Loved this.

Will also love the thread, I’m sure.

Full Admission: Confirms prejudices – have been insufferably snobbish about Potter for years.

“The Potterverse – magical as it is – performs a calcifying spell upon that healthy, questioning politics. In conclusion: Accio Socialist Egalitarianism.”

Really? I mean, seriously?

Talk about over-analysing a kids’ book! I’ll bet you think the Famous Five are establishment reactionaries seeking to subvert the egalitarian principles of British society through racism and class elitism. But they’re not – they’re five children whose brilliantly-written adventures enthralled a generation of children of all classes. Just as Harry Potter is simply a well-written series of adventures which readers can relate to because Harry was raised as a Muggle, just like his fans. It’s exciting, romantic, funny, touching and scary. It’s not class warfare and, frankly, anyone who takes it this seriously really needs to get out more.

No doubt children should instead be reading Politically Correct Bedtime Stories.

Dear Laurie,

This is a fantastic post, and your final paragraph is spot on.

My commiserations in advance for the tonne of sarcastic and nasty comments you are going to get along the lines of “god it’s just a story” a la #2 and #3.

Wow, you’re even being denounced by an MP already…at 1 in the morning.

Oh well, I thought it was good. And it’s not 11 paragraphs too long at all. Ignore the haters!

“My commiserations in advance for the tonne of sarcastic and nasty comments you are going to get along the lines of “god it’s just a story” a la #2 and #3.”

Would the same fuss be made if Harry Potter had a distinctly left-wing theme?

The entire premise of the Potter franchise fetishises primogeniture

That’s easy for you to say.

Excellent post, Laurie. But what’s wrong with people who are special rising to the top? The current Muggle Prime Minister’s DisAbled, you know, and we call ourselves ’special’ too!

It’s this kind of thing that gives us a bad name: as humourless, earnest and censorious killjoys.

“All young children are little fascists” is an odious nonsense. What does it mean? I have four kids myself, and it makes no sense to me. I can only assume that you use this precept as a rationalisation for defining you think a children’s book should be like. Why don’t you try writing one, then, rather than wasting your time picking holes in others’?

It’s hardly worthwhile countering the specifics of your critique, because I think it’s absurd in the first place, but Rowling, while not a great literary author, is a brilliant storyteller and always includes multiple perspectives on any situation. What makes you think kids aren’t capable of identifying with the well-meaning if annoyingly bookish Hermione? I do.

As for your final prescription of “Accio Socialist Egalitarianism” … I am a socialist myself, but I find your attitude condescending and prescriptive. Perhaps you really mean “Imperio”.

(On the other hand, #2’s comparison is a poor one. Enid Blyton was a nasty cow whose prejudices dripped from every page.)

@2 Tom, you’d soooo be in Slytherin.

And that was a shockingly bad example: the Famous Five are a bunch of neo-imperial throwbacks, as Joshua rightly argues. Enid Blyton was a racist, sexist, far right sympathiser – it’s well-known. Here for more: http://consumption-rebellion.blogspot.com/2009/03/enid-blyton-sexist-classist-and-racist.html

I think that the people berating Laurie for taking Harry Potter much too seriously are, er, taking the post much too seriously. Culture War pieces are whiny and shrill; this is hilariously venomous.

Also, Tom – cry me nitpicking here but don’t you have something more urgent to be doing at 1.30 in the morning? Like, I dunno, helping run the country?

I think the truth is far more pernicious than you make out here (I have been having similar conversations with anyone who is prepared to listen for years now). The worst aspect of the Potter books is that they portray a false dichotomy between “bad” racism and social stratification and “good” racism and social stratification. The difference between Potter and Voldemort is merely that the former is fascism with a friendlier face. Instead of execution of the muggles we have mere servitude.

I kept reading, right up to the end, expecting some kind of auto-critique to come from the author but it never came. That in itself is startling; most authors critique themselves in their great works. Pullman certainly does. Even Beatrix Potter subtly deconstructed The Tale of Peter Rabbit and The Tale of Benjamin Bunny in The Tale of the Flopsy Bunnies. The closest I can find is the clearly repressed homosexual relationship between Harry and Draco Malfoy (personally, I find it so blatant that it is impossible to read their relationship any other way, but others disagree).

I recommend Unwritten by the way, which I assumed would be little more than Vertigo getting a bit of revenge for Rowling ripping off Books of Magic but turns out to have the potential to be so much more.

So this is where Harris and his ilk get policy – reading crap books like Harry Potter.

I don’t know if Miss P is having a laugh – I hope she is, but a book is just a book when it comes to HP an’ stuff.

As a piece of political philosophy, it’s an interesting read, if somewhat superficial. If this was instead intended as a piece of political science, attacking the dirty politics of J.K. Rowling’s imagined world…. well, it’s not just the MP who clearly has far too much free time.

@ James: You’re not the only one who reads Harry and Draco’s relationship that way. I’ve been doing some research on the relationship between the books and readers’ attempts to create their own discourse through fanfiction. Slash, which seems to be primarily written by women, is a (usually) male homosexual pairing. One of the most common is Harry/Draco. For a more thorough analysis, read “Homosexuality at the Online Hogwarts: Harry Potter Slash Fanfiction”, by Catherine Tosenberger.

Honestly Laurie, it’s a f****ng book for kids. Saying it’s fascist is like saying Star Wars is fascist because Luke Skywalker got his power to use the Force from being the son of Anakin Skywalker (for the record, the new trilogy doesn’t count, so no one bring up midichlorians).

What you are fundamentally missing here is that HP actually counters a lot of what you are saying directly with its main three characters. Who in fact is the most accomplished, intelligent and knowledgeable of the wizard students at Hogwarts? Hermoine, who is Muggle-born, who achieves great feats through sheer hard work. And Ron, who has a long wizarding heritage, is incompetent and unskilled in comparison. Neville Longbottom is another wizard descendant who is almost completely useless right up until the very end.

Similarly, Luke might be born with a destiny (is that an uberfascist trope as well) but who ends up being the badass who gets the girl? Han Solo, who hasn’t got a Force-sensitive bone in his body. Luke, by comparison, ends up kissing his sister. Nuff said.

The fact is that kids are not supposed to take the magical world and the magical community as ciphers for real society, so the undemocratic nature of the former does not easily translate into a worldview of the latter. When I read the first book I was roughly the same age as the main characters and remained so until JK started delaying publication from one book per year – and I’m not a fascist. All the people I’ve known who have also grown up reading HP and watching Star Wars.

Also –

“all young children are little fascists”

?

I think that’s unfair, and very very disturbing. Not sure where such antipathy comes from but I can assure you – it’s just not the case and says more about you than anything else.

Not that it’s relevant but I hope you never even attempt to run for office or work with children or do anything in public – because that quote will destroy you.

@BenSix, if you’ve been snobbish for years about Potter, then that fits an established pattern among reactions to HP. Young kids love the books/films, then as they reach puberty and beyond they will deny they ever liked reading them and say it’s all a load of rubbish for kids and overgrown adults, then when they become mature they’ll be the adults on the train reading the versions of the books with the “grown-up” covers. I would’ve thought Laurie had hit the third stage by now, but it will come with time.

Also, Laurie, if we’re going to talk racism in children’s literature, do open up a can of whup-ass on the Narnia books before even touching HP.

I mean, has anyone read A Horse And His Boy? Along with The Last Battle, I’m amazed we still promote that racist shit to kids. Absolutely shocking.

@18 I meant to say “All the people I’ve known.. are not fascists”

Oh man, there’s just so much to pick apart in this article…. you have totally missed the point about House Elves. JK Rowling, if you’ve actually read the story properly you will see this, actually takes the side of Hermoine. Yes the House Elves are a slave race but one that the author clearly advocates the freeing of.

Will Rhodes is right – people will read this and think we intend to ban all fictional literature that might contain an element of subversion to our own views. Is that the kind of image we want to project about what leftist politics is about? This article is far too po-faced and studenty-bolshy to be taken as satire, even if that is what it is. It is a bit sad that what we as the left are reduced to is taking apart children’s stories instead of working out how to do something important like beat child poverty, or, you know actually get into power. Laurie’s doomed her own career with that quote about children being fascists, so I just hope whoever is elected isn’t a sad nitpicker who will put us on a path towards a society where everything is controlled, analysed and potentially suppressed because we feel it might have some non-socialist message.

@DENIM – Shhhh.

@Denim … Perhaps children should read only Ministry-approved books.

@Joshua – The Ministry of Laurie?

Laurie for Minister of Magic/ubermensch fascism!

Hehe … perhaps she can be Chief Inquisitor! Laurie Umbridge.

Written with ‘Withiel’ Black? Has Sirius changed his name then?

Those convinced by Ms Penny’s argument can ponder a poster of her ideal child here -

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.davno.ru/posters/collections/propaganda/img/poster-01.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.davno.ru/soviet-posters/propaganda/&h=456&w=340&sz=44&tbnid=e4kwaU7SoxunKM:&tbnh=128&tbnw=95&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsoviet%2Bpropaganda%2Bposters&usg=__qksaZg4lrpc0Kv9urWKVXsBiKXI=&ei=GOZSSoT1K5vQjAedpcicCQ&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image

I’ve always thought that it’s more Harry Potter and the Order of the Garter…

All the books are is really a long-winded fantasy of a spiffing private school so exclusive it seems wilfully stuck in a previous century, with its own spectacular grounds resolutely not open to the public and with boffo tuck. It’s no surprise that the more compelling parts of this most tedious epic deal with Harry’s never dull school life, not the end of book battles which are inevitably duller than a Michael McIntyre TV appearance.

Harry isn’t the Ubermensch – he’s just a more magic Jesus. He’s a rock star with less impressive hangers-on. The book is never on side with Hermoine’s more progressive beliefs – note she was always portrayed in the books as a bossy, shrill, humourless frizzball – more Susan Boyle than Emma Watson – destined never to attract Harry (who has his pick of the Hogwarts’ Honeys) and has to settle for non-porkings by a stereotypical ginger wally with a broken wand. I bet she’d be thinking of Harry…

The Harry Potter series is nothing but a seven-book application by JK Rowling to join the Establishment and to get her kids into a wizzard school. Oh, and why did I think Lord Voledemort was Peter Mandelson – the names even sound similar!

“All young children are little fascists”.

No, sorry, definitely not. I talk as someone who loves the Harry Potter books and whose 10 year old has read them too. In my experience, children are very fair minded and it’s us who muck them up with our prejudices….

When I talk to her about them, it’s the magic and the story that she loves.

I will admit to having talked to her about the inherent unfairness of the magical world, and I think the end of the Prisoner of Azkabahn has given her a fairly powerful understanding of why the death penalty is a bad idea, much better than she would get from reading the Amnesty website, although I encourage her to do that too.

I think the books quite clearly expose the arrogance and the flaws in the magical world – who wants to see a world where vengeful justice is meted out in the Wizengamot.

The real world in which kids grow up is unfair and often unpleasant – I think the HP books teach them that bringing about cultural change is difficult and takes time, but it can be done.

I also think the ultimate redemption of the Snape character is a worthwhile lesson.

You’re analysing these books with the benefit of the knowledge you have acquired since you read them – most children read them and get adventure and magic of the story and don’t even touch the political analysis.

I think I would have preferred the 11 year old you.

There is evidence of a female minister of magic – mention is made in Half Blood Prince of Milicent Bagnold who immediately preceded Cornelius Fudge.

Postman Pat is a powerful polemic against privatising Royal Mail.

Discuss

#30

Actually, Postman Pat has dogged the postal community for years, acting as a sop to those who want to privatise Royal Mail by force-feeding children propaganda suggesting postal workers have an easy life, ambling around giving letters to the same twelve people every day, accepting a cup of tea at every stop-off and still having the time to get involved in moderately exciting adventures.

The Lord of the Rings and Narnia are just as bad.

Quality piece. I read HP as much more subversive and critical of its world than LP does – particularly the clear War On Terror comparisons with secret prisons, torture, unconstrained executive power, etc – but also its general opposition to the mistreatment of the powerless by the powerful.

It *is* unequivocally in favour of the leadership and guidance of the populace by the liberal, enlightened, not-elf-torturing-or-secret-prison-running part of the elite. Which I guess puts it closest to One Nation Toryism – or possible even the ‘protecting the poor from themselves’ ASBO/smoking ban/anti-binge-drinking element of NuLabour.

& children are little fascists, not in the sense that they’re necessarily racist/homophobic/classist/far-right, but in the sense that as a group, they have a very strong sense of ‘top kids to respect’ and ‘outsiders to revile’. Hence ‘the fat smelly kid’ (even if s/he isn’t actually the fattest or smelliest kid, but happens to have acquired that label because the actual fattest kid is better at making friends) gets near-universal ostracism and mockery, even from kids who aren’t comfortable with doing so, because otherwise they’d risk attracting the same derision. The parallels with adult fascism are pretty obvious…

I’m assuming this is a piss take.

More broadly I remember reading the Thomas The Tank Engine story where Henry get’s bricked up inside the tunnel for not wanting to go out in the rain and thinking that this was an unneccesarily draconian punishment. I spent quite a lot of time trying to think of a more humane penalty for his behaviour.

He just got left there for ages, a living symbol of man’s inhumanity to trains.

I blame my pussy liberal guardian-reading parents for bringing me up this way.

@32, the whole point of the Narnia books is to indoctrinate kids into conservative Christianity, so yes, obviously it’s worse than HP. I’m not so convinced about LOTR though…?

Oh it gets much worse than that for ‘progressive’ liberals. Harry Potter is also stridently anti-gun control: http://thelibertyzone.com/2009/06/17/harry-potter-wisdom.aspx?ref=rss

And the only film I saw all the way through had a lot of stuff on crappy education targets and health and safety too.

Personally, I think the racial undertones are no more than equivalent to what you get in star trek: http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2001/12/the_trouble_with_the_federatio.html

!He just got left there for ages, a living symbol of man’s inhumanity to trains.”

Clearly a reference to Sohpocles’ Antigone, or some such! Albeit with less incest and a happier ending.

Surely the point of analysing something like Harry Potter is to find out why that particular cocktail of stories/attitudes/whatever appeals to a huge global audience. A different set of stories/attitudes/whatever wouldn’t have appealed so widely, wouldn’t have sold in such quantity and we wouldn’t be having this discussion about it now. There’s no point criticising Harry Potter – criticise instead the society that picked this series (out of a huge variety of books) to make a phenomenon.

Or else write a wonderfully overdone critique of a piece of popular cutlure because it’s a good laugh…?

At first I thought you were being very, very funny . . . but then I realised that it’s not a parody of Psueds Corner after all. You’re a sanctimonious bore who knows too many long words.

its complete lack of sexuality except for in the context of sterilised, heteronormative dating/marriage rituals

Um… it’s a school story for kids. If you want there to be lots of BDSM and homosexuality I suggest you go and read the fan fiction.

From Mock The Week:

Unlikely lines from the final Harry Potter book

Hugh Dennis: “‘Don’t worry Hermione, I’ll get rid of it: Chlamydia Disappear-o!’”

Frankie Boyle: “Harry had always thought he would meet his death at the hands of Lord Voldemort. So imagine his surprise, when the doctors told him that he was HIV positive.”

Hugh Dennis: “‘No, no there is no post today’, said Ron. ‘The owls are on a one day strike over payment conditions’.”

Russell Howard: “Midway through the orgy, Ron winked at Harry, ‘This is better than Quidditch!’ his eyes seemed to say.”

Frankie Boyle: “It was a magic mirror that showed the future. And in it, Harry seemed to be a 30-year-old actor, appearing in something called ‘The Bill’.”

Hugh Dennis: “‘I’m sorry Harry, I’m having a baby and it’s yours…’, said Professor McGonagall.”

Mark Watson: “Then Harry says something and Hermione says something, oh who cares, I’m minted!”

Is it true that Rupert Grint caught Swine Flu? Or did he merely break out in Hogwarts…

I’ll get me cloak.

This is very Laurie – brilliant and bonkers at the same time

Wow, I never knew Harry Potter was so gawdamn evil!

Oh, for goodness sake, “Jenny lives with Eric and Martin” is just a children’s book – will people stop over-analysing. You just come across as sanctimonious bores.

(Cross-posted in the other thread in case there are people too thick to get the point)

ha ha! brilliant!

Tom Harris clearly didn’t get it.

LOTR is far more complex than Lewis’s Narnia books, as befits a book that evolved out of a canon of work that spanned almost 40 years.

There are allusions to Christianity, notably Gandalf’s resurrection, and to Beowulf and the Arthur cycle in Aragorn, the reforging of the sword Narsil and Gandalf’s other aspect as a Merlin figure but there are also strong allegorical reference to WWII, particularly in the penultimate chapter of Return of the King, ‘The Scouring of the Shire’ in which Saruman’s henchmen effect a fascist coup in the Shire, and after being defeated by the Ents and having his magical powers stripped by Gandalf, Saruman is reduced to a petty demagogue who’s sole remain power is that of hyponotic oratory… at which point I’ll stop the analysis in order to avoid invoking Godwin’s law.

There’s also much more depth to Tolkien’s allegorical depiction of the English than many suppose.

The Shire and Hobbits do represent an idealised picture of rural England, but Tolkien also lived in Birmingham for some considerable time, such that the Dwarfs represent the industrial working class of the West Midlands while the cultured, intellectual, upper class environment of Oxford University, where he taught, is reflected in the character of the Elves, so there’s a fair degree of class allegory in there as well.

That said, I much prefer Peake’s Byzantine world of Gormenghast, but that’s just my personal taste.

A serious piece, or a pisstake – who cares? Great fun to read.

Keep them coming, sis.

“Young kids love the books/films, then as they reach puberty and beyond they will deny they ever liked reading them and say it’s all a load of rubbish for kids and overgrown adults, then when they become mature they’ll be the adults on the train reading the versions of the books with the “grown-up” covers.”

No, I was snobbish about them as a young kid as well. I’m just a bastard like that.

“Postman Pat is a powerful polemic against privatising Royal Mail. “

Ahaha!

As a socialist parent, I have to confess that I probably spend far too much time thinking, along the lines of Laurie’s splendid post, about the various stories I am exposing my son to. My view is that most of the really good stories have qualities which make them great notwithstanding their flaws.

Take Wind in the Willows. My son adores it. At one level, the book is clearly (like LOTR) an excited expression of petty bourgeois anxiety over impending proletarian revolution (or maybe lumpenproletarian revolution – the weasels don’t seem to do any wage labour). On the other hand, it has lovely things to say about friendship and connection with the natural world.

Or take The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Yes, its Christian propaganda and Father Christmas insists that girls shouldn’t fight (except in dire necessity, whereas its apparently a way of life for boys). But the book also conveys some very subversive ideas: established authority is not necessarily legitimate – and you can’t always trust the police.

Nevertheless, I do draw limits – the world of Noddy is just downright sick in a chillingly New Labourish kind of way – all those shiny, happy citizens – so happy, so shiny, so well-adjusted, and SO different to the underclass goblins in the wood….

I think it was Spike Lee who said before he was a parent, he was determined that he would ban his kids from watching Disney movies. Then when he did have kids, he realised what an absurd idea it was.

“the slave-elf Creacher”

Kreacher. Get it right.

This is one of the most hilariously bad articles I’ve ever read on here, I can’t believe it ever got published. Seriously, when people say ‘loony left’ this is exactly the type of shite they are referring to.

Kids don’t see the ’secret wizard world’ as a ‘hidden fascist elite, secretly running the world’, or (a parallel I’d like it be known you drew) ‘goblins run the banks and have big noses’ as ‘lol jews’.. I’ll go out on a limb and say they see “cool secret hidden world, much like ours but slightly different, where I could have magic powers and battle monsters” and, well, “goblins”.

Get off your high horse and put down your thesaurus.

Jeez, some people seem to be taking this article way too seriously. Maybe Laurie is one of them, I don’t know, but it is an odd unholy alliance of people who seem to seem to think that Harry Potter is sacred text which shouldn’t be subject to criticism and those who seem to think it is “just” a children’s book and thus beneath criticism.

In fact, the two most important subjects for literary criticism are sacred texts and childrens’ literature as they are the ones that tend to find themselves at the heart of popular culture.

I’m not saying (and I don’t think Laurie is either) that anyone who reads Harry Potter is liable to become a fascist. Nor is it uniquely dubious – far from it. Personally I’d go a lot further: they are both badly written (whole chapters of lazy exposition) and utterly derivative. Nonetheless, I devoured all seven books and enjoyed them enormously. I enjoy all sorts of dubious books and I enjoy critiquing them – possibly with a tongue in my cheek but with serious criticisms nonetheless.

What concerns me is all those people who read things like this and at no point question what they are reading. It is at that point I for one lose my sense of humour. Scary.

Would Tom Harris be defending the “fascist” author Rowling because she’s a major labour party donor?
All books have subtexts. All books can have sub-texts read into or imposed upon them.
My trouble with the Potter books is that they’re derivative gubbins, repetitive and a triumph of marketing.
Next up:
Bod and the vile S&M subtext (lime milkshakes can onlbe for masochists).
Mr Benn the colonial oppressor and appropriator of native cultural artefacts.
Pokemon and the pornification of prepubescents (C’mon, how suggestive is a name like Poke-mon?).

Surely the important question has to be why the public chooses to buy these books in such numbers. Marketing alone could not have achieved such global dominance. What is it about these texts that makes people buy them? (Is it some of the things Laurie has mentioned? Is it INSPITE of those things?)
If we could answer that we would have a great deal of insight into the public’s attitudes.

Laurie, can I please have some of the drugs you are taking? Judging by this piece it’s either mushrooms or LSD, or probably both.

PS: And you’re wrong, the wizarding world is rubbish because it doesn’t have the internet. Or phones.

It’s not that well written.

I’m glad others think they have no literary merit. I had to read all 7 of the blinking things (partly because my little brother liked them, partly because of my appetite for popular culture even when it’s rubbish, [cf Big Brother, Wimbledon, etc]). To say any character other than the protagonist has as many as one dimensions would be generous; each acts as a shakesperean foil to the main character, with a limited set of characteristics repeated ad nauseum like some American 90s sitcom (Joey, he’s the lecherous one, etc etc). The grammar is clumsy, the pace stilting, metaphor a foreign word. Fortunately it’s possible to skim-read large chunks because there’s so much mindless repetition.

In my opinion, the paragraph she penned as an explanation for why she was donating to the Labour Party was the best-written thing she has ever produced. I was shocked by its lucidity, its clear and concise phrasing. And it was probably written by someone else.

Presumably, JK Rowling has not been informed about this article.

Let’s face it, even if she had, no doubt as a Racist Homophobe Misogynist her comments would have been deleted by the message board moderators. (Check the comment policy)

I assume this article is a mildly amusing, well written (1) joke. I’d like all my comments to be taken in the same vein. Unless, of course, the author is serious, in which case I will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes; well, maybe second after the Reichcommissar for Corrupting children’s minds, JK von Rowling.

Basically, I think you, and three other people in tinfoil hats, have realised that Harry Potter is the greatest revolutionary political tract since Marx. We Tories are planning to subvert politics by indoctrinating your children through the sinister medium of good quality children’s stories. We even fooled Steven Fry into reading them on tape! Ha ha, the world is ours.

To quote, “However, they would be far more likely to be born Muggles, and be subject to an ancient, corrupt system of political and racial oppression in which they do not even have the right to their own experiences “.

Yes, wizarding is evil and racist by default, I suppose.

Obviously, I support that, and enjoy the books, because I’m a Tory. And hey, it’s all about public schools, and therefore by default, monstrous. The point of the books is to create racists, entrench aristocratic privilege and support corrupt politics. What would a socialist children’s tract be like?

Wouldn’t the world of the books be better if the ministry of magic legislated to allow give muggles magic powers or nationalised magic use in a classically socialist way ?(i.e. chronically overmanned and inefficiently). Well obviously not, because JK Rowling is calling for racial segregation – “magic” is clearly here crypto-capitalo-fascist code for “money”, and obviously, Laurie has discovered our evil scheme.

Obviously, at a minimum, wizards should pay higher taxes or something. I can’t imagine why JK Rowling didn’t include a full and detailed examination of the Wizard’s tax system in any of the books; I think an opportunity has been lost for a chapter on Mr.Weasley filling out his self-assessment return, and talking about how he enjoyed the benefits a redistributive tax regime would bring to disadvantaged communities of Miners.

Equally, why doesn’t Harry pay inheritance tax on the Gold he has in the Bank? More subtle subversion of your children to believe that property maybe isn’t theft. Even more subtly, Harry is the classic orphan victim who would have to suffer the state taking 40% of his wealth as a penalty for his parents being stupid enough to be murdered.

Fair enough, even as a Tory, I must admit Azkaban is not an ideal prison – it’s clearly not harsh enough. I mean, the Daily Mail has been campaigning for bringing back hanging for evil wizards and people who misuse plastic bags, and immigrants – being locked up in oubliettes having their souls sucked out by evil demons isn’t nearly harsh enough for them.

No, seriously, it fails penology 101 because it has no rehabilitative element, no provision for regular exercise and Soul-sucking is clearly in breach of the Human Rights act, which as a public authority, the Ministry of Magic has a duty to maintain.

Why isn’t there a chapter where Clive Stafford Smith boldly scales the walls to issue an injunction to the dementors? Probably he’s a bit busy with that whole real world Ghost prisons issue. Is it of course possible that JK was showing us the consequences of a poor prison system – it strikes me that dark wizards are classic prisoners trapped in a cycle of institutionalised re-offending.

All joking aside, is it just possible, maybe, the authorial intent in drawing the patently absurd Pureblood/Muggle-born (2) divide was to highlight and expose children to the dangers of unthinking racism? That’s the meaning I took away from it, and since as a Tory I am a fascist with the intelligence of a six year old, thus I think by the Laurie’s own yardstick I can gauge what children will take away from it.

Equally, isn’t Hogwarts in many ways the ideal meritocratic comprehensive? There is literally no social barrier to get in – your dad can be an aristocrat, leader of the labour party, whatever, and unlike Oxford, Cambridge or Eton, no amount of money can buy you in – you have to earn your place on merit alone.

Of course, one assumes that those who are the children of Lords who fail to get in just go on to be parachuted in failed Labour candidates, e.g. Georgia Gould.

Anyway, I hope this rant will amuse or enrage in equal measures, depending on your sense of humour.

1.)That said, the writer is just bad at English comprehension on any number of points –

“it cannot be ignored that the Muggle world is entirely unattractive: not a single Muggle of the few that appear in the book is either enviable or positively presented”

Off the top of my head, hermione’s parents are consistently portrayed as lovely people – Guardian readers, no less.

“There is no evidence of there having been a female minister”

I could point to huge numbers of strong, powerful important, well drawn female characters, even notwithstanding the repeated references to the previous Minister for Magic being a woman , who obviously ran a tighter ship on crushing Dark Wizards than Cornelius Fudge.

Assuming party politics are the same, obviously, Tory Magic Ministers are better than Labour ones – let’s face it, Fudge has New Labour written all over him e.g. “Dark Lord arises – I’ll spin doctor my way out of this one”….”problem with people who disagree with me – better detain and torture them”…not to mention that at the end of his tenure, the country is a total basket case – tell me this isn’t a clear analogy of the current New Labour government.

“Complete lack of sexuality except for in the context of sterilised, heteronormative dating/marriage rituals.”

Since when have dating, romance and love been heteronormative? Would a scene where Draco goes to a nightclub, does some poppers and nails some buff stripper he doesn’t know in the toilets been more appropriate and in some way better represent gay sexuality?

I think the only “Heteronormative” thing you’ve pointed out is your own opinion i.e. that gays are incapable of feeling Love – you vicious homophobic fascist, Laurie:)

2.) Pretty sure muggle is a racial slur, btw, but as a muggle I’m reclaiming the word, ok?

Ms Penny, you had me at ‘ubermensch’ ;-D

Abolish liberal arts degrees.

“I don’t know if Miss P is having a laugh – I hope she is, but a book is just a book when it comes to HP an’ stuff.”

She not having a laugh! This is actually an fascinating insight into a sharp but very nasty and hateful left-wing mind. The egalitarian and sexual left has always been obsessed with what children read. Childrens book are just one of the many ways the left tries to de-legitimise and overthrow existing cultural norms and values. Laurie Penny is honestly disappointed that a popular book was not used a vehicle for cultural terrorism. Conservative and libertarian minded people should start pay attention.

A right laugh! Nice one, Laurie.

I find the Potter books really quite sort of simultaneously stodgy and unsatisfying – a bit like eating nothing but Yorkshire puds all the time, good though they may taste.

Now, I know why!

while much of this is lol funny the peice itself acts as a useful reminder that tha labour party has very little in common with liberal , progressive or humane values. nasty, arrogant, snobbish & authoritarian. thank “whatever gods there be” that labour are dying.

“while much of this is lol funny the peice itself acts as a useful reminder that tha labour party has very little in common with liberal , progressive or humane values. nasty, arrogant, snobbish & authoritarian. thank “whatever gods there be” that labour are dying.”

You’d be a fool to think that just because Labour are ‘dying’ that this sort of stuff will magically stop. Where do you think Miss Penny learned to regurgitate this venom so well? It is the universities which teach this propaganda and at the expense of the taxpayer.

@68: I think you’ll find universities to be a good deal more “liberal, progressive and humane” than the rest of the country.

@56: “Would Tom Harris be defending the “fascist” author Rowling because she’s a major labour party donor?”

Of course I would have – do you imagine I defend Enid Blyton because of her left wing tendencies?

Er, does Tom Harris @70 (and @2) not get a bit of tongue-in-cheek light-heartedness, viz both my post and Laurie’s piece…?

There are no positive portrayals of muggles in the HP books because they are books about WIZARDS. The whole series is escapist, and it’s based around the rags-to-riches motif which really is incredibly old. Look at fairy stories like The Goose Girl and The Princess and the Pea. Everyone likes to think that they are secretly special and one day someone will discover their specialness and commend them for it. This largely doesn’t happen obviously, but it can be quite fun to live in hope, even if that hope turns out to be false. Noone likes to think they are just like everyone else. I loved the Harry Potter books when I was younger and I used to really hope that I would get a letter from Hogwarts one day, just like after I had read Matilda I went through a phase of trying to move stuff with my eyes.
It seems wrong to me to criticise one manifestation of this universal story as ‘fascist’ when I just think it is an idea which appeals to everyone.

Alisdair, Dear Tom is a Tory – so that should explain one or two things. It is just a matter of time before he crosses over.

And that said – which Potter character is Dave? The pretender played by Brannagh?

the thread satisfyingly demonstrates several things:

- never use irony on the web, you will regret it

- never suspect irony in a blog, as it is often never intended

- even intelligent people may have no idea how fiction works

oh there’s lots more but we’ve just had a party, so goodnight

” All young children are little fascists”

Well,it had to happen—Left Wing McCarthyism.

Will be reported to the House on Un-Liberal-Conspiracy activities.

”All young children are little fascists”

Jeez, who had an unhappy, broken childhood and was picked on by everyone?

Don’t take your own self-loathing out on all kids, Penny.

This article helps to demonstrate why so much literary criticism cannot be taken seriously. Rowling has encouraged millions of children to enjoy reading and done more to promote education in the World than Laurie Penny.

Full response in due course, but the thesis is wrong. Hermione is clearly in the right in setting up SPEW. Good wizards like Arthur Weasley agree with her. The system is conservative, yes, and the books are about standing up to it.

Umm… Laurie? It’s just a story book…

I have to say, I find it discouraging that so many replies simply dismiss the whole idea of analysing HP in this way, instead of taking issue with Laurie’s conclusions. I think most of her thesis is profoundly wrongheaded, but the impact of these books has been enormous, and investigating their possible political subtexts is surely worthwhile.

This post itself seems sadly predictable and reactionary. An elitist Oxbridge graduate attacks a successful female author – one who went from being a single mother living on welfare benefits to amongst the most popular authors on the planet – from an entirely unconvincing standpoint of ‘radical’ principle with overgenerous use of the term ‘fascist’.

No to pretentious literary criticism being used to slander the essentially decent and progressive message of the Harry Potter books!

No to Penny Red knocking on doors and agitating in working-class communities (as if!) in her attempts to spread her fundamentally conservative message of Potterphobia amongst the proletarian consciousness!

Yes to female writers’ solidarity and support for JK Rowling!

Yes to more ridiculous posts analysing Harry Potter as they can’t really be taken seriously!

Charlie,

This article helps to demonstrate why so much literary criticism cannot be taken seriously. Rowling has encouraged millions of children to enjoy reading and done more to promote education in the World than Laurie Penny.

But at what cost?!!??!!???! [gibber]

You should write one about how “The Very Hungry Caterpillar” condones gluttony and obesity.

It does, doesn’t it? Down with that sort of thing!

This whole argument is based on a fallacy. The Harry Potter world is a stage-set, not a utopia. Kids are smart enough to know they will never be wizards and hence will not be touched, or disturbed by the concept of primogeniture.

Much of what you say is accurate analysis – but irrelevant. One could equally argue that the whole book is a polemic in favour of non-conformism (ie punts at the National Curriculum), against racism (freedom for Muggles) and freedom of conscience (ie not supporting a Petainist regime.

Above all, I find this argument objectionable because, all around us, we are beset by vested interests and others that oppose freedom in our society, and encourage mindless consumerism and worship of celebrity. You choose to target one woman who has, shock horror, made a lot of money because children love her books.

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!

Laurie has been consistantly the most demented poster on this site but this takes the fucking biscuit! What the fuck an unreconstructed Stalinist is doing posting on LibCon is beyond me.

INTERPRETATION IS AN ARTIFACT OF THE METHOD OF ANALYSIS, it’s not a science which reveals the ‘hidden meaning of a text’.

Putting into Marxist terms that Laurie can get a grown up to explain, the cycle of the production of meaning is completed by the reader: in her case her paranoid, humourless political fundamentalism PRODUCES a fascist dystopia from the text.

This is reading too much into a children’s book…!!

In Harry Potter I’d much rather be a muggle,

think about it, on the scale of cool stuff that people can do to make lives better, the wizards et all have been on the same level for centuries, they never discover anything new and the only way in which their lives are different to those of their ancestors is because of how muggle society has changed.

Wizard society doesn’t evolve, none of them are interested in how their magic works, they just accept that it’s there and nothing else, there’s no intellectual curiosity because every need is met by magic (so the idea of the Weasleys being poor makes no sense, why can’t they just conjure everything they want out of thin air? what with it being magic and all?).

We may not have magic but we understand our world and can make it better and that’s something that JK’s wizards will never have. They’ve reached the peak of their evolution whereas we haven’t. Human society and life will continue to evolve and (hopefully) improve but Harry or his mates want to know what kind of life their grandchildren will have then they just need to look around because it’ll be exactly the same.