This is an archive of past discussions about Politics of Harry Potter. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Please help edit or mark up any contentious material with [citation needed] or [original research?]and discuss in talk section. The key to this article is published material, not whether any of these theories are more correct than others. If you disagree with a theory, hopefully you can contribute a counter-theory that has been published in an accredited source that we can include. Personal theories from heavily visited websites like www.leakylounge.com should be evaluated by the community to see if they rise to the level of inclusion. Probably none of them do, because they usually have been explored in published works as well.
Agree completely. It reads like a persuasive piece. I say we give the article about a week to firm up, and then deal with the Lead like ravening dogs over a weak gazelle. :) - Arcayne(cast a spell)18:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
spoiler
this page needs a spoiler warning —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.73.110.218 (talk) 14:38, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
A good portion of this article reads more like an argumentative essay rather than an encyclopedia article. I think it needs cleaning up.RSido18:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Please make only specific and actionable objections. I would suggest that you wait until there has been some discussion before tagging the article, but if you must, tag only sections for which you have made specific and actionable objections. Savidan19:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I just kind of wish they were spending the money on arranging courses around more important things. If I was English major and I found out that funding for the John Milton course got cut so that they could make a Harry Potter course, I'd be pretty fucking pissed off. Then again, if my university offered a course on the chronicles of Narnia, I'd probably take it, so I suppose I've given away where my allegiance lies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.14.105.108 (talk) 15:41, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you have, and fie on you. I'd be pretty upset if they cut my Asian Porn Cinema Appreciation class to make room for a Milton or Narnia course, but I can always transfer to the U of C system, where I can pick up a degree in Magic. Easier to fit on a resumé than 'Skilled in Narnian Geneaology.' ;) - Arcayne(cast a spell)18:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it needs to be made clearer exactly what sort of courses this article is talking about. Currently it refers to Edinburgh and then "..another accredited course is.." as if the Edinburgh one is accredited, and specifically as if it's accredited as part of a degree course. Where does anything say it's accredited? The Telegraph story just says it's "a university course". University courses don't have to be degree courses. Especially not the courses in lifelong learning and adult education departments, which is what this is: according to a more detailed story in the Scotsman it's a ten-week course of two-hour lessons run through the university's Office of Lifelong Learning and is discussion-based, rather than involving handing written work in. Departments of lifelong learning, adult education, community education (etc) in the UK run a very wide variety of courses, from how to use email to part-time degree and further degrees. Edinburgh's lifelong learning prospectus is massive, varied in subject and level (and wow, I want to do some of these courses :)) There is no Harry Potter course in the autumn term, so we can't check. But I bet it's not part of a part-time degree. It looks to me like a light-hearted summer course. I think this is a very misleading Did You Know. (And it's linked from the main page, so expect more complaints about universities wasting money or dumbing down as people see it and come here to complain. Ho hum.)Telsa(talk)17:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Harry potter Vs the messiah, or are they both the same?
Wow, youve made a page with all the additions to the harry potter article i could ever dream of. Can sombody try and find a relation between Harry potter and jesus christ. I was reading the 7th book-(for the umpteenth time) and i came across a relation to harry potter and Christ. harry potter died, was resurected, had many disiples. He was also the only one who could fight and have a chance of defeating the larger, more powerful voldemort. Voldemort in this context represents evil and wrongdoing.
forgot to sign off addy g`Addy-g-indahouse06:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Crucifixion of St. Peter, by Caravaggio See the Rowling quote at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_influences_and_analogues#The_Bible There are more Christian references, but were deemed too OR for inclusion in the article, such as, Harry must have been baptized since he has a godfather, and several praises of God for favorable acts, "Thank God you got your mother's brains!" "Thank God you're safe".
I think Rowling has said that Harry isn't a Christ figure, I know she's said he isn't perfect.... but he certainly resembles a Christian martyr. She's also said that her favorite artist is Carraviggio, but without further detail who knows why? Libertycookies08:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, dang coz i came across somthing else, just to say:
harry potter defeats death, just as Christ did, not because he did something to become immortal but is compassionate and feels remorse. Furthermore he accepts death is a part of life, and life doesnt end with death, same as christ, who died for the greater good. (contains spoilers) harry intended to die for the greater good, ie give the same protection to people voldemort is cursing to the protection harry's mother gave him. Interesting isnt it
Only three, which is a big step up from last time. The line linking Mosley to Mitford to Rowling is going to need some third party commentary. It's quite a claim to link Rowling to Hitler. Serendipodous07:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Criticizing racism, ethnic cleansing, and Nazism
i´m sorry for my incompetence but i don't know how to do it, anyway the quote at the top of this section is not justified with the rest of the article. Can anyone please fix it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Walkabout86 (talk • contribs).
J.K. Rowling mentions in an article that Mosley was married to Diana Mitford, sister of her heroine, Jessica Mitford. Jessica, whom Rowling named her daugher after, never forgave Diana's Nazi sympathies. [15] Oswald and Diana married in 1936, in the Berlin home of Nazi chief Joseph Goebbels with Adolf Hitler as a guest. J.K Rowling also noted that Mitford's other sister Unity, to whom Jessica was closest in youth, became an arch-fascist and favourite of Hitler's.
This paragraph make no mention of Harry Potter, and doesn't even really illuminate anything about JK Rowling's political beliefs either. Unless some kind of connection can be drawn (maybe Hitchens made one, I don't know) between Mitford, Rowling and Harry Potter, the paragraph is OR. Serendipodous17:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The common denominator is Fascism, both Rowling and Hitchens mention Oswald Mosley by name. I don't believe it is OR to note Hitler as a fascist, nor the connections of Mosley's British Union of Fascists to the Nazi party. But I'll leave it to the community to decide if this really doesn't add anything to the article. I think showing her awareness of Mosley is relevant to Hitchen's observation. Libertycookies02:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Ant-slavery and anti-racism are "leftist"?
The first line of the section on "Liberal and socialist values" says:
Several articles have noted the influences of Rowling's heroine, author Jessica Mitford, whom Rowling describes as a "self-taught socialist,"[11] and noted leftist themes in Harry Potter, like cooperation among the magical races,[12] anti-racism,[13][6]and opposition to the slavery of House elves.[14]
The use of the term "leftist" is inappropriate here. The Citations given (13, 6, and 14) do not use the term "leftist". The Wikipedia article on "leftist" that is linked to does not support the statement. And common experience leads us to know that "cooperation amoung magical races ... and opposition to slavery of House elves" are not leftist because they don't exist in the real world.
Common sense also tells us opposition to racism and opposition to slavery aren't 'leftist' either. Most mainstream political philosophies in the world today at least pay lip-service to both. And in the western industrialized world, most sides of the political spectrum believe they are more opposed to racism and slavery than the other side is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.228.195.206 (talk)
But before racism and slavery became opposed by most people in the West, it was specifically the left that opposed them and the right that defended them. —Toby Bartels17:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The meaning of the term "left" changes so much with time and place, that it is difficult to prove or dispute your statement. However, it is clear that in our time, and in the time that the book was written, racism and slavery have been condemned by both 'right' and 'left', with both sides claiming to be stronger on the issues than the other. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.228.195.206 (talk) 21:04, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
You're right that "leftist" (like "rightist") is a terribly slippery word, and it's just as well that the current article doesn't use it. I would argue that opposition to racism and slavery have been historically associated with people and groups identified (by themselves or others) as leftist, in times and places that they've never been associated with the right; and that (rightly or wrongly) people still associate anti-racism primarily with the left. But I'll say no more here, where we don't have to decide the matter. —Toby Bartels20:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The leading British abolitionist William Wilberforce was a Tory MP not a "leftist". The history of the anti-slavery movement is far too complicated for a simple left/right dichotomy and projecting terms like "leftist" and "rightist" backwards into other eras is likely to be anachronistic. So this fails NPOV. --Folantin10:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
And also, most good fantasy books have some sort of left wing opinion. Will every one stop picking on Harry Potter just because its popular? Go find some other book —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.50.136 (talk) 00:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Rowling identifies herself as "leaning to the left" and it is clear that she doesn't have a problem with the term. It is sad that so many are offended by the apparant "sinister" nature of "leftist" thoughts. With so many of these "gauche" comments one might conclude that the only "right" political thought must be the conservative view. To be unbiased and take the middle ground, I wag a centrist and neutral finger at anyone else who takes offense ..!.. Unless that somehow offends you as well.
Regarding Wilberforce being a Tory, Democrats also supported slavery back in the day, and Republicans used to be fiscal conservatives in recent memory. Political ideologies reverse polarity sometimes. Libertycookies21:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Euthanasia
Depending on the ethical premises, this act may or may not be viewed as euthanasia, or as a moral wrong, since Dumbledore did not do it to end his life prematurely merely to save himself from pain, nor did Snape perform it for that primary purpose.[original research?]
This line was removed from the article over concerns of OR, which I'll second. Also, since all of these entries are simply the theories of writers, and may or may not be correct, the sentence seems redundant. Placed here so if someone feels strongly to return it to the article, they can do so. Libertycookies21:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Harry Potter Alliance
This group is real and has thousands of members. Not sure why the entry was deleted, but please discuss if there is an issue. Libertycookies00:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Undue weight
Looking at the coverage of the events following Rowling's announcement of Dumbledore's sexuality before a sympathetic New York audience, I'd like to cautiously venture the view that perhaps our article gives too much weight to the views of the extreme fundamentalist Christians ("Falwell was right", etc) and in particular to views expressed in local newspapers in the American deep south (particularly the offensive comments of the Sun-Sentinel). These statements are surely not representative of the many readers of Rowling, nor of the critics. --Tony Sidaway10:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be indicitive of the American media which is known for its fixation on toe-tapping, dress-staining politics. The view in France does not mention the sexuality of Dumbledore, but focuses on philosophical issues in the books. Now that book 7 is translated in other languages there may be more weight on other aspects as seen below. From their interpretation you might think the characters and books aren't about Sorcerers at all, but are about Philosophers.Libertycookies02:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
To mark the French publication of the final installment of the adventures of J.K. Rowling's boy magician, France's leading left-wing daily devoted Friday's front cover and two more pages to answering the question "Why Harry Potter is of the Left."
The paper, like other French national media never afraid to seem intellectually aristocratic itself, invited philosopher Jean-Claude Milner to add to the millions of words of Potter-analysis already written the world over by students, critics and enthusiasts.
Milner identified a reaction to the free-market revolution instigated in Britain by Margaret Thatcher's governments.
"Reading it, one has the feeling that J.K. Rowling feels, like many cultivated English people, that there was a real, catastrophic Thatcherite revolution, and that the only chance for culture now is to survive as an occult science," he wrote.
Milner identified the "Muggles" -- inhabitants of the ordinary, non-magical world -- as the uncultured bourgeoisie who did well materially out of the Thatcher years and later under Tony Blair.
"In the world described by J.K. Rowling, there are the Muggles, who represent the Thatchero-Blairite middle class (going from the lower middle class to the upper middle class), and then the others: the people, cultivated people and the penniless aristocracy, people whom you would expect to find in public schools or at Cambridge," he said.
Milner said the disinterested world of culture upheld by Harry Potter and his friends at the elite Hogwarts Academy represented a form of opposition to the values of the profit-seeking market economy.
"As such, Harry Potter is a war machine against the Thatcherite-Blairist world and the 'American Way of Life'."
I've jumped in and hazarded the removal of the Euthanasia section because, to me, it appears to be a matter of medical ethics. It's one of those edges, I suppose, and it wouldn't be a big deal to add it back. --Tony Sidaway03:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure of removal, but will ask for more opinion. The U.S. has a political debate over physician assisted suicide, and individual states rights vs Federal rights in legalizing it. Although Dumbledore doesn't advocate physician assisted suicide as policy, it is political in the same way that he doesn't advocate homosexuality but just happens to be gay. Anyone else for inclusion? Libertycookies13:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
JK rowling doesnt need to confirm most of these theories. Its like saying Is harry potters name really harry potter? or is it rottop yrrah? rowling might be like archimedes!
My point is that there are some things that facts and sources dont need to prove in order to be right. these themes connections in this article have been identified by many people, and thus there is an element of truth behind them.
Theories are just theories; Rowling's word is canon. People can interpret politics and what her characters are based on until the end of time, but in the end, the story is just a story (though a good one). The underlying theme of the horrors of mistreatment of others based on things like wealth (Ron), fame (Harry), parentage (Hermoine, Hagrid), indentured / slave class (Dobby). There are also elements of redemption (Dudley, the Malfoys) Another theme is resistance against totalitarianism, as expressed by Dumbledore's Army and The Order of the Phoenix. Finally, there is love and it's mystery. The Dursley's could not find it in their hearts to love Harry (except maybe Dudley at the end), but the Weasleys who had seven of their own children found room in their hearts to love an orphan. Love-sacrifice magic is ancient and VERY powerful as performed by Lily Potter and Harry Potter both of who offered their lives to protect their loved ones. While Harry was able to come back, his willingness sealed the charm. His love for Sirus caused agony to Voldemort when he was possessed, and was fatal to Quirrel. Jclinard11:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Political and philosopical allegories in HP
Quidditch and the Golden Snitch as allegory for Life and the search for Truth. Note the role of seeker vs. the role of keepers, chasers, and beaters. The dual meanings of seeker and snitch, and the disproportionate point value of grasping a new truth vs chasing life and scoring points in a conventional way. Compare to the success of founders of Google, Microsoft, Ebay, and other successful individuals who broke new ground vs following established paths. Published somewhere I'm sure as there is "nothing new under the sun."* Libertycookies16:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
(* A Shakespearean quote stolen from the Bible.)
Elves of the World, Unite! Social Activism in Harry Potter
I put an "original research" note on this section plus a citation needed note.
I don't really mind when people write up their favorite crackpot theories about stuff and try to squeeze them into Wikipedia articles -- it's human nature, I suppose, to toot one's own horn, and these insertions (which of course violate Wiki policies) are usually easy to identify and delete. But this section has some truly remarkable assertions, among the wildest, I'd venture, I've seen on Wikipedia. One of them says "Dobby, the house elf, has been compared to the labor lawyer Dobby who introduced Rowling's heroine, Jessica Mitford, to the worker friendly Communist Party USA." Note there's no citation -- trivial, I suppose, compared to saying or implying that Dobby, the house elf, I mean, not the otherwise unidentified lawyer friend of Jessica Mitford, is a Communist sympathizer, or maybe even a flaming Red.
At some point, we really do need to say enough. So I've put this page on my watch list, and will come back in a few days and delete the stuff after the reference to Nei in the first paragraph, unless someone actually comes up with a citation to whoever is claiming this weirdness is Wiki-verifiable.
Refs added....normally I avoid fansites, but since Rowling puts a restraining order to prevent them distributing a book, I think HP-Lexicon rises to the level of publisher.
Also interesting but truly OR, Hillary Clinton interned at Mitford's husbands' law firm along side Dobby and later in life hosted a Harry Potter event at the White House. Better check what color socks she wears under those pantsuits.... http://www.mitford.org/nyobit.htmlLibertycookies07:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
All right, enough. Wikipedia is NOT your playground. Quit with this garbage about your own crackpot theories. I can cite Wiki NOR, NPOV, and other principles about how to write an Encyclopedia. Take it somewhere else -- blogs, listserves, whatever. But stop it here.Timothy Perper (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
OR
The guiding principle of this article should be published works and its justification for existing on wikipedia is that college students and journalists are writing about the politics of Harry Potter. Wikipedia is an ideal resource for this type of esoterical subject matter. But if we start placing our own value judgements on the politics, then the entire article might be deleted with good cause.
So, although some may feel that homosexuality or communism may be violations of nature, it only matters to this article if a journalist or author publishes such a viewpoint, like Bill O'Reilly on Dumbledore or the attacks from conservatives on Rowling's socialist (not communist) values. Some of these published viewpoints may be really offensive and wacky, but it isn't our place to judge. We simply should reference any counterbalancing view points to place the minority view in context.
Keep in mind that Rowling borrows from so many previous works that some of the political context may simply coming from the books that influenced her. Ie: She heavily references the Bible; Jesus does not seem to advocate capitalism, but does seem to advocate tolerance of outcasts. Rowling describes Harry in a recent interview as a messiah character, and thus her principle character may simply be following that pattern of behavior without regard to today's politics.[1]. However, when that fictional behavior is commented on by pundits and/or the author in the context of our society, then it is political for the purposes of this article.
Please mark unreferenced theories in the article with OR to help bring the article back into compliance, and lets show tolerance for the opinions of all acredited sources, whether we subscribe to them or not. Thanks. Libertycookies (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
What's this doing here?
In the middle of a description about homosexuality, this line jumped out at me "The Sun-Sentinel chose to comment on Rowling's facial features in the headline for this anti-book talk article, saying Rowling's mouth is "big and fat."[40]" What is this line doing here? What does it have to do with the subject of the section "Progressive Values and Diversity"? Unless someone can give me a good reason not to, I'm going to delete it.Readin20:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The line is unnecessarily snarky, and probably meant Rowling's propensity to talk about her characters than her facial features being out of proportion. Nonetheless, it doesn't add much except show how her media critics throw sticks and stones when upset. Delete it... Libertycookies00:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Done. I also looked up the cited source for the next sentence and reworded it to make sense as it appeared to make reference to the sentence being deleted (but it was only appearance, in fact the sentence didn't make sense at all). Readin (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
In the first section describing, the following sentence is used "The Berkeley Beacon said that one parent's perception of indoctrination is another's education, in their article, No Politics in Harry Potter, which countered religious extremists' charges of Rowling promoting homosexuality in her books. [13]" What is the definition of a "religious extremist"? Does the use of that term fit with NPOV?Readin20:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I pulled out the term because the cited source doesn't use either term to say whose charges they are rebutting. For the quote you mention, I put the term in quotes to show that it was Rowling's words being used. Readin (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
"These negative sentiments are mirrored by Jeffrey Weiss in his article, "Harry Potter and the author who wouldn't shut up", published in the Dallas Morning News.[42]" Would the sentence lose any value if we removed the word "negative", which while technically correct, also tends to imply a value judgement?Readin20:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Princeton English professor William Gleason compares the series' impact to the frenzy that surrounded Uncle Tom's Cabin before the Civil War. "That book penetrated all levels of society," he says. "It's remarkable how similar the two moments are." And he does not see this as a passing fad or some triumph of clever marketing. "They've spoken profoundly to enough readers that they will be read and reread by children and by adults for a long time," he says. Feminist scholars write papers on Hermione's road to self-determination. Law professors cite Dobby's tale to teach contract law and civil rights. University of Tennessee law professor Benjamin Barton published "Harry Potter and the Half-Crazed Bureaucracy," in the Michigan Law Review, which examined Rowling's view of the legitimacy of government. His conclusion? "Rowling may do more for libertarianism than anyone since John Stuart Mill." A Rutgers researcher named a rare rain-forest plant in Ecuador apparata after her verb apparate because it seemed to appear out of nowhere. French intellectuals debate whether the stories indoctrinate kids into free-market capitalism. In Turkey, the books were absorbed into the argument over Turkey's cultural geography: Is Harry a symbol of Western imperialism or of lost Eastern traditions of mysticism and alchemy? A seventh-grade teacher in Pakistan in November invited her class to compare the country's crisis to Harry Potter. The class immediately cast Pervez Musharraf as Voldemort and Benazir Bhutto as Bellatrix. "Potter is like a Rorschach blot," says Georgetown government professor Daniel Nexon, "for people articulating concerns about globalization in their cultural setting. It's incredibly significant that Potter even enters these debates."
There isnt any 'racism' in harry potter. Half bloods and pure bloods and no bloods are all witches and wizards, no separate race, like goblin and wizard. What would be deemed more appropriate is pure blood supremacy, as pure bloods beleived that they had more rights than lower 'blood'. This also relates well to the cast system, which many countries have, and also to such things as white supremacy and black supremacy. Hermione is a good example that a cast, creed or indeed 'blood level' is not an accurate way of determining the ability or otherwise the personality character of someone. She was a very accomplished witch, however was deemed otherwise due to her 'mudblood' status. This is the same as harry's mother Lily, as Horace Slughorn from the 6th book found her to be very intellectual, despite her 'mudblood' status.
racism, I dont think is the right word to use. addy gAddy-g-indahouse09:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The interview in which Rowling was asked about racism took the pureblood issue to be an allegory for racism. That interpretation could be wrong, but this article is mainly to show the many interpretations of Harry Potter, not to judge them. In this case, the interviewer thought Rowling was making a negative statement about racism, which she seems to confirm. Libertycookies22:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Racism is always illogical, stupid and unscientific. Das Baz, aka Erudil 21:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Das Baz (talk • contribs)
One thing I've noticed
This article doesn't make much of a distinction between JK Rowling's personal politics, (such as her environmentalism) and the politics expressed within the books. Remember the title of this article is politics of Harry Potter, not Politics of JK Rowling. Serendipodous16:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Point taken, but I'd argue that most of the politics in here are defined by the personal bias and views of the reporters and pundits quoted. Including the author's political views helps put the book's fictional politics in context, and also allows readers to compare and contrast her views to what she wrote and what others interpret.
When she has answered all the questions, I suspect the article will wind up being edited down and restructured considerably. I'm regretting not titling it the Philosophy of Harry Potter since that would have better included both morals and politics. But since there are probably more boots to fall and stir up things, no use trying to make this an 'a' list article today....
Yeah, shame I won't be in the UK when it airs. Hopefully they'll rerun it. By the way, "A" listing isn't very common these days; you're more likely to get a GA nom. If you intend to get this article promoted, you're going to have to fix the references. I would also submit it for peer review before nomination, to make sure any serious kinks are ironed out beforehand. Serendipodous15:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
We still don't have a good answer for why so much of the article is about the "Politics of J. K. Rowling" rather than the "Politics of Harry Potter". For example these two paragraphs don't belong since they only talk about Rowling and not about the Harry Potter books:
When Conservative MP Michael Gove discovered Rowling's admiration for life-long Socialist Jessica Mitford, he wrote a column in The Times stating "My respect for J. K. Rowling has taken a knock from which it will take a long time to recover."[2]
Rowling's socialist attitudes were criticized by the objectivistAyn Rand Society in their magazine The Individualist, after The Times reported, "At times over the past nine years [Rowling] has seemed to be in open rebellion against her wealth...For, it emerges, her wealth has made her uncomfortable to the point of soul-searching, if not actual anguish. And although she is now far more sanguine about the "ludicrous" amount of money which she earns, she still seems to believe, deep down, that she does not really deserve to be so utterly, stinking rich."[3] Writer Robert Bidinotto pleaded in an open letter, "don't feel guilty, not for a moment. Enjoy what you have earned, Jo Rowling."
Madrid - If JK Rowling had a magic wand, she would make Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama president of the United States, the best-selling Harry Potter author said in an interview published by the Spanish daily El Pais on Friday. Rowling confessed she was "obsessed" with the US elections because of the negative influence US foreign policy has had in other countries, including Britain and Spain.
"I find it a pity that Clinton and Obama have to be rivals because both of them are extraordinary," Rowling said.
Asked whether Harry Potter was her hero, the author said her real- life hero was the late Robert Kennedy.
Rowling said she disliked being a public personality and preferred a writer's life in solitude.
"Everything we do in life is an attempt to deny death," she said on commenting on the theme of death in her novels.
"I feel very drawn to religion, but at the same time I feel a lot of uncertainty. I live in a state of spiritual flux. I believe in the permanence of the soul," Rowling said in her only interview with a Spanish newspaper to date.
According to Think Progress, a progressive news site, conservative blogs say Rowling's revelation about Dumbledore vindicates Jerry Falwell's attacks on homosexuality in children's media that were lambasted by the MSM.
The homosexuality section has the line "Ironically, homosexuality was not shunned in Aristotle's time, and pederasty was common between adult men and adolescent Greek boys." Working and degreed in the field of classics and ancient history, I'd like to say that most professors I know consider that a hollywood myth. In fact, it's safe to say I've rarely met a doctored classicist who believes homosexuality or pederasty was any more common among the general population in Greece or Rome than in Anytown, USA. In any case, it's controversial, unnecessary to the article, and is not derived from a 3rd party source, so I removed it.--Mrcolj (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It was not more common, but it was far more tolerated. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Anti-Conservative
John Granger in his book Looking for God in Harry Potter, speculated that Aunt Marge is a caricature of Margaret Thatcher. J. K. Rowling has no great love for Margaret Thatcher, who she believes was hostile to single mothers (such as Rowling) and those suffering from terrible illness (such as Rowling's mother) during the period of the 1980s when Thatcher held power on the Isles.
Slate Magazine noted that Harry's nemesis, the evil Lord Voldemort, at Harry Potter's start has just concluded 11 years of terrorizing the wizards' realm—-the same number of years Margaret Thatcher was in power. [4]]
Tom Charity of CNN suspects a "deliberate echo of Margaret Thatcher in the way actress Imelda Staunton, who plays Dolores Umbridge, pronounces her cruel diktats with a passive-aggressive feminine sweetness. [5]
In 2000, Rowling told the annual conference of the National Council for One Parent Families to vote for the party who offers the best deal for lone parents and their children - and urge them to do more.
She accused John Major, the former Tory Prime Minister, and Anne Widdecombe, shadow Home Secretary, of perpetuating the myth that there was a "preferred norm" for raising children and promoting the "baseless stereotype of the teenage mother eager to get her hands on the taxpayers' money in the form of a council flat." Rowling was quoted saying,
"Mr Major gave a speech in which he attributed the breakdown of discipline among schoolchildren to lone parents. I am as angry about that speech now as I was when I first heard it. I taught more than one disruptive, damaged child whose home contained two married parents, apparently incapable of providing a loving or stable environment."
Gordon Brown, Chancellor at the time and now Prime Minister, said he was "moved" by her comments. He promised to take one million children out of poverty by the end of the next parliament and to make families a priority in the next Budget.
Granted, Rowling has the right to write whatever she wants, but still I find it unfortunate that she puts so much political allegory into a series for kids -- and apparently it's a lot more than I had suspected. (This is a pretty well-researched article here; one need not speculate much.) I have more respect for John Steinbeck or Upton Sinclair -- they wrote for adults who think for themselves and aren't so easily indoctinated. The kiddos won't have the same critical lens of interpretation to recognize straw man villains for what they are. Afalbrig (talk) 03:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Characters with Political allegories (published theories and Rowling canon)
According to Rowling, you may spot a Harry Potter connection to Guy Fawkes
http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/books/author/interview2.htmLibertycookies (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's a political link, just that she used the name as a pun due to the burning reference. Or maybe the idea is that Dumbledore made it his private joke, he's always been aware of the muggle world. Either way, I can't think of any political link betweent the bird and the Spanish bomb expert. I'm not sure about either of the other links, either. When "the muggle Prime Minister" was mentioned in one of the books, it was at the time, according to the timeline, that John Major was in office, but the character clearly wasn't based on him, shown when Fudge refers to the previous PM as "he", when of course that would have been Thatcher. I don't think basing characters of real life people that blatently is Rowling's style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.94.83 (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Imbalance and questionable sources
While recognizing that J.K. Rowling is personally left-wing, her books have been interpreted in various ways by various readers, from both the conservative and liberal sides of the spectrum. While a liberal may find in the Harry Potter books criticism of the Bush Administration and Blair government, a conservative may see the exact opposite (the "War on Terrorism" section of the article illustrates this somewhat well, to the point where it seems contradictory in comparison to the rest of the article: if Fudge is meant to represent Bush or Blair, then how can the war between the Death Eaters and the Order of the Phoenix possibly be analogous to the War on Terror?) Yet this article is overwhelmingly presents left-wing interpretations of Harry Potter and features conservative opinions on the series almost exclusively as criticism, and moreover criticism from the right-wing fringe rather than from the mainstream. There are many conservatives who see the Harry Potter books as a parable about good versus evil, and as such see them as an allegory for the present struggle between Western democracy and Islamic fundamentalism.
Numerous other interpretations could be made: Voldemort's pandering to historically oppressed magical races, promising them a special place in his new order after the Ministry has been overthrown, could be read as an allegory for the efforts of left-wing politicians to rally support among minorities by employing class warfare techniques and fanning the flames of race hatred. As the article barely points out, Cornelius Fudge could easily be made to represent a left-wing, excessively pacifist, Chamberlain-like figure; taking it a step further, his denial that Voldemort has returned could easily be compared to the left's denial of the threat of radical Islam, even after 9/11, and he is almost as paranoid about Dumbledore's motives and intentions as the American left has been of those of George W. Bush. The novels show that the proper way to stand up to evil is to confront it and fight it, not to try to appease it or negotiate with it, which is doomed to be futile. The anti-government, anti-bureaucracy message of Order of the Phoenix could be considered right-wing or libertarian just as easily as it could be considered left-wing or anarchist. Yet none of these points of view make it into the article, which instead paints Harry Potter as if it's some sort of left-wing polemic. It's not. Therefore any interpretation of the politics of Harry Potter is going to be subjective, and as such, no interpretation is any more or less valid than any other. If you are a liberal, Voldemort = Bush; if you are a conservative, Voldemort = some liberal Democrat. Yet liberals and conservatives can both enjoy the books equally and be just as rabid fans of it—believe it or not, there are still some things in this world that do transcend politics.
Quoting extreme left-wing sources such as Le Liberation, Media Matters, Think Progress, and the Guardian is no way to achieve NPOV. I watched the episode of The O'Reilly Factor that aired the day J.K. Rowling outed Dumbledore and I can say without question that Media Matters's reporting of that interview is a dishonest misquotation (it would not be the first time Media Matters has twisted the words of conservative commentators for its own ends). Until this article achieves some balance and replaces unreliable sources with fair and balanced ones, I feel it deserves both a POV and an accuracy tag. I'm sure somebody will question it and remove it, but I'm putting it up there regardless. --Antodav2007 (talk) 06:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd hardly call The Guardian "extreme left wing" (it's actually middle-of-the-road when compared to much of Britain's left-wing press), but I do take your point. If you can find positive conservative political interpretations of the novels, please include them. Serendipodous15:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
How can the Guardian be "middle of the road"? It may not be, as you rightly say extreme left, but it clearly is left-wing. Even the Independent leans to the left, rather than middle of the road. Kentish 14 Dec 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.26.241.6 (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Added a link to YouTube video to verify that O'Reilly indeed took a negative stance on Rowling's outing of Dumbledore and was quoted accurately. These are the published opinions from mainstream journalists including those from the Right Wing like the Wall Street Journal and Zenit. O'Reilly's opinion may seem extreme but is also inclusion of Right Wing opinions. I've removed the claim of inaccuracy for the article, but if you still doubt any individual quote, please note the one in question. I'll leave the POV up, but I believe that there is adequate coverage of all points of view from the media. As you noted, the anti-government sentiments are from Libertarian sources. The reason the other opinions that you suggest are plausible aren't included is that they haven't been published in the media. If you can show a link to them, then they definately should be added. Libertycookies (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The original point is very good, and it shows how this has really been over-analised, people finding things that just aren't there. Beyond the obvious themes of pro tolerance and anti-facism, I doubt very much there is a consious political subtext to Rowling's books. She clearly dislikes Conservatism, but i'd think that this is more a natural part of her work, rather than her wanting to force her beliefs on anyone else. She may describe herself as socialist, but most of the core themes, primarily tolerance, are more associated with liberalism. Though wealth is seen as a negative in the books, it is really more idealistic of her great characters lack of greed. She focuses far too much on the actions of individuals for the book to have any sort of serious socialist subtext. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.94.83 (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Source not quoted correctly-verification of the accurancy of quotations should be improved
The quote "Harry Potter supersedes news about genocide..." seemed unlikely given the context,so I went and checked the listed source: http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3365/harry_potter_and_the_muggle_activists/
and what it actually has is "Lindsay Lohan supersedes news about genocide..." which is more to be expected from a Harry Potter fan. You have no need to believe that the statement is literally true, since no actual data is provided to support the claim or to support the implication that this is any worse than WW II, when Betty Grable or Vera Lynn (back at number 1 on the UK charts in Sept 2009) got way more attention in the West than any reports about concentration camps, prior to liberation of Belsen and Buchenwald. But then the supposedly reliable International Red Cross had investigated previous claims of Nazi atrocities, by visiting a "show" camp Theresienstadt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresienstadt#Used_as_propaganda_tool
and thus had found no evidence of the atrocities.
The real question should be whether the quotation accurately reflects the opinion of a person.
It suggests that insufficient attention has been given to the accuracy of actual quotation and uses of sources. Which is not to ignore the important issue of the over use of supposedly reliable/accredited sources like the Red Cross. It would certainly be worth pointing out their role in aiding the Nazis, as well as the spread of HIV, through their decisions, which have resulted in trials in various countries, every time the Red Cross is mentioned or used as a source in Wikipedia. And remember it was the National Enquirer that revealed the truth about John Belushi's death. I was shocked to learn that they ever published true things.
Much discussion has exposed JK Rowling as a Marxist, attempting to pollute the minds of our youth with Communist propaganda. The "pure-blood" Slytherins represent the aristocracy, who believe that "magic" (i.e. capital) should be in the hands of a privileged elite. The "clever" Ravenclaws represent the bourgeoisie, who collude with the aristocracy in the suppression of the petty-bourgeois Hufflepuffs and the proletarian house-elves. The brave Gryffindors (who wear red Quidditch robes) and Dumbledore's Army represent the Red Army, the true army of the proletariat.
Dumbledore, with his voluminous white beard, obviously stands for Karl Marx, while Harry Potter's glasses and untidy black hair make him identical to Leon Trotsky. Harry's lightning-bolt scar is in reference to the fatal head wound inflicted on Trotsky by Ramón Mercader with an ice pick. Harry survives this attack, just as the Totskyist ideal has survived in Rowling's twisted Commie mind. 75.2.217.153 (talk) 04:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Can I make a bold guess that this theory is by an American? By god, you seem incredibly paranoid, you must see communism everywhere you go. I mean this is a long book, and to say just because Dumbledore has a big beard he must be Karl Marx is quite a step. There are many flaws in your theory. Communism has always stood for working class awareness- rejecting that the group are in happy ignorance of their role, as house elves painfully are.
But the strangest thing about what you've said is the reference to Slytherin as aristocracy, which of couse is accurate, but in the context of communism? It seems like you are writing from 100 years ago. Very confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.94.83 (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
No. The guy is absolutely right, and his theory is so obviosuly correct that it needs no sources. Furthermore, I know there's such a thing as irony, but I could never quite get the hang of it. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Alexander Graham Bell had a huge beard, was he a communist? Period. I cannot say anything here without breaking NPOV so I'm shutting up, except the notion that life in Boomerang Nebula is less farfetched. 130.238.56.179 (talk) 11:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
deleted an unnecessary line
Deleted the unnecessary descriptive tag [followers of the modern Witchcraft religion], following a linked reference to Wicca. If someone wants to read about Wicca, they can just click the link. Having a description of Wicca in the middle of an article that only mentions it in passing does nothing but clutter the article. Canine virtuoso (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I removed the section on utilitarianism. Just because "for the greater good" appears in the book, it does not mean that there is a political statement about utilitarianism in the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.254.52.240 (talk) 05:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Deletion
This is probably the most poorly-written mish-mash of nonsense I've ever come across in Wikipedia. It lacks cohesion, is poorly sourced, and seems to have become a platform for editors' pet theories on the topic rather than a substantive analysis. The subject itself is trivial and should be merely a brief mention on the main article relating to the book series. In short, this article is unencyclopaedic and ought to be deleted. Crazeworry (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Politics of Harry Potter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just added archive links to one external link on Politics of Harry Potter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
