The week before last I was visiting friends when I saw upon their table a newspaper opened to an editorial entitled "Harry Potter an allegory for war on terror?" As a fan of the Harry Potter series I was intrigued. It starts out like a lot of reviews of both the books and the movies. Why are they so popular, and isn’t it interesting how things keep getting darker and more serious as the series continues? Then begins the comparison to times past, namely the Second World War, comparing Fudge to Chamberlain, who turned a blind eye to the ultimate harm that Hitler could generate. True, I can see comparisons there, Voldemort set on destroying anyone he does not see as pure blood, just as Hitler tried to purify his race. Intolerance and lack of respect and caring for other human beings does seem to be a standard theme, and togetherness, compassion and understanding are the lessons to be learned. Harry can only succeed in his quest by possessing these qualities. But then Mr. Pinkerton, author of the essay, steps into the realm of absurdity, and I couldn't help but laugh at the ridiculousness of it. He says that Harry Potter is about stopping the Muslims. He does not say it is about stopping intolerance and violence between those who think differently then each other. No, it’s about the Muslims, which to me seems short sighted and lacks the sense of compassion and understanding that Harry must gain to reach his goal. The debate about terrorism is a real one and needs to be considered seriously, but it becomes ridiculous when compared to the Harry Potter books.
"But what's not possible to dispute is that we are in a war now. There are people around the world who are waking up every morning determined to kill us. Some are undoubtedly already here in America. And that's the reason, of course, so many of us were opposed to McCain's ill-fated immigration bill; if we are in a death-struggle against unknown enemies, we need to close the borders immediately - not waiting for a "comprehensive" approach pleasing to those who still strangely hanker for unrestricted transit across frontiers.”
What does this statement really have to do with Harry Potter? I do not think J.K. Rowling’s intention was to create appeal for intense patriotism. No, I think her intention was quite the opposite. Isn’t the shutting down of borders, restricting citizenship, and creating an atmosphere of devotion to “US” Voldemort’s goal?
“When kids see "Harry Potter," they should be thinking first about defending their country, and their civilization, against evildoers wielding weapons of mass destruction. After that's taken care of, they can then worry more about carbon dioxide.”
When children’s literature is suggested as propaganda to incite children to actually take up arms (the character’s in Harry Potter take up wands, but they are of age when this actually happens, before then they are protected, and discourage from using their magic for anything of the sort, and it’s fiction) in all seriousness and we are expected to not see the scary parallels of this proposition in the past, that is ridiculous. I wonder what Rowling would say to Pinkerton’s interpretation of her work? The jab at environmentalism is just icing on the cake.
No comments:
Post a Comment