My first adventure with Harry

I can remember when the Harry Potter debate first entered my consciousness. Children gave each other dirty looks, parents worried, and pastors mentioned it in sermons. The fans were obsessed, the adversaries were militant. So far as I could tell, it was a story about a boy wizard, somebody called Voldemort, and perhaps something about a snake. But, being as I was a devoted queen of Narnia and member of the Fellowship of the Ring, I soon blocked out most of the arguments and fan discussions. Honestly, I thought, what's the big deal?

Well, this past year, a certain fan infiltrated my own imagination, where I waited with Anne Eliot and died with Sydney Carton. Only this fan was different. Unlike the others, who were overcome by their emotions for the book, he loved it with good reason. Here was a someone who could best me at Dickens, Dostoevsky, Austen, and Keats, and who could throw in an in-depth discussion of Harry, Hermione, and Ron to boot. So intrigued was I, that I decided to give the books a chance and try to discern their real place on the spectrum of literature. Here are my observations.

I have to admit, my original question remains the same: what exactly IS the big deal? Don't get me wrong, there are several things I found enjoyable and promising, and if the rest of the series is as good as this one then Rowling will probably be in my list of top five current children's writers. But I do wish everyone would quit the hype. First and foremost to keep in mind about Harry Potter is that it is a children's novel. Thus, it ought not to take the place of adult literature in the minds of readers. In fact, this is my biggest gripe with the series, and I'm fair enough to see that it isn't Rowling's fault. Far too many people I have met this past week ask me first if I have read Harry Potter. "What?" I think, "None of the Greats matter to you? The highest you can soar is a modern children's novel?"

I think the greatest danger of Harry Potter is how it is used. People treat it as a substitute to the Great Books, not as a good book whose place is definitely beneath Tolkien and Wodehouse. Thus, I would never give Harry Potter to someone who does not like reading, or has a disease similar to it. Because Harry Potter does have many strengths, that person would far too easily set everything else aside and give the greatest literary prize to one of the seven novels. But if the person involved is a strong reader, who has a proper appreciation for the hierarchy of art, I see great benefit from reading Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

This benefit will not really come from the quality of the prose. Rowling's writing isn't bad, it's just not the inspirational sort which makes you want to write something immediately because words are running, or more appropriately, flying about in your brain. Her prose is good, just not the level of Lewis's The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. This does not mean we ought never to read the book; it simply means that Rowling's novel can be read in a day or less during a holiday, where a similar section of Tolkien would probably require far more time to digest.

But as to the story itself, I think Rowling can claim to be one of the best imaginative writers of our day. Rowling, whose impressive education includes a BA in Classics and French, has the sort of imagination only a well-trained mind can achieve. Unlike most other modern writers, whose works have the flavor of a very unconvincing plagiarized paper, Rowling does not try to steal the imagination of Lewis and Tolkien, or the myths that they communed with; rather, she participates in it, writing very much in community with her great predecessors. When you read most modern "imaginative" fiction, everything from mythical characters and to the so called "redeeming themes" seems false and ungenuine. In other words, because they do not really believe in those things in their own imaginations, their works remain unconvincing in the well-trained imagination.

But something that struck me when reading Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was how real everything seemed. From Dumbledore to Hagrid, the centaurs to the unicorns, the game of Quidditch to the mirror of Erised, everything in Rowling's novel was ingeniously convincing. When reading it I found that, despite the rather mediocre writing, the characters and world that Rowling was, not creating, but sharing, was a joy. It is here that Rowling gets closest to the two greatest fantasy writers, Lewis and Tolkien. We love Dumbledore for much the same reason we love Aslan, we cheer for Harry much like we cheer for Frodo: because the author does. We believe that Harry must win because Rowling herself believes in her imagination that good will triumph over evil. With her the same ideas and themes are not cliche; they are convincingly classic. A truly imaginative mind, which sees another aspect of the same fantastical ideas, is irresistible to everyone, both the soul starving for myth and soul who has suckled on the rage of Achilles and the magic of Merlin from infancy.

And so, I shall try to briefly name some themes and ideas which I find promising in Rowling's novel, ones which I hope she continues to develop. Though it was a bit hidden, I definitely felt that Rowling claimed that a knowledge of nature goes hand in hand with a knowledge of supernature. Up until Harry discovers he is a wizard, the world around him is sterile, dead, and thoroughly modern. But once he discovers the world to which he belongs, suddenly descriptions of rolling mountains, rich forests, and very dangerous creatures become available to us. The world "wild" is used many times in admiring terms. These, along with some other smaller things, have led me to believe that one of the claims of Harry Potter is that the two, nature and supernature, somehow belong together. It is no surprise, therefore, that Hogwarts, a place where students become more and more in touch with the supernatural, is in the midst of incredible natural beauty. And, conversely, that Uncle Vernon, who is completely out of touch with nature, has no knowledge or comprehension of the supernatural world around him. This I find a fascinating point to slip in, and I look for more of it with eagerness.

My next observation hinges on my previous example, that of Harry finding out about the world of wizards and magic. Rowling deals with this in a very mature and, I would almost say, sacramental way. The world of the wizards, where magical things happen and where everything ordinary is somehow elevated to a new level of importance, is there all the time. Yet though it would not be to hard to discover it, the Muggles (ordinary humans) block out any trace of it. This idea that there is a world right outside your door which you have only to open your eyes to see is very biblical, true, and refreshing to find in modern literature. Rowling walks the fine line between separated worlds and no difference between the worlds at all quite nicely.

I could probably go on with some more promising/good themes, but I have rambled on long enough. I must, however, take a moment to say that Rowling's characterization is quite good. The three main characters, Harry, Ron, and Hermione, were all unique and realistic. I give that of Hermione honorable mention, since Rowling manages to portray an intelligent girl who cares about her studies, and yet who can be a good friend and fun companion - no simple task in today's climate.

And so, on a parting note, I give something Dumbledore tells Harry at the end which particularly touched me. This is for you, mom:

"Your mother died to save you. If there is one thing Voldemort can't understand, it is love. He didn't realize that love as powerful as your mother's for you leaves its own mark. Not a scar, no visible sign...to have been loved so deeply, even though the person who loved us is gone, will give some protection forever. It is in your very skin."