Week 4

Why does the religious right in the US condemn fantasy, according to Cockrell (2004)? On what grounds does Cockrell defend fantasy literature, using Harry Potter as an example?

"If art may make the unreal real, it may also disguise the real as fiction, and teach witchcraft in the guise of fantasy." (Cockrell, 2004, p.28)

I wonder if J.K Rowling knew, all those years ago, that her young protagonist would inspire, hypnotise and divide the world? Did she see it coming, from those scribbles written in coffee shops, that one as brave and selfless as Harry Potter would cause such stirring debate?

Out of all the countries in the world, America is the one that has latched on to Harry Potter and is refusing to let go. From box-office blockbusters to themepark rides, to ingenius marketing campaigns and overzealous fans, America is partly to blame for the Harry Potter mania. But with the love comes an intense hate, for it is in America that religion has spoken out against the anti-Christian messages of the books, and with a vengeance. The question is asked, though, what is it about Harry Potter and not countless other famous fantasy novels (such as The Lord of the Rings), that has disturbed them?


Probably the biggest reason is accessibility. There is no doubt that The Boy Who Lived is everywhere. However, this is not the accessibility I mean. Cockrell (2004) has established that the primary difference between Harry Potter and past famous fantasies is the fact that Harry exists in our world. Whereas JRR Tolkien battled with similar idealogies in the Lord of the Rings, his story was confined to a world we could never reach and that existed only in our imagination. Harry lives in our time, he lives in a country we all know and in an area that you could find on a map - you can even visit the infamous platform 9 3/4's at Kings Cross Station in London! For his story is a low fantasy and quite possibly, one of the biggest weapons Satan might possess! Deborah J. Taub and Heather L. Servaty (quoted in Cockrell, 2004) have found that for many fundamentalist parents, fantasy equals deceit, and such storytelling would lead to lying and deceitful behavior.

There are several more reasons why Harry is frowned upon. It's been noted that Harry's infamous scar is in the shape of an 'S' (which can only stand for Satan), that the colours used are symbols of Ritual Magick, and so on (Cockrell, 2004). There are obviously dark events at play in the stories but another valuable difference within Harry Potter is the concept of good and evil, and perhaps this relates to it being a low fantasy. We witness Harry struggling with the demands of being the hero, we are there as he nearly gives in to the dark side, for Harry is human just like you and me. At the same time, we are presented with an extensive backstory for Voldemort, or Tom Riddle. I remember feeling sadness for Tom when I read the books, and this emotion only serves to blur the lines and make it appear all to real.
Furthermore, there is the concept of magic and often, things which cannot be seen. Does this make them less real? There are many things that are considered difficult to believe in the Bible, without faith, but they are accepted due to the nature of God/Satan. There is no reference to either in Harry Potter, instead there are just unanswered questions and a belief in the power of self.

JK Rowling writes that magic is a science that can be taught, and teach she does. A quick Google search can bring up references to hidden meanings and interpretations found within Harry Potter, and one of the largest is the concept of alchemy - the alchemy of science, nature and past knowledge. The title 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone' refers to this concept. Unfortunately, this is a double no-no, for not only is alchemy frowned upon by religion but (in America) this title was changed to "The Sorcerers Stone" instantly changing the tone of the book and providing enough negative connotation to pique the curiousity of fundamentalists.

Additionally, by linking magic with alchemy (and therefore science) she has in a way given a believable history for scientific thought (Cockrell, 2004).
Magic is inescapable, Cockrell (2004) has noted, for if magic wants you, it will have you. This terrifies parents, who view Harry as a troublemaker that encourages children to protest and fight. In a sense, I understand this point - for how many times was Harry told to stay home and not interfere, which he ignored, thus exaberating the situation and causing an unnecessary death (Sirius Black, if you can't remember!).


However, Cockrell (2004) has brought to light one of the true gems in JK Rowlings writings, and that is of perservering against intolerence. Those angry Muggles, the Durseleys, are terrified of magic, a concept they do not understand nor wish to, and the very word 'magic' is forbidden. At the other end of the spectrum, Tom Riddle's father had the same viewpoint, abandoning Tom's mother when he learnt of her magical status, thus giving Tom the perfect environment to fester his own hatreds and prejudices. The following quote of Cockrell (2004, p.29) perfectly episculates this "those who are too convinced that they know evil when they see it, and know it only by its difference to themselves, unwittingly create a greater evil". Surely such a message is one of the greatest defendents for fantasy literature?
While Harry may struggle from time to time, he is supported by his (much smarter) friends and the omniscient Dumbledore, and his decisions are always on the side of good, as is the case in children's fantasy. Harry Potter is "clearly moralistic and didactic and preach[es] against the evil use of magic" (Zipes, as cited in Cockrell, 2004, p. 26).

The underlying feature of Harry Potter is mystery, and it is acknowledgement of that which lies at the heart of magic. This plays with the concept of philosophy rather than religion, which perhaps is what frightens religious zealouts the most. At its core, the mystery is "God ... Harry frightens those who want the answers to be the same every time the question is asked. In Rowling's world, the answer is not the same" (Cockrell, 2004, p. 29). Whatever Harry may be, he incites fierce opinions on either side. Perhaps some view him as an evil ploy of Satan, sent to lead our children into the darkness. Personally, I view Harry as the Boy Who Taught Children To Read (again). And that can never be a bad thing.


REFERENCE LIST
Cockrell, A. (2004). Harry potter and the witch hunters: a social context for the attacks on harry potter. The Journal of American Culture. 29(1) 24-29