Posted on 09/12/2007 11:36:15 AM PDT by Antoninus
It took four books, but Voldemort, the most powerful of the dark wizards, is back. And his minions, the Death Eaters, couldn't be happier. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire tells the tale of how it happened--in about 750 pages. As with the previous novels in the series, the prose is generally crisp, the dialog is occasionally goofy, and the characters are wonderfully well drawn. Though quite a long book, the plot is tight, amusing and keeps you guessing. My only major criticism of the book as literary work regards the ending. As heroes go, Harry's main virtue in these final confrontations always seems to be dumb luck. Voldemort is a bit of a bungling super-villain for whom there's always an element of, "Oops, forgot about that." And not once but twice there were "Tuco" moments where the villain insists on lecturing the hero before doing away with him. "When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk." While I suppose these types of scenes aren't quite as trite for young readers who haven't seen them done over and over in dozens of books, TV shows, and movies, for me they were something of a let-down.
On the plus side, this was the first book in the series so far that made me laugh out loud a few times. Something about Hermione's idealistic but naive obsession with her Society for the Promotion of Elvish Welfare struck me as highly amusing. I suppose it was Ron's insistence on calling the organization "spew" that did it.
This was also the darkest book in the series so far. In it we are finally given a more concrete idea of what constitutes "dark" magic. Dark wizards apparently use the three "unforgivable curses"--the imperius curse, which causes the victim to do the spell-caster's bidding, the cruciatus curse which causes the victim horrible pain, and Avada Kedavra, the killing curse. Now this last one looked so much like the "abracadabra", the all purpose Vaudeville magician word, that I went out and looked it up. It seems that J. K. Rowling herself said that it is an Aramaic spell meaning "let the thing be destroyed." Now why she chose to use Aramaic--the language of our Lord--for this worst of all spells, and not Latin like she did for all the rest is beyond me.
Of course, it should be mentioned that Rowling's distinction between good magic and "dark magic" has never been accepted by the Catholic Church as Fr. Amorth, the famous exorcist, has repeatedly pointed out. That said, to this point in the series, all of the "good magic" has been of the comic-book variety--turning people into ferrets or making someone's nose grow tentacles. The "dark magic" is used exclusively by characters who are unmistakably evil.
One interesting little tid-bit in Goblet of Fire that may be thrown into the Christian-vs.-occult-influence debate happens at the Yule Ball. Up to this point, Christmas and Easter at Hogwarts have been mentioned at least in passing in every book. However, while the British are ever so much less stupid about actually calling the holidays by their proper names (unlike some in the U.S. who insist on calling them "Winter/Spring Break" or attempt to replace them with made-up PC holidays from the 1960s), Christmas and Easter have nonetheless lost almost all religious meaning to most Britons. And thus it has been at Hogwarts--Christmas in the first three books has been all about feasting, decorating, and getting presents. But for a split second in Goblet of Fire, Rowling has suits of armor singing, "O Come All Ye Faithful" (page 395). Given all the secular "holiday" tunes she could have inserted there, that she chose an obviously Christian one could be telling. Admittedly, it could also be complete coincidence.
Finally, the aspect of Goblet of Fire that I most appreciated was the introduction of the slimy, ethics-free journalist, Rita Skeeter. This character was such an on-target parody of a gossip reporter that you just know that J. K. Rowling was taking some shots at the media. That Ms. Skeeter worked hand-in-glove with the "Ministry of Magic"--a government agency populated with petty bureaucrats and place-seeking brown-noses--made the parody that much more brilliant and true to life.
Over all, as a work of fantasy fiction that has been marketed with young readers in mind, I found Goblet of Fire to be quite a foreboding read. The scene at the end where Wormtail mixes a potion in a graveyard for which the vital ingredients are a bone from Voldemort's father, some of Harry's blood, and Wormtail's own hand--which he, himself, promptly slices off--was border-line demonic. And for a book with so much discussion of death, I found it more than a little disconcerting that it lacked any notion of Judeo-Christian eschatology. So again, I will refrain from endorsing this book or the series as a whole as in any way suitable for younger Catholic readers until I see where all this is going.
Doomed to Hell, I guess.
Pinging potentially interested parties.
FWIW, taken from a previous thread, here are my reasons for reading the books, writing these reviews, and having the discussion:
1.) To evaluate the quality of the books as literary works.
2.) To determine if Rowling was inspired in any way by Christianity, the occult, or something else.
3.) And ultimately, to decide whether these books should be read by young Catholics, and if so, under what conditions.
I've been curious for several threads about what qualifications you have to decide this, ultimately.
I always enjoy your reviews. As I've said on previous threads, I believe Rowling inserts subtle Christian messages into the story. No, she isn't CS Lewis or JRR Tolkien. I don't want to give her too much credit for promoting Christianity -- that would definitely be a stretch.
However, the Dark Arts are about death, and suffering, and the loss of our free will. Voldemort's primary goal is to avoid death and cheat God of his judgement. Voldemort thinks that he is above Death -- he wants to live in our physical world forever, and has no desire for Heaven.
Rowling knows full well that this is not the proper track for anyone to be on.
Also, while it could be interpeted as a "diversity" message, the SPEW episode is the beginning of a trend toward reverance for life that starts in Hermione, but continues most strongly in Harry. In general, wizards tend to be parochial and centered on their own kind. Harry is different, and this is commented on by others in later books. There is a broad message in the book that all created life needs to be respected.
That's not what you said in post 4. You said, And ultimately, to decide whether these books should be read by young Catholics, and if so, under what conditions.
Please pardon my pointing it out, but that's a very sweeping statement, implying that whatever you decide is, ultimately, the one right decision for all young Catholics.
Your new statement conveys a very different concept. Of course, you have both the authority and the competence, as a parent, to determine the suitability of any literature for the young Catholics for whom you are responsible.
As in innumerable 19th century British novels, including quite respectable ones! ;-)
Funny. I was just thinking yesterday “I wonder how book 4 is going.” (No, really. I was reading one of the other really, really bizarre HP threads that were posted in the last couple of weeks.)
Actually, for a reason you already guessed: it's similarity to 'abrakadabra'. She is consistent in her use of puns.
I think Rowling was clever in a lot of different ways, but this was not one of them.
i appreciate reading your interpretations of the series and look forward to your future reviews. i am not relying on your opinions to decide whether my 13 yo should read the series [she is midway through book 4, right now],but i think this conversation is a worthwhile one. It may be that taxchick and others had these discussions long ago, and are defensive because of attitudes they have encountered along the way. You and i are latecomers to the series, and are interested in discussing these things now, with fresh eyes, at least from our perspective. i finished book 7 this past week. HURRY UP! ; )
Glad you’re still at it. I was actually wondering about you Monday, then I remembered you’d be up to GOF and that would take longer. I really respect the fact that you’re actually reading the books yourself, instead of regurgitating stuff from others or copping out with just the movies.
No, I think he's implying that whatever he decides is ultimately the one right decision for all young Catholics in his care that he has the authority over.
My son's 11. He's read them all. Oddly enough, he started (last year) with book 4 because he had seen the first three movies. I knew the ending was a little dark, but that was my judgment. (I also know what kind of movies and TV shows and cartoons he watches, so I know what he can -- and should be able to -- handle.)
A fair comment. Rowling is certainly not so explicit, so I overstated the point. Voldemort, however, is all about doing his own will, and not His will. Indeed, Voldemort recognizes no higher power, nor any system or rules. There is nothing and no one to judge Voldemort. It's all about power and what you can get away with. As the books make quite clear, this is not the proper way to interact with the world.
Given that Voldemort doesn't recognize anything beyond or above our own physical world, he therefore fears death more than anything. Death is just oblivion. There is nothing after that, so Voldemort wants to live forever in our physical world. He says "Death is the worst thing that can happen." But Rowing has an explicit reply: "There are worse things than death."
Lastly, it seemed to me -- unless I missed it -- that Rowling never really came out and said why the term Death Eater was chosen. Surely the overall aim is clear, but the term is, I would say, unexpected. But perhaps we are supposed to see it as a sort of "death cheater". Anyway, I see Voldemort's two great mistakes being: 1) he thinks that doing his own will is the highest good, and 2) he thinks that he can redeem himself from death, or gain mastery over death without anyone else's help. Rowling shows why these beliefs are wrong.
Actually, another thing occurs to me -- the statue at the Ministry of Magic ... no, wait, that's book five, so I won't talk about it in specifics, but it occurs to me that centaurs are magical, intelligent creatures, and they aren't represented there.
"Halfway down the hall was a fountain. A group of golden statues, larger than life-size, stood in the middle of a circular pool. Tallest of them all was a noble-looking wizard with his wand pointing straight up in the air. Grouped around him were a beautiful witch, a centaur, a goblin, and a house-elf. The last three were all looking adoringly up at the witch and wizard." OOTP, chapter 7, page 127
In a BBC interview, Rowling stated that the Death Eaters were originally the Knights of Walpurgis, a play on words for Walpurgis night (April 30th), the night before Saint Walpurga, the patron saint of protection against sorcery and witchcraft's feast day.
Possible spoiler alert-To read mouse over with your cursor:
I think the term death eaters was coined after Voldemort, took measures to conquer physical death. He did not share this info with his followers since he trusts no one, and is very secretive. IIRC, a prominent character in a later book explains this to HP.
I saw it more in the nature of "source criticism," which is bound to seem more critical than usual when the source is also the poster. In retrospect, the Religion Forum rules probably render the entire line of thought off limits.
I beg your pardon for being a nit-picker. I noticed that I've been doing that all over the place for the last several days. Maybe it's a sign that the students need a Language Arts blitz ... or that I needed a longer vacation.
I actually do find your reviews interesting and sometimes informative, so I don't why I was suddenly so rude.
Okay, thanks. Totally forgot about the centaur. Thought it was just an elf and a goblin,
Generally interesting. Not always informative, because I’ve read all the books and a great deal of commentary.
I didn’t think the S.P.E.W. story line was especially funny in this book. My favorite part of the book was the Quidditch World Cup; it’s just so British. And the tent that turned into a 1970’s apartment smelling of catboxes.
The fictional students are getting so *teenage* as the series progresses ... and so are mine! I wish I could send my oldest son to boarding school this year. I’d prefer one run by the Marine Corps, but a place with dragons would do in a pinch.
In citing what qualifications you may have to write this series of commentaries, I think it would be fair of you to point out what you do for a living.
It’s relevant.
sitetest
Could be. I have a 19th Century attitude toward books - if I like the characters, then the longer the better!
I've got "My Antonia" on CD right now. The guilt over refusing to read it in high school finally overcame me! It reminds me of Teddy Roosevelt's books about hunting and ranching.
When your oldest turns 18, he’ll be eligible to go to a place run by the Marine Corps. I suppose you could call it a boarding school ... it’s out-of-state, though. In South Carolina.
It’s relevent to the author’s qualifications as a literary reviewer, but not to his authority to pass a universal judgment from a moral standpoint.
Since he’s observed that he doesn’t plan to do that thing, everything is copacetic and entirely cebu.
Imagining my sons at P.I. can be very calming. They’re very good boys, really ... just *growing*.
Well - in that you were asked above, I thought it would have been reasonable to mention. You publish books, and in a similar genre. You have to read and evaluate manuscripts. Thus, your profession is a qualification for your reviews here of the Potter series.
I’ve been following your reviews, as well. We made the decision a long time ago not to encourage our guys to read these books. I read a bit of one of the early Potter books some years back. I guess I just wasn’t very impressed with the writing. Considering that many folks had expressed concerns about the content, and considering that I just didn’t think it was all that good, I didn’t feel like pursuing it much further in the face of lack of any enthusiasm on the part of our guys for the books anyway.
sitetest
I’d place Antoninus in among those publishers and writers who are trying to create literature that is appropriate precisely for a Catholic audience, and audiences that share a similar moral sensibility.
Thus, his view of the worthiness of the Potter series from a Catholic moral perspective is valued. At least by me.
sitetest
Dear sitetest,
My cat told me to stop having fits over precise meanings, but she’s gone to sleep, so ... “valued” is not the same as “authoritative.”
As Catholics, we have a Magisterium to decide things, ultimately, regarding faith and morals. Any other source can be useful, informative, valued, well-regarded, extremely interesting, edifying, correctly-spelled, elegantly-punctuated, or any other quality adjective that suits the source; however, that source cannot command the consciences of other Catholic faithful.
As Mr. Antoninus has not, except to the ferociously literal mind, shown any intention of wishing to do this, I will beam frabjously upon his value, and return to the kitchen, “My Antonia,” and a Mexican cookbook.
(Wednesday just woke up and called me a liberal. Shoulda typed faster or cut a few quality adjectives.)
:-)
Your cat is very wise.
“’valued’ is not the same as ‘authoritative.’”
That’s true. I’d even go so far as saying that “authoritative” isn’t the same as “authoritative,” at least when one considers that there may be different degrees and kinds of “authoritative.”
The authoritative voice of the Magisterium is different in kind from the authoritative voice of someone speaking about matters that fall under his professional purview.
However, my initial posting in this thread was regarding this post:
“’And ultimately, to decide whether these books should be read by young Catholics, and if so, under what conditions.’
“I’ve been curious for several threads about what qualifications you have to decide this, ultimately.”
I didn’t see anywhere in here a claim to magisterial authority. I guess, knowing what I know about Antoninus, I figured it was in part a claim to the authority he enjoys as a practitioner of his profession (to the degree that he might enjoy any authority).
And that’s why I mentioned to Antoninus that his professional work was also a qualification that he might have mentioned.
sitetest
Dear sitetest,
This could be an interesting discussion. However, although the mysterious Wednesday lacks Magisterial authority, she is likely to jump on my stomach at 3 a.m. and call me a lawyer if I defy her.
Buenas tardes to you!
No problem.
Okay.
HP Bookmark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.