Blogalogue

Reading 'Deathly Hallows' by Candlelight

Tuesday July 24, 2007

By Patrick Rothfuss

The day "Deathly Hallows" came out, I was a family vacation in the distant northern corner of Wisconsin. I found myself in a cabin with no internet. There was a small town with no library. No public computer terminals. No coffeeshop and no WIFI hotspot. No cell phone reception.

I considered sending my response to Orson's blog by homing pigeon or owl, but neither of those were available either.

But despite all the things this small town lacked, it had a bookstore. And that bookstore had a copy of the book.

On Saturday there was a thunderstorm and the power went out. After 30 minutes my laptop battery went dead.

So I pulled out book seven and read it by candlelight. Amazingly, the book worked just fine without DSL, WIFI, AC or DC.

This is why I love books.

Here is my belated post. It doesn't contain any spoilers about book seven, save this: Be not afraid.

Ars Ioco: The Art of the Joke

Orson's right. The Harry Potter series started dark.

However, I'll stick to my statement that the grim elements weren't really the focus of the book. Not only was most of the early violence cartoony at best, but the story itself was a nice mix of drama, action, mystery, and humor.

As the series has progressed, the humor has fallen by the wayside. And I have to say I miss it. Not because I have a problem with a grim story, but because reading raw tragedy is like eating a block of baker's chocolate: profoundly unpalatable.

The first Harry Potter book reminded me, at its best moments, of Roald Dahl's stories, like The BFG and Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Dahl was a master of writing stories that were grim and funny at the same time. His humor was witty, ridiculous, and brilliantly absurdist at times.

There were flashes of that in Rowling's first book. Harry's room under the stairs, the behavior of the Dursleys, and, my personal favorite, when he was given a toothpick as a Christmas present. All of it ridiculous and horrible and absurd. That is the root of humor. I smiled and chuckled. It was lovely.

I think the reason the later books lack humor is because Rowling changed her style. She moved more toward realism. When that happened, the ridiculous, absurd humor she had a knack for didn't fit into the story anymore.

Rowling can be witty. In book five, Lupin's advice on how to spot a werewolf was really clever. But it's the last truly funny bit I can remember. That means I've read almost a thousand pages without a memorable chuckle. That's too long.

Race and Racism

I've been having trouble with the problem of the house elves ever since they've been introduced.

After a lot of thought, I'm going to give Rowling the benefit of the doubt. I don't think her sole intention was to poke fun at silly progressive activists. A bit, perhaps, but not exclusively.

I do think she was attempting to turn her hand to satirical humor instead of the farcical humor she had a knack for in the early books.

For those of you are a little fuzzy on the difference, let me clarify. Farce is a fart. It's relatively easy to get a laugh while using it, but it doesn't have a lot of replay value. Satire, on the other hand, is a funny, funny knife that you can stab someone with over and over again. Unfortunately, it's about a hundred times more difficult to pull off, and if you mishandle it, you risk losing a few of your own fingers. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

And, unfortunately, Rowling seems to mishandle the knife here.

We seem to have two options when viewing Hermione's attempt to free the house elves:

1. We are supposed to assume that the house elves are happy as slaves.

This option leads to the quagmire that Orson already mentioned, with one notable addition. If happy servitude is a part of the elves' culture, that means Dobby isn't a progressive forward-thinking elf. He's a sell-out. A traitor.

And while that set of conclusions is sticky and unpleasant, I can't help but feel that the second option is just as bad, if not worse....

2. We are supposed to assume that Hermione is right.

This means, effectively, that Hermione knows what's best for these poor, stupid cretins. Their culture and beliefs are barbaric. Hers are correct and civilized.

Moral: If a group of people is doing something you think is wrong, you should change their society so they agree with you.

This is an especially insidious and poisonous type of thinking, especially for younger kids who are going to naturally identify with Hermione. Not only is she one of the protagonists, but she's presented as the smartest student at Hogwarts.

If it's acceptable for Hermione to force them to change one aspect of their lifestyle, why not others? Their normal mode of dress obviously offends her prudish sensibilities. Why shouldn't she force them into little suits? Come to think of it, she is making them hats. What if their broken English bothers her? Simple, teach them to speak your language properly. What if they worship some pagan elf-god? Better make sure you straighten that out too, Hermione. Make them worship the one true god, because obviously you know what's better for them than they do.

What it comes down to is this. Cultural relativism is a profoundly sticky wicket. Part of me wants to believe that that is the message Rowling was trying to convey. However, I don't think Hermionie's emancipation crusade is given enough serious airtime for the complicated nature of the issue to come to light.

Maybe in the final book. I'll add that to my list of hopeful wishes.

The Fourfold Path or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Tom

Oh no. I can't believe you threw down the Tom Bombadil gauntlet.

I don't want to tangent too far away from our topic of Harry Potter here, but some things simply cannot stand.

There are times when I feel like I'm fighting a one-man war, defending poor, misunderstood Tom Bombadil from the rest of the world. It's not simply because I'm fond of him, (though I am) and it's not because I feel he fits perfectly into the story. (He doesn't.)

The fact remains that Tom Bombadil serves an important purpose in the Lord of the Rings. He provides a vital counterpoint to the major themes of power and desire.

In the Lord of the Rings, the Ring represents power. (This isn't a big stretch. It's referred to as "the great ring of power," after all.)

Pretty much every major player wants the ring, and they fall into two camps: the corrupt and the wise.

There are plenty of examples of the corrupt, and the result is always the same. If you give in to your desire for the ring, you're screwed. It doesn't matter if your motives are selfish or noble. People who pursue the ring and its power are bad, and they come to grim endings. Boromir is corrupt, attempts to steal the ring, and dies.

His brother Faramir on the other hand, is wise. He lets the ring go, and plays a part in saving civilization. If you're "among the wise" you resist your desire. Gandalf refuses the ring, saying, "I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too great for my strength." Ditto for Galadriel. When they have the chance to take the ring, they don't. They know better.

There is only one major player that doesn't fall into this framework of either corrupt desire or wise resistance: Tom Bombadil.

Tom doesn't care about the ring. Tom is not interested in power. Tom has loosed himself from the chains of desire.

Tom, to put it plainly, is a Buddhist.

The underlying belief of Buddhism (and you'll have to forgive me for some vast reductionism here) is that desire leads to suffering. (Samudaya leads to dhukka.)

For example: you desire the seventh Harry Potter book. But when you go to the store, it's sold out. The result? Suffering. You want to win the lottery and you don't – suffering. You want to publish your novel and it gets rejected – suffering.

So what does it mean when everyone in Middle Earth desires the One Ring? Suffering.

The goal of Buddhism is to reduce desire, and therefore reduce suffering. The fewer desires, the less opportunities for disappointment. It's not the standard, Western way of approaching problems, but the math is solid. Everyone else in Middle Earth is caught in the trap of desire. They desire the ring, so the ring gains control over them.

But not Tom. Tom shows a way out of the cycle. And Tom is, arguably, the happiest person in Middle Earth.

And Gandalf knows it. Gandalf has been the know-it-all through the whole series of books. He's the information man. But at the end of the trilogy who does he go talk to? Not Galadriel. Not Elrond. He goes to Tom because Tom knows the art of letting go, and that's something Gandalf desperately needs to learn.

Advertisement
Comments
Jeffrey Weiss
July 27, 2007 11:28 AM

That's a wonderful take on Bombadil. Others, of course, have guessed that Tom doesn't covet power because he's an avatar of ultimate power. But that's never hinted at in LOTR. Did Tolkien study Buddhism? Surely with all we know about him, that's out there someplace?

Kelly
July 27, 2007 4:51 PM

I disagree that Hermione's crusade for house elf rights is wrong. Even though many of the house elves claim to enjoy their servitide, and though it is a deeply ingrained part of their culture and way of life, it is a condition that has undoubtedly been forced upon them by wizards for generations and in which the elves must participate without the freedom to say no to their masters. Servitude, in my opinion, is never tolerable, even in this age of cultural sensitivity. Hermione, in her attempts to free the elves, is not trying to assimilate them to her culture, convert them to a religion, or destroy their own bonds of community. Instead, she is striving to get her fellow wizarding community to recognize the rights that are entitled to everyone (and though the elves are not technically homo sapiens, they are every bit as human and deserving of rights.) Even if enslavement of house elves were morally justified, the gross, unchecked abuse and mistreatment of some elves by many of their masters is unexcusable. Hermione's compassion and her pursuit to better the lives of the house elves is inspiring.

There are a lot of people who try to justify dispicable behavior based on cultural acceptance and the approval of the abusive behaviors by those who are abused. By this theory, many women beaten by their husbands/boyfriends/etc. (who return to the abuse time and time again, watch their every move in an effort to please the abuser, and act in a servile manner not unlike the house elves) would not have the right to be free. In many cultures around the world, it is cultually acceptable for men to mistreat and abuse women, even to enslave and traffic them, and in many cases the women accept it too, without much complaint. Does that mean that the inhumane, disgusting treatment of these women is justified? Of course not. In the same way, the house elves are entilted to freedom from their yokes of slavery, and freedom from the domineering wizarding system that has kept them under wizards' heels throughout history.

Randy Miller
August 5, 2007 3:19 AM

[quote]
And while that set of conclusions is sticky and unpleasant, I can't help but feel that the second option is just as bad, if not worse....

2. We are supposed to assume that Hermione is right.

This means, effectively, that Hermione knows what's best for these poor, stupid cretins. Their culture and beliefs are barbaric. Hers are correct and civilized.

Moral: If a group of people is doing something you think is wrong, you should change their society so they agree with you.

This is an especially insidious and poisonous type of thinking, especially for younger kids who are going to naturally identify with Hermione.
[/quote]
Hi. New to your posts. Interesting, but the above part is odd. Namely, I don't understand what you object to here. Are you saying that there are *no* objectively barbaric societal practices? Or that, upon encountering things such as slavery, human sacrifice, infanticide, honor killings, racism, etc. etc., which all have been prevalent in some human socities (and some are today) it is "insidious and poisonous" to think that they should be changed, even by outside influence?
Means are debateable, and certainly some means are wrong in any circumstance, and of course there exists a WIDE range of a-moral sets of behavoir that are little more than cultural preference or tradition, nevertheless, I propose that no society is perfect, but that should not stop people from trying to eliminate cruelties or injustice in their own--or another, if possible, even if this means, heaven forbid, *judging* something.

Carolina Romero - California
August 7, 2007 4:45 PM

Instead of debating whether Hermione's campaign for elf rights is acceptable/presumptious, etc., can't we just view it as another of her quirks?

She always raised her hand in class, always a know-it-all, lived for exams and studying. This just seems like another of her charming qualities.

Think of it this way: At the last minute, when Ron said "it's now or never mate," did you bust out laughing at 4am like I did? Finally, after so much repressed tension, he comes around to a cause that is dear to her heart, and she explodes with affection.

I say it's no different than a computer nerd, sci-fi geek (whatever), learning the girl of his dreams plays D&D or likes star trek/star wars and just completely melts.

You don't have to agree with what Hermione does or even engage yourself in her efforts. Not everyone in the world is out there campaigning actively against all the atrocities in the world. We know that some causes are right, and there are people out there (that we admire) fighting the good fight for the rest of us.

But when you have kindred spirits, and someone shares your views for causes dear to your heart (like Ron did eventually), wouldn't you melt for them too?

Dolan
October 15, 2007 10:09 PM

I know I'm a little late to the dance, but if you're still around, Kelly & Randy, I'd like to point out that Mr. Rothfuss wasn't criticizing Hermione's objections to the abuse of the house elves by some wizards. He wasn't advocating slavery or any other "barbaric societal practice." As long as the house elves as a society, truly wanted their lot in life unchanged, was it not pretentious of Hermione to try to force them to change it? Was it not the height of hubris for her to, in effect, tell them that she knew better than they what was "good" for them?
Finally, in trying to trick house elves into taking clothes (by hiding them throughout the Gryffindor common room), she was ultimately trying to rob them of the very "freedom" that she supposedly wanted for them.

Read All Comments

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Please type the text you see in the box below to verify your post and help us prevent spam. You have a limited time to type - you may wish to compose your comment in a separate document and paste it here upon completion.

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Advertisement

Search This Blog

About Blogalogue

There are always at least two sides to every belief. The Beliefnet Blogalogue pairs writers who differ on important questions about faith, and asks them to debate timely topics.

feed icon Subscribe

RSS Feed

Receive updates from Blogalogue

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Beliefnet

Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness. More about Beliefnet.

Legal

Copyright © Beliefnet, Inc. and/or its licensors. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. Constructed by Beliefnet.

Advertisement

Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.