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas in this respect. Even these giants were not infallible, none of us are, but they were way above the knowledge and logical consistency of an average (mostly confused) human being.
That is why one should be very cautious about dismissing Chesterton's views on anything. A more prudent attitude is not to dismiss what Chesterton is saying just because one may disagree, most likely due to one's own ignorance of the problem.
"That is why one should be very cautious about dismissing Chesterton's views on anything."
We began with the statement that we know what Chesterton's views would have been about Harry Potter. We end with a caution about dismissing his views. Wow. ~ Gramps PS. I'll look up an article I wrote years ago on the subject of "Chesterton as the Answer Man." Then I'll see if I can get Nancy to post it here.
"We began with the statement that we know what Chesterton's views would have been about Harry Potter. We end with a caution about dismissing his views. Wow."
How, pray, is this inconsistent or contradictory? What should one expect on a Chesterton blog? Or having established what Chesterton's view about Potter would likely have been, who is inconsistent and contradictory?
"Chesterton as the Answer Man." -- Will be glad to read it.
Chesterton is an awesome writer, and as to whether he would have liked the books is really anyone's guess, since we do not have him here to make his statement. Having said that, my own personal opinion of HP is that it is not very well written. Every "expert" who has talked about states it is like C.S. Lewis and on the other hand we can not really compare it to C.S. Lewis because that wouldn't be fair. Rowlings is an okay writer with a disturbing dark tale that even bothers me as a Catholic, a fan of children's literature, and a writer.
Posts
The following confusing and contradictory passage is from the recent article of Mrs. Brown:
ReplyDelete“Magic” is Rowling’s fictional name for “human ability,” neither good nor bad, except as to how one chooses to use it. The students must study and learn how to use their talents and skills for a purpose.
And does any child fail to recognize the Harry Potter stories as stories? Does any child read Jack and the Beanstalk and begin to wonder if they can use magic beans to solve their problems?
Real witches, wizards and magic are not tame or harmless. Real witchcraft is evil and to be avoided. Real witchcraft is nothing to be dabbled in. And there are those who, without guidance, may go astray reading Harry Potter.
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=24615&page=2
So what is a book worth if even educated and intelligent adults need guidance not to go astray when reading it? What dangers are there lurking for unguided or improperly guided kids? And why do we need to be guided anyway to read books?
It seems, Harry Potter can be defended only by total disregard for the meaning of plain facts, words and reason.
The whole point of Chesterton's assualt on Modernity was to fight against such mental breakdown in all areas of life, from journalism, politics, science to literature and novel writing.
Some people have written guide books for the Bible. Gee, who would need a guide book for the Bible, written by God himself? No one can go astray reading the Bible, can they?
ReplyDeleteBible is not an ordinary book in the sense of a trashy penny novel. One may need guidance to more fully explore the Bible and the truths it conveys, but, in general, there will be a rather positive effect even if one reads it without any guidance. Also, the guidance requires "authority", and that is one of the functions of the Magisterium, being the highest organ of such authority.
ReplyDeleteIf we need to be guided to properly understand a trashy penny dreadful, (most of which Chesterton loved to read and didn't mind at all), there is a serious problem -- not with us, but with the penny dreadful, its author, and possibly with a person who is elevating such "trash" into the status of a profound and serious book like the Bible.
Oh dear,
ReplyDeleteNow we're talking about me instead of about Chesterton.
I wonder if Anon feels the same way about my guides to The Blue Cross and St. Francis? I hope not.
Meanwhile, let us just say this: Chesterton loved a good story. Potter is a good story. That's why many Chestertonians like Potter. End of story.
It seems to me though that it is adults who do not have a childlike heart who do not see the difference between the fairy tale magic and the real world occult. For it is they that seem to be making the biggest fuss over this book.
ReplyDeleteBut does that make Harry Potter worth defending?
It also opens the question in my mind that has been floating around as long as I've read this blog: Would Chesterton, and for that matter Lewis, Tolkien or George MacDonald, like the Harry Potter series?
Some of you may have your thoughts on this, and I am working on finishing the Philosophers Stone so I can give my thoughts on that but that has been a debate I have been itching to have with some of you for a while.
But like all debates, and Anon above needs to remember this: Don't let a quarrel get in the way of a good argument.
Adam
"there will be a rather positive effect even if one reads it [the Bible] without any guidance."
ReplyDeleteI'd say the main effect of reading the Bible without guidance is heresy.
~ Gramps
Mrs. Brown, respectfully, what do you expect if there is a deep controversy about this even among Chestertonians? We are not talking about you. You may be the nicest lady and mother, and you probably are, but you are the "public defender" of Potter, and the debate is about the reasonability of your defense of Rowling.
ReplyDeleteGramps, if a savage reads the Bible for the first time at face value, with an open mind and heart, whatever he picks up will definitely have a positive effect on him. Heresy is introduced later by sophisticated prigs who think they know better than to seek authoritative guidance.
Adam, (re "It seems to me though that it is adults who do not have a childlike heart who do not see the difference between the fairy tale magic and the real world occult..."). I say neither Lewis, Tolkien or George MacDonald,or GKC would have liked Rowling's magical world, because it is confusing. So take Mrs. Brown's first fallacy -- “Magic” is Rowling’s fictional name for “human ability,... -- Would you say the Muggles are not "human" because they don't have the "magic" ability? Are wizards "super-human" and Muggles "sub-human'? And what is a child (even with guidance) to make of such confused fantasy world? (Remember, the same argument was used for racial theories and slavery.) So is it OK to stick the Muggle's head into the toilet? Or is it OK for a wizard to marry a Muggle?
Mr. Anon, a savage does not read the Bible with any kind of heart sincere or otherwise. The savage is an illiterate (or "preliterate"). If he is taught the Bible by a missionary, he will adopt the prejudices of the missionary. When he is taught literacy, he is no longer a savage.
ReplyDelete~ Gramps
Mr. Gramps, point well taken about real savages. Still, the root of the word has to do with being wild and untamed or uncivilized, not necessarily illiterate.
ReplyDeleteIn wider sense there have been and there are many individuals or "primitives" who have been taught how to read, yet don't have "education", as Chesterton was well aware. Many of them have never read the Bible. So take a person like that. The ignorance of the masses is increasing, the fact also well understood by Chesterton, who, I fancy would quite agree with Shaw on this.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." -- Mark Twain
"The only time my education was interrupted was when I was in school." -- George Bernard Shaw
My schooling not only failed to teach me what it professed to be teaching, but prevented me from being educated to an extent which infuriates me when I think of all I might have learned at home by myself. George Bernard Shaw
"Still, the root of the word has to do with being wild and untamed or uncivilized, not necessarily illiterate."
ReplyDeleteDefinition by etymology can be interesting, but it is not authoratative. Savages are not particularly wild although they may be warlike. Savages are not untamed although their concepts of
what is tame may differ from ours. Savages are uncivilized, it is true, but that is like saying farmers are un-urbanized. Literacy makes philosophy and theology possible. Without literacy there can only be folktales and myths passed along by word of mouth.
~ Gramps
Anon,
ReplyDeleteI would agree with you that CSL, JRRT, GMD & GKC would not like the Harry Potter series. I don't think because of the common controversy, but just at a literary level. Rowlings dumbs down for the kids, and that is just horrific. Lewis, Tolkien, MacDonald all talked to the readers in there children fantasy but never as if the reader couldn't understand.
In a different vain of this topic. Another Chestertonian author I prefer once wrote about his fantasy world.
"In this I owe a debt to G.K. Chesterton, who pointed out on many occasions that the fantastic, when looked at properly, is much less interesting (and a lot less fantastic) than the everyday.
Take Magical lights, for example, A wizard snaps his finger and light appears. Where's the fun in that? He's only doing what wizards do."
-Terry Pratchet "The Art of the Discworld"
I read that a few years ago and then went and saw the Prisoner of Azkabam in the theatre and thought, there is nothing fantastic about the Harry Potter world, the wizards and witches never do anything with out magic. Where's the fun in that.
Adam
"I would agree with you that CSL, JRRT, GMD & GKC would not like the Harry Potter series. I don't think because of the common controversy, but just at a literary level."
ReplyDeleteThe literary quality or appeal, like taste, is an arguable thing. Rowling's style may not be appealing to literary aficionados, yet she has sold millions of books, so her style is good enough for the dumbed-down masses, who, one must conclude, are lured to her books mainly by the "magic" she flaunts. It's like the appeal of sex or pornography, it doesn't have to be refined or artistic to draw those who are drawn by such things, (all humans are to some degree), as the movie and TV industry knows very well. But the lure of magic is even more insidious than the lure of sex, and it can be wrapped in white clothes even if its soul is dark as hell. Why such a recent upsurge of magic and supernatural in the movie industry?
"G.K. Chesterton, who pointed out on many occasions that the fantastic, when looked at properly, is much less interesting (and a lot less fantastic) than the everyday. ... there is nothing fantastic about the Harry Potter world, the wizards and witches never do anything with out magic. Where's the fun in that."
A very good and quick point. Demonstrating why Chesterton didn't dabble in magic and occult literature, and clearly proving why he would not have been ecstatic about Harry Potter.
We do not know what Chesterton would have said about Harry Potter, just as we do not know what he would have said about George W Bush. What we do know is that he loved fairy tales, and these were full of magic. Cinderella went to the ball in a pumpkin transormed by magic into a carriage. Chesterton loved George Macdonald, and thought "The Princess and the Goblin" was unsurpassed story telling. Chesterton gave his opinions on most of the controversies that still vex us, but there are things he didn't discuss and none of us can speak for him. But more important than Chesterton's opinions on this or that is Chesterton as a teacher of "How to Think" and "How to Argue."
ReplyDelete~ Gramps
"We do not know what Chesterton would have said about Harry Potter..."
ReplyDeleteMr. Gramps, So why do many people read Chesterton, why do they go to Chesterton conferences, publish Chesterton magazines and blogs or form Chesterton societies? These people have accepted Chesterton's authority of a great & insightful thinker, and thus they want to apply his insights & arguments to solving our modern problems and controversies!
Actually, Chesterton did discuss magic in its several forms in many of his works and essays, and it is baffling why many who have access to these works, and have presumably read them, could possibly misconstrue what Chesterton meant in each case, and what Rowling supposedly means.
"But more important than Chesterton's opinions on this or that is Chesterton as a teacher of "How to Think" and "How to Argue."
I couldn't agree more. The current controversy revolves around the misunderstanding about the meaning or meanings of magic, including its etymology, which the defenders of Rowling seem to have mixed up, (or they accept Rowling's mixed up notion of magic), or which they possibly ignore, because it is otherwise supposedly a "good story" in their opinion. (That's a very cheap end of any story or argument.) Chesterton repeatedly attacked the modern mental or intellectual breakdown in all forms of literature, and he would have had no truck with modern confused novels just as he had no kind words about such novels in his time.
“people have accepted Chesterton's authority.”
ReplyDeleteMr. Anon, they have not. Chesterton has no authority beyond his ability to marshall facts and to reason logically from those facts in support of his claims. In these skills he is unsurpassed by anyone in recent times. That is why he is read and discussed. But he is not infallible. He is not an oracle. And he certainly is not an encyclopedia in which we look up answers.
~ Gramps
“people have accepted Chesterton's authority.”
ReplyDeleteMr. Gramps, I wrote "these" people, indicating all fans and "fanatics" of Chesterton. Otherwise what you are saying is a blatant controversy - Why would they all become such "devotees" of Chesterton and waste a lot of time trying to understand him, quote him, etc. ? And if these people accept his opinion as such, than he has become an important authority to them. Just read some of the glorification of Chesterton, even on this blog. Some of it sounds almost cultish. (And I mean pure faith of a blind devotee.)
"Chesterton has no authority beyond his ability... But he is not infallible."
Chesterton is one of the most logically consistent thinkers, a real rarity among thinker, on par with Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas in this respect. Even these giants were not infallible, none of us are, but they were way above the knowledge and logical consistency of an average (mostly confused) human being.
That is why one should be very cautious about dismissing Chesterton's views on anything. A more prudent attitude is not to dismiss what Chesterton is saying just because one may disagree, most likely due to one's own ignorance of the problem.
"That is why one should be very cautious about dismissing Chesterton's views on anything."
ReplyDeleteWe began with the statement that we know what Chesterton's views would have been about Harry Potter. We end with a caution about dismissing his views. Wow.
~ Gramps
PS. I'll look up an article I wrote years ago on the subject of "Chesterton as the Answer Man." Then I'll see if I can get Nancy to post it here.
"We began with the statement that we know what Chesterton's views would have been about Harry Potter. We end with a caution about dismissing his views. Wow."
ReplyDeleteHow, pray, is this inconsistent or contradictory? What should one expect on a Chesterton blog? Or having established what Chesterton's view about Potter would likely have been, who is inconsistent and contradictory?
"Chesterton as the Answer Man." -- Will be glad to read it.
Chesterton is an awesome writer, and as to whether he would have liked the books is really anyone's guess, since we do not have him here to make his statement. Having said that, my own personal opinion of HP is that it is not very well written. Every "expert" who has talked about states it is like C.S. Lewis and on the other hand we can not really compare it to C.S. Lewis because that wouldn't be fair. Rowlings is an okay writer with a disturbing dark tale that even bothers me as a Catholic, a fan of children's literature, and a writer.
ReplyDelete