Kinder thoughts from Others and Reflections for the Book Club

Last week I shared some negative commentary on the Harry Potter series..This week I thought I’d offer up some positive thoughts (again: by People, Not Me). Here are a couple from Haley at Carrots from Michealmas. They’re both enthusiastic, pleasant, and kinder in tone than either of last weeks critics - one on the general good of the series and one containing SPOILERS..in sort of a moderate way..I read it after touching on Molly a bit in the comments with Jenna. I like Molly Weasley in this book - but I can’t stand her in any other book; I think she’d be a great jump off point for a discussion on the women and girls in the series..at some point, when most of them are more a part of the action. But, apart from not liking the character, she does have good points and Haley obviously loves her. Lets talk about it! (I mean, as much as we can at this point in the series.)

Jenna mentions unethical practices surrounding secrecy in the Wizarding world. YES! It’s just touched on in this book, but it does grow and grow throughout the series - wizards are sort of shockingly careless with the dignity and rights of others - in sort of an ‘the ends justify the means’ sort of way, and while there’s not much more that can be said about it at this point in the series, the off-handed way Ron mentions it lets us know how very common and acceptable it is in the magical community.

I think she’s right about Ron in this book too! This is sort of the book in which Ron is able to shine a bit. He’s staunch in his loyalty here - and as hungry as he is for success in his own right, he doesn’t envy his friend’s many moments of glory. It’s so nice, so wholesome, so friendly!

Jenna also highlights the line “always the innocent are the first victims”. It does seem like the truth, and I wonder most of all what was in the mind of the author when she wrote it. The Centaur, who speaks the line seems aware of, and mourning for the truth of his statement, but at the same time, unaffected by it. Like many creatures of fairy, who are aware of emotion without actually being able to experience it - the statement gives a sense of otherness, of separation to the centaurs that falls apart quickly, when we see in Firenze that deep emotions are a part of the centaur’s make-up. So what accounts for the disinterest of the centaur’s regarding innocent suffering? I suppose it could be the tendency continual involvement in divination often brings: to see the present only as it relates to the future. To be farsighted, in the sense of being blind to everything immediate. Living in potentialities and portents can be as debilitating as living wrapped in memories, mourning for what has past. With the mirror, we saw Harry tempted by the latter - by visions of loved ones dead and gone; with the centaurs we see a similar failure to live as they spend their time waiting for what may or may not be. It’s and interesting pairing, and it brings me back to something Christie writes in her refection - that “the danger lies in sacrificing or neglecting the good we do have to a potential or a might-have or a might-be.” Which may be the lesson all of us need to learn, whether our desires truly are, as Rilke promises ‘memories of our future’ or will-o-the wisps leading us from the narrow path to Love.

Ron and the Mirror

Wow..Jenna’s given us a ton to think about this week! If you haven’t read it already, check out her massively interesting post! I’m going to put alchemy on my back burner for now..because I need to read everything alchemical about 20 times and then dream about it to have it make sense. But if you’re not similarly challenged - post a response on it!! I really want to read more.

The Mirror:

What stood out to me most in this section was Ron’s vision in the mirror of Erised. I love the concept of the mirror - mirror magic is fantastic! It’s one of my favorite things - except after dark, which is sort of the best time for it, but the worst time for looking into mirrors in general. And the mirror itself is nicely done (except, I hate the name..because I’m a snot and just don’t like things like that; and excepting - as Jenna mentioned - the whole trouble of what the mirror would show “the happiest man on earth” Does Dumbledore believe - as it seems here - in nothing beyond this earth? Or does the mirror limit itself to desires earth can satisfy - which makes me wonder what happiness entails for Rowling. But Ron stood out most in the encounter with the mirror. I felt awful for him. Harry has had a real loss, and it’s obvious why he would long for family; but Ron, surrounded by family and yet full of a desperate need to prove himself, a striving that I think should have landed him in Slytherin. It made me feel uncomfortable with his family: Ron’s deepest desire is to outshine them all, be noticed and praised. It shows him with such a lonely, hungry little soul. I wanted something more for him there - but maybe, in his ability to turn away and back to reality, we’re able to see a bit of will-power in him, more than Harry has, to embrace life as it is, and not mourn for shadows. I’m glad he’s given that gift.

Symbolism and Sport:

This is a very minor question about Quidditch. I’ve been reading so much on the symbolism in the Harry Potter series..but can’t find anything on what the symbolism of Quidditch is. Is there any symbolism there??

Commentary by people, not me:

I read this article, by Harold Bloom of the Wall Street Journal recently, it's not a recent article. He is not a fan..unfortunately, he lost all my sympathy early on by implying that Rowling is much like Tolkien, and that he hates Tolkien just as much. People who hate Tolkien have no taste. But, if anyone wants to read him..we could insult his opinions, or occasionally defend opinions unrelated to J.R.R. Tolkien..though I'll need lots of convincing to love Alice in Wonderland half as much as The Hobbit. 

And here, Michael O Brien responds to those of you who think he's being unfair to the series. He mentions knowing "about eight different critics of the Potter series who either write books or magazine articles on the subject. All are sober people—" I'm not a huge fan of sober people..but I did feel bad for them when he added that "they suffer from personal attacks against them that are at times quite irrational, a kind of knee-jerk outrage against any criticism of Harry Potter." 

They're both interesting, SPOILER-FILLED reads..please don't assume I agree with either..remember - Harold Bloom hates Tolkien, and Michael O'Brien probably isn't a huge fan of girls who base major life decisions on dreams.., and don't read if you get too frustrated with un-friendly, non-fans of the books.. But do read if you can..and share your thoughts with me!

Exile..

I knew when we decided to buy the land that I’d be leaving behind - forever - the sort of carelessly interactive city-life I’d been living. I’d no longer glance out my bedroom window and into my neighbor’s living room, no longer take a quick walk to the grocery store, or cafe. And I knew that would have repercussions in my social life - the easy popping by was no longer an option..I would have to be more intentional, more conscious of my own social life and expectations. I didn’t expect isolation though. Our home isn’t so far away as to make it a burdensome drive - twenty minutes from our old apartment in the heart of town; and being nurtured - as I was on friendships that are still strong despite the huge expanses of country that separate us, or diverging lifestyles (my dearest friends and I are often at odds about more important things that city or town, Latin Liturgy, or Novus Ordo), has made me ill-prepared for the social changes that came with our move.

I am beginning to learn the danger of intentionality - my life is not clear and straight before me. Thoughts and hopes are in flux. More than anything, I’m feeling the loneliness of introversion. Rilke reminds that friendships can inspire more loneliness than solitude, and this is true; but these are not the friendships I can hold to. Not to see them take intense focus and effort, yet languish. This month I am retreating back into myself, saying a quiet goodbye to those whose affection was not so much for me as a person, but for me as one of many - part of a community that stands still and watches dreams stagnate. And the goodbye is less bitter than it could have been. It’s grown into something touching forgiveness: aware that what I thought and expected wasn’t realistic. I expected a kindred spirit and an understanding from those who share little but faith with me..There are too many types within the Church for all to be compatible. And I’m mourning a little bit, because half-friendships wound too, when they’re abandoned..and because I can’t help but wonder if my daughter will spend most of her childhood standing at the end of the driveway, watching it disappear into the trees, and whispering “nobody coming, nobody coming”..too soon adept at exile.

The Castle

Hogwarts was a good idea. It’s place as a living, breathing entity. Place as changeable, magical, wild. It’s captivating. There’s a sense of humor in the castle, as though thousands of laughing wizards have left their joy hidden in nooks and crannies; there’s power - as the misdirected spells of generations linger on the stairs and under tables.. Hogwarts feels to me like a school ought to - never truly left by the students who were - never truly understood by those who are, at the moment, nestled in it’s halls. I like it because - apart from the ghosts who are more like the modern, unbelieving concept of spirit - the castle is haunted in a deeper way, by memories and dreams -that-don’t-fade, by rich imaginings come to life.

Like Stonehenge, the castle is unknowable..and I don’t think it’s a spoiler to share that even Dumbledore hasn’t discovered all the secrets of Hogwarts. Like some immortal, ever-young being, the castle seems to watch and laugh anew as each new batch of children trip on the step that isn’t, run up stairways that end, and lose themselves in a world of possibility. It’s this rediscovery of the castle that makes me think Rowling might have a sacramental imagination - the sense of potential here, the power of unseen things, and most especially, the life of this place. I wonder, and I think I’ll be wondering again and again as we read - Is this the result of a sacramental imagination wedded to a relativistic worldview?

If you haven’t already - head over to Jenna’s for a taste of pumpkin pasties and some discussion of rule-breaking by both teachers and students, or to Christie’s for a helpful reminder that Harry’s vice is normal and will - hopefully - be grown out of before he’s through with school! As for me, this week has been full of unfinished intentions. I had a longer post planned but was distracted by the castle, my car (which is legal again!), and some overwhelming thoughts on social expectation and the trouble it creates for me.. I’m putting aside some hours for writing this weekend though, and should be all caught up next week (hahaha..I do live in a dreamworld, don’t I?)..maybe, partially caught up??

House Thoughts to follow up the Real Book Club Conversation

Regarding houses..My husband brought up an interesting point - and one I can’t really get out of my head regarding the House system in Harry Potter.

• Slytherin’s animal is the snake; Griffyndor’s is the lion; Ravenclaw has the eagle..

If Rowling had given Hufflepuff a goat, the houses could have formed a proper creature - a whole being. She didn’t. Is there a reason? It frustrates me..the Houses feel incomplete - almost a whole but not. Thoughts from anyone on this?

• I’m all in agreement with Laura’s comment about not binding children to their 11-year-old decisions as well. I think I’d prefer the idea of switching them up for the first three years or so, in varying groups but only loosely associated with a House, so they could meet each other and develop themselves in a non-competitive way.

• I’m also in agreement with poor Harry..Why don’t they do the sorting privately!! I would be such an embarrassed 11 year old at that point..I think I might just hide out in the bathroom and then come up after the feast saying .. Oops. I got lost, can you sort me privately. Thanks.

Incantational and Invocational.. The magic of problematic distinctions: A side note in the Harry Potter Book Club

There are many points of view toward the problem of Christians embracing the magical world of Harry Potter. In her introductory post, Jenna mentions the debate and cites an argument in the books’ defense: John Granger’s distinction between incantational and invocational magic. It’s a popular argument for Christian fans of the seriesl; in it, he defines invocational magic as sorcery, the “calling in [of] demonic principalities and powers for personal power”; and incantational magic as essentially the chanting of spells. Again and again in his Looking for God in Harry Potter, Granger emphasizes that invocational magic is forbidden by Scripture, but just as often, directly implies that incantational magic is not. I’m disturbed by the distinction. I think we’ll be having a few conversations throughout the reading on various interesting elements of J.K. Rowling’s concept of magic - and I don’t want in any way to close off the continuation of this discussion at later points, but I’d like to bring it up for first thoughts here, just over the threshold of Hogwarts, as Harry beings his education in incantational magic.

It’s true that Rowling’s magic calls down no demons, implores no gods, and request no aid from “principalities and powers”- good or evil. In that sense her wizards are entirely what C.S. Lewis calls ‘materialist magicians’ - concentrating powers entirely apart from a spiritual relationship. But magic doesn’t require an invocation to be forbidden - the majority of divination is devoid of invocations, as are some of the more frightening spells, and even well-meaning forms of magic are forbidden to us - and not only because of the spiritual dangers inherent to invocational magic. Magic is dangerous to the soul of man because it sets him up as a god, it teaches him to take control, to put his trust in his own power and not in Christ, and magic - whether it calls down ‘demonic principalities and powers’ or relies totally on the will of the practitioner - as Rowling’s magic does - gives the magician an inappropriate and dangerous level of influence over his fellow men and his world. John Granger’s distinction, though, implies that a teenager picking up a book of spells at The Gnu’s Room (I’m sure they have a magic section, everyone does!) is well within the dictates of her Catholic faith in choosing ‘to sing along with’ these spells, because, like the majority of spell-books on the market, they don’t ‘invoke’ anything so much as they attempt to channel power -just as Harry and his friends do.

Granger then goes on to liken Rowling’s magic to that of Lewis and Tolkien. There are similarities, for certain, but he chooses a strange example in Caspian’s invocation of aid (it’s a musical invocation, which is Granger’s link to his approved incantational magic - but it’s hard to avoid the obvious call to help from beyond), he does not mention King Tirian’s more straightforward invocation of the children in The Last Battle, nor the abundance of invocations of Elbereth in Tolkien’s books. Magic is not something easily divided - incantations often invoke, invocations often implore, and God-magic can include both - as the Liturgy does, as Tirian’s call or Frodo’s “A Elbereth Gilthoniel” do; as forbidden magic does (and all magic apart from God is forbidden, be it chanting spells or calling up ghosts).

The impression I get is that Granger is searching for a loophole because he likes the books, and because they raise him up as they do Jenna - toward God-magic and mystery - so he uses these distinctions to clear his mind of uncertainty and defend the books against those who are uncomfortable with the magic used. But that’s not how magic works. It doesn’t fall neatly into categories: forbidden invocations and approved incantations. There is only the holy magic of the Church and magic proper - which is forbidden in all forms, at all times, and in all aspects.

Does that mean the Harry Potter books are completely off-limits to Christians? I’m reading them now, so obviously I don’t think so, and this post is less about the aspects of Rowling’s magic that should disturb her readers (we’re avoiding spoilers!) than it is about distinctions within the discussion of magic itself. What do you think of the distinction between invocational and Incantational magic in the defense of the series?

The Gnu's Room and the Value of Place - A guest post and request

  My sister, Laura, contributed this post..Please read it and consider helping if you're able!



I have a bookstore in my mind. Maybe you have one, too.        

My ideal bookstore is deceptively small, with nooks and corners that lead to wider rooms and eventually unsuspected upper floors that are better lit. There are more books that can fit on the shelves, ordered and categorized, but imperfectly, as if interrupted halfway and begun again later by someone with a new system. There's no espresso machine – not enough room – but there's honor-system coffee in one of those thermos cylinders, with plenty of powdered creamer and the little straws for stirring, and tables and chairs by the windows.

Yours might have a resident cat, or a children's section with hooked rugs and a perfect-condition copy of The Snowy Day on top of a box of puppets. It probably has better coffee. But I'm guessing you have one. A lot of us do. It's a common side effect of reading books or having read books or planning to read books in the future, when there's more time. It grows alongside the Mr. Darcy tribute pages and the arguments with Aloysha Karamazov and the speculative disagreements, over coffee or laptop, about the ethics of vampirism. You get to feel loyal to it, even when it isn't real, and when you find someplace like it in the real world, there's a sense of recognition and return.

Maybe that's how it is for you. I don't know. I'm really just guessing.

There's a bookstore called The Gnu's Room in Auburn, Alabama. It's a real place, with a pink and green piano and a huge, eclectic selection of used books on shelves and in boxes. There's dusty sunlight in the front and couches in the back. It's where I've found some of my new favorite authors – books I would never have thought to go looking for, if not for the particular form of serendipity a used bookstore creates. It's also the vital core of the literary and arts community in East Alabama.

That community is small, but it has a good heart. It's talented and energetic and earnest, and the Gnu's Room is its home.

This is where the poetry readings and the book events are. This is where local artists sell their work and young filmmakers get their first screenings, where the open mics are held, independent musicians get their start and where they come back to after their first tour of the South. The Auburn University Philosophy Club holds meetings and events here. The owners have worked tirelessly to make it a welcoming place for everyone who visits and a haven for people who love books and music. For anyone with a bookstore in their mind, it feels like coming home.

This summer, the Gnu's Room will close permanently unless it can raise the money to refurbish

and move into a new low-rent space down the road. They've started a Kickstarter to help make that happen:

The new location will give them the opportunity to expand their services as a community space, develop their new publishing arm, and work on new ways to earn revenue and keep the Gnu's Room sustainable and thriving.

Unfortunately, there's not much time. The offer of new low-cost space came after the owners announced that the Gnu's Room was closing. They weren't sure at first if they could make it work. It took longer to set up a fundraising campaign. By the time the Kickstarter launched, it was already summer – the hardest time for fundraising in a college town. For all their efforts, the Gnu's Room could still go under.

I'm asking you to help because I hope you will, if you have a bookstore in your mind, if in some way you recognize this small good place you've never been to. I'm making a reckless but not totally unfounded assumption that because you read Masha's blog, you and I have something in common: an appreciation, maybe even a love, of things that are bookish and small and good.

It's not something you're obligated to do, of course. It's not really your bookstore.

 I guess what I'm hoping you'll say is, Yes, it is.

I have a bookstore in my mind. I've had it for years. It changes and grows, but I know it when I see it.

When I first learned that the Gnu's Room was in danger of closing, one of the owners said to me, “People will pay $5 for a coffee, but they won't pay $2 for a book.”

I knew it was true – I'd just bought my own $3.50 coffee. I also know it doesn't have to be.

The Gnu's Room has been around for years, and with a little help it can stay around for many more. They have until June 14 to raise just $3000. That's 1500 cups of coffee -- 600 if you get the double soy mocha with whipped cream and a dash of nutmeg. There are more of us than that who know a good thing when we see it – enough of us who are loyal customers of the bookstores of the mind.

Do you recognize this place?

If you do – if you know and love a bookstore like the Gnu's Room – or if you wish you did – help us out! Pledge the price of a cup of coffee  – or pledge just $5 and get a book in the mail! Tell your friends there's a bookstore in Alabama that needs them. Post the link on Facebook or Twitter if that's your stomping ground.

Help us keep a small, good thing alive.

FOR THE COMMENTARIAT: Do you have a perfect bookstore in your mind? Does it have a cat, or cookies, or what? Is it more of a towering, potentially treacherous book-labyrinth or more of a lounge? (Or is it Google Scholar? That's ok, too). Is there a real place you love in your own town?

Thanks for listening!