Tuesday, October 29, 2002

Muggles are unfailingly literal, deaf to metaphor, blind to the central reality of what Chesterton calls "the poetical side of man" -- that behind the ordinary facade of atoms and death lurks an enchanted world indeed. The literal-minded critic has no choice but to defend Muggles, since to do otherwise would be to raise the possibility of a world beyond the reliable borders of a strictly literal interpretation of human existence.

Harry Potter vs the Muggles - Myth, Magic & "Joy"
By Mike Hertenstein

I think Mark Byron was having a Muggle Moment.

Update: A Reply to Mark's comment

Just to make things clearer for Mark, since I don't think he read the article, his Muggle Moment is along these lines

understanding poetry and myth primarily as vehicles of doctrine, which [muggles] presume to sift out and graph as one-to-one correspondances, i.e. the Star Wars' Force = Eastern religion, or, to raise our present subject, the magic of Harry Potter connects precisely with dark supernatural powers.

On the elitism charge:

Yes, in "Harry Potter" only a few poeple are Wizzards and Witches, but in "Harry Potter" there are good Wizzards and Witches and evil Wizzards and Witches, there are good muggles and evil muggles. In the books being a wizzard doesn't equal having access to God. Mark is trying to make a 1 to 1 map from his world view, that for the most part I share, and the "Harry Potter" world. The aproach just doesn't work. Might as well make the same compairson to the NBA. The NBA is bad cause we all can't be gifted enought to be in the NBA but we all can have the gift of the Holy Spirit. Mark: read the article, and then read Harry Potter.

Mark read the article, but still misses the point, but as least he gives it good go. A for effort, I'll reply tonight.


No comments: