I'll try to be as brief as I possibly can here. Your criticisms of both me and Easterbrook are based on the notion that "(Rowling's) non-discussion is simply her default position on religious matters."
Once again: EXCEPT FOR THOSE QUOTES FROM THE BIBLE SHE PUT IN THE LAST BOOK!
When an author starts quoting the Bible, she's bringing religion into the discussion. And do you really think that Gregg Easterbrook is the only person of the millions who read the book capable of recognizing a quote from one of Paul's letters to the Corinthians? Or Matthew 6:19? We're talking about two relatively well-known passages in two of the most often-read books in the most widely distributed, studied, and taught document in the history of the world. And you're seriously going to claim the following???:
"No one knew they were Bible quotes. Not the reviewers, more than likely not the children, and as far as we know, no one besides Easterbrook."
I really hope you're just searching for premises on which to base your disagreement, arguing for the sake of arguing, because that's one sorry-ass piece of support. Two sentences later, you say it's the most widely read and quoted book in the history of the world -- but none of the literally millions of people who read Harry Potter can recognize well-known quotes from it? None of those legion children who attend Sunday school every week? None of the book reviewers who probably had to study Paul's letters in Lit classes (I did)? Only Gregg Easterbrook? Come on. Even most of your baseball arguments make more sense than that.
Other issues:
-- In terms of spiritual content, quoting the Bible is always a whole hell of a lot different from quoting Shakespeare. That's because there's a religion with hundreds of millions of followers based on the Bible. With Shakespeare, not so much.
But rather than acknowledging that she's pretty clearly invoking the Bible in those passages, you'd have us believe that, after writing a few thousand pages of an incredibly successful series of books for children and making millions of dollars while not mentioning God, J.K. Rowling decided to throw a couple of direct Bible quotes into the final one not because she was trying to get something across, but because "the quotes sounded good and fit the scenes she was trying to create." Or that she didn't know they were Bible verses, and just happened to quote them verbatim, anyway.
This is the kind of argument on which D-level literary analysis papers are based. Things like Biblical quotations don't happen by accident in books. Successful authors tend to be a bit more selective than writing whatever sounds good and seems to fit.
-- I never said most 200-page novels discuss god at some length. I said they mention him in some sense. There's a big difference. But you know that, since you so love semantics.
In other words, it's a significant absence when a book doesn't mention God at all. Moreso when a multi-thousand-word series doesn't. If you'd like to contend that point, please do.
-- I'd like to respond to this, which I'm quoting here lest I be accused (again) of misquoting your argument.
However, what really made no sense to me — honestly — was you additional take on children's books and religion. Are you saying that religion should be addressed in children's books (as Easterbrook suggests)? Or are you simply saying that any religious material should be well-documented so parents are aware of what's being fed to their children (a position I whole-heartedly support)? Part of my confusion here stems from the fact that Rowling made no real mention of religion or god in her books — I'll get to the Bible passages in a second — so there's nothing really here for parents to worry about in that regard (the mystical/supernatural/whatever stuff is another story, but I think(?) everyone's at least anecdotally familiar with that aspect of the series by now, so it's not like parents are flying blind here). The only person who brought up religion visa vis the Potter series is Gregg Easterbrook. It's an invention of his, not Rowling's. Thus, Rowling need not concern herself with disclosing anything about religious content with her books; there is none.
This is really puzzling. Where did I (or Easterbrook, for that matter) say anything remotely like "religion should be addressed in children's books"? Or that religious material should be "well-documented"? Find me a place where I said that. You're pretty blatantly putting words in my mouth for effect.
And you really support requiring "documentation" of religious material in books? What kind of documentation? Do you want warning stickers, a la Tipper Gore, or do you want Yellow Stars on the covers of Jewish books? A pretty strange stance for a Libertarian, no?
Your confusion stems from your stubborn, illogical belief that Rowling made no mention of God. Once again: her books have no religious content EXCEPT FOR THE FUCKING BIBLE QUOTES! I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
My "take" on religion in children's books was stated pretty succinctly in my original post: The issue of God and religious belief is even more important in children's books, I think: parents should understand and appreciate whether and how their children are being indoctrinated by what they read (and watch, and hear, for that matter).
So no, I don't think there should be warning labels on children's books that say "Parental Advisory: Religious Content." And I don't care one way or the other how (or whether) their authors choose to address God -- that's their prerogative. What I think is that parents should read with their children and discuss the books so that they can be aware of and counteract any possible indoctrinating effects. I know that's probably a pipe dream in contemporary America, but I think it's the most reasonable solution.
-- I don't want to belabor it too much, but your use of "mystics" was a stretch at best. The world is almost invariably defined in relation to religious knowledge. TV psychics don't have that, and most of them, I would assume, don't even claim to communicate with a god. And since you're an atheist, and don't believe in god, using the word to defend psychics from a guy you're calling a zealot is a particularly odd choice.
Showing posts with label Harry Potter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harry Potter. Show all posts
Friday, August 10, 2007
Yes, this is ostensibly a sports blog, but ...
It's not every day one can be accused of being both "incoherent" and "irresponsible" — criticism that seems tailor-made for Jesse Jackson — but while I take no offense, I do think you quite missed the boat completely here. The bottom line is that Easterbrook did make the "controversy" surrounding Rowling's non-inclusion of religious content out of whole cloth.
First, let's be clear: Easterbrook was making no simple observation here. He clearly accuses Rowling — using the lame "perhaps" qualifier that you and I have both criticized other writers for using in the past when making accusations they can't prove — of avoiding the issue of god and religion because she doesn't want the controversy involved. Had Easterbrook simply noted that, in contrast to the two other series, the Potter books have been free of religious content, I would have no objection.
But he didn't stop there, and your defenses of Easterbrook end up being as "incoherent" as anything I wrote. First, I fail to see how the fact that most other 200-plus page discuss god at some length — a point I'd contend, though this could simply be an issue of different experiences and literary histories — somehow means that there exists an obligation to do so for all authors who write more than short stories. I'm sorry, but that's asinine. It's not only acceptable for any author to bypass all religious/god discussion in his or her work, it's actually welcomed, particularly if he or she doesn't have anything beyond the trite or cliché to offer readers.
When you use the word "skirt," much like Easterbrook suggested that Rowling made a conscious decision to not get into the topic for feat of controversy, you ignore the possibility that her non-discussion is simply her default position on religious matters. Neither of you know what Rowling was thinking while writing (besides "I'm going to buy a baby cash!"), and I think it's irresponsible to present the assumption that she actively avoided the subject with no evidence outside of your (misguided?) assumptions about what children's books should be.
However, what really made no sense to me — honestly — was you additional take on children's books and religion. Are you saying that religion should be addressed in children's books (as Easterbrook suggests)? Or are you simply saying that any religious material should be well-documented so parents are aware of what's being fed to their children (a position I whole-heartedly support)? Part of my confusion here stems from the fact that Rowling made no real mention of religion or god in her books — I'll get to the Bible passages in a second — so there's nothing really here for parents to worry about in that regard (the mystical/supernatural/whatever stuff is another story, but I think(?) everyone's at least anecdotally familiar with that aspect of the series by now, so it's not like parents are flying blind here). The only person who brought up religion visa vis the Potter series is Gregg Easterbrook. It's an invention of his, not Rowling's. Thus, Rowling need not concern herself with disclosing anything about religious content with her books; there is none.
As for the Bible passages bit, I think that Easterbrook himself correctly identified the reason why they don't serve to make his criticism appropriate: No one knew they were Bible quotes. Not the reviewers, more than likely not the children, and as far as we know, no one besides Easterbrook. Beyond complementing him for a sharp eye and an encyclopedic knowledge of biblical verse, is there really anything else here to say? While the Bible is clearly and ecclesiastical work, it's also the most widely read and quoted book in the history of the world. Quoting the bible, in this situation, isn't all that different from quoting Shakespeare, in terms of spiritual content. Rowling quoted two fragments of larger biblical verses, didn't identify them as such, and in the context of a larger work that deals with religion not at all. She may have intended for this to be an "Easter Egg" for astute readers, but she could just have easily thought the quotes sounded good and fit the scenes she was trying to create. Or, maybe she didn't know they were bible verses at all; point is, I don't know, and neither does Easterbrook. But, suffice to say, these two lines alone don't justify harping on the author for the religious content of her works, or lack thereof.
Two notes:
- I refer to anyone who makes any claims of supernatural abilities as a "mystic." This includes TV psychics, palm readers, horse whisperers, or religious figures like priests or rabbis who claim to serve as conduits of some god. Hell, I even call people who believe in the intercessory power of prayer "mystics." I believe, further, that my using the term "mysticism" in this case is semantically correct. I thus fail to see how I am guilty of "pap" in this regard.
- I didn't hit on it in my letter, but you're right to point out that Easterbrook of all people should be the last to do something so stupidly glip as refer to anyone as a "jihadi." I think it further underscores his inability to reconcile his religious views, which appear to have been the cause of both this overstatement and his previous forehead-slapper about Jews that almost cost him his career. Not that I think that kind of reaction is justified here, and I'm less concerned with an apology than perhaps him using this as an opportunity to intelligently explain to everyone why statements like that can not only undermine one's credibility, but serve to further lower the level of discourse in this country, which is already subterranean.
Wasn't it nice writing about something else than the Phillies?
First, let's be clear: Easterbrook was making no simple observation here. He clearly accuses Rowling — using the lame "perhaps" qualifier that you and I have both criticized other writers for using in the past when making accusations they can't prove — of avoiding the issue of god and religion because she doesn't want the controversy involved. Had Easterbrook simply noted that, in contrast to the two other series, the Potter books have been free of religious content, I would have no objection.
But he didn't stop there, and your defenses of Easterbrook end up being as "incoherent" as anything I wrote. First, I fail to see how the fact that most other 200-plus page discuss god at some length — a point I'd contend, though this could simply be an issue of different experiences and literary histories — somehow means that there exists an obligation to do so for all authors who write more than short stories. I'm sorry, but that's asinine. It's not only acceptable for any author to bypass all religious/god discussion in his or her work, it's actually welcomed, particularly if he or she doesn't have anything beyond the trite or cliché to offer readers.
When you use the word "skirt," much like Easterbrook suggested that Rowling made a conscious decision to not get into the topic for feat of controversy, you ignore the possibility that her non-discussion is simply her default position on religious matters. Neither of you know what Rowling was thinking while writing (besides "I'm going to buy a baby cash!"), and I think it's irresponsible to present the assumption that she actively avoided the subject with no evidence outside of your (misguided?) assumptions about what children's books should be.
However, what really made no sense to me — honestly — was you additional take on children's books and religion. Are you saying that religion should be addressed in children's books (as Easterbrook suggests)? Or are you simply saying that any religious material should be well-documented so parents are aware of what's being fed to their children (a position I whole-heartedly support)? Part of my confusion here stems from the fact that Rowling made no real mention of religion or god in her books — I'll get to the Bible passages in a second — so there's nothing really here for parents to worry about in that regard (the mystical/supernatural/whatever stuff is another story, but I think(?) everyone's at least anecdotally familiar with that aspect of the series by now, so it's not like parents are flying blind here). The only person who brought up religion visa vis the Potter series is Gregg Easterbrook. It's an invention of his, not Rowling's. Thus, Rowling need not concern herself with disclosing anything about religious content with her books; there is none.
As for the Bible passages bit, I think that Easterbrook himself correctly identified the reason why they don't serve to make his criticism appropriate: No one knew they were Bible quotes. Not the reviewers, more than likely not the children, and as far as we know, no one besides Easterbrook. Beyond complementing him for a sharp eye and an encyclopedic knowledge of biblical verse, is there really anything else here to say? While the Bible is clearly and ecclesiastical work, it's also the most widely read and quoted book in the history of the world. Quoting the bible, in this situation, isn't all that different from quoting Shakespeare, in terms of spiritual content. Rowling quoted two fragments of larger biblical verses, didn't identify them as such, and in the context of a larger work that deals with religion not at all. She may have intended for this to be an "Easter Egg" for astute readers, but she could just have easily thought the quotes sounded good and fit the scenes she was trying to create. Or, maybe she didn't know they were bible verses at all; point is, I don't know, and neither does Easterbrook. But, suffice to say, these two lines alone don't justify harping on the author for the religious content of her works, or lack thereof.
Two notes:
- I refer to anyone who makes any claims of supernatural abilities as a "mystic." This includes TV psychics, palm readers, horse whisperers, or religious figures like priests or rabbis who claim to serve as conduits of some god. Hell, I even call people who believe in the intercessory power of prayer "mystics." I believe, further, that my using the term "mysticism" in this case is semantically correct. I thus fail to see how I am guilty of "pap" in this regard.
- I didn't hit on it in my letter, but you're right to point out that Easterbrook of all people should be the last to do something so stupidly glip as refer to anyone as a "jihadi." I think it further underscores his inability to reconcile his religious views, which appear to have been the cause of both this overstatement and his previous forehead-slapper about Jews that almost cost him his career. Not that I think that kind of reaction is justified here, and I'm less concerned with an apology than perhaps him using this as an opportunity to intelligently explain to everyone why statements like that can not only undermine one's credibility, but serve to further lower the level of discourse in this country, which is already subterranean.
Wasn't it nice writing about something else than the Phillies?
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Friday Morning Referee
Diesel seems to want me to do a travelogue, but I'm not sure what else there is to say that's sports-related other than that we went to games at Chavez and McAfee and enjoyed both of the parks immensely, even if the games themselves were pretty boring. So I'll take up the Easterbrook issue instead, since it interests me more.
I've also liked Easterbrook's stuff in the past, and I also have a number of problems with the latest TMQ offering. For one thing, this installment seems notably more prolix than usual. He's always written long, but he usually keeps me reading, and this time I found myself scrolling past paragraphs at a time. Part of it is the subject matter; the preseason has not even started in earnest, and so he's left to ruminate on things neither I nor, I imagine, many other of his readers care a whole lot about: the player's union, Harry Potter, the AFL, lawnmowers, and so on. I understand that his broad expertise and interests are supposed to be part of his appeal, but still, I think this is a big mistake on his part: just because it's the preseason doesn't mean you have to bombard us with all of this irrelevance. If you're not generating any interest from me -- one of the more academic and longer attention-spanned football fans you're likely to find -- it's probably safe to say you're boring the shit out of pretty much everybody. The answer's simple: cut it short. Of course, much of this points toward the biggest problem with Page 2, which is that there's apparently no editorial oversight whatsoever, except for the censors watching out for anything that could be construed as anti-Disney. I've covered this at length before.
His stances on a lot of the topics also strike me as gratuitously contrarian, in some cases bizarrely so. The Sopranos critique, for instance, simply baffled me: he blasts a mafia series for being too violent and too breasty? Then he rips it for not being realistic enough, basing most of his claim on obscure details like the botany of the Pine Barrens and the intricacies of liquor licenses in New Jersey? Spare me. It's drama, not reality television. Don't be such a technical dick.
And it only gets worse from there: He even goes so far as to call anybody who claims to like the Sopranos for the family scenes a liar. Here's an idea, Easterbrook: I think the Sopranos was so innovative because it was perhaps the first phenomenon-popular TV series that dealt with crime and social issues without designating the good guys and the bad guys. Maybe it's such a great show, such a cultural institution, not because it has a lot of violence and tits -- you can get both on late-night Showtime (or so I hear...) -- but because David Simon created some of the most interesting and complex characters television has ever seen. Maybe it was considered so innovative because it was really the first successful foray by a premium cable channel into multi-season dramatic series, and because it turned out to be such a high-quality show. It had great actors, great directing, spectacular writing -- it was essentially an 80-hour-long good Mafia movie. That's never been done before, and it paved the way for even better stuff, such as the single greatest television series ever made, The Wire.
He seems to be basing a lot of his judgments, against the Sopranos and elsewhere, on staunchly moralistic grounds. So, yes, I do think he's starting to sound preachy. Actually, he's starting to remind me too much of a preacher: one minute he quotes the Bible, and the next he's quite lecherously discussing thongs and making cracks about the natural hair color of cheerleaders. It's all a little weird to me, a little creepy and repressed, and it smacks of everything I hate about born-again-ism: the judgmental worldview, the superiority, the hypocrisy, the evangelism.
However.
I've also got some real problems with the first half of your letter to Easterbrook. It's ridiculous to claim that the man's "rational worldview is being seriously compromised by (his) religious zeal." Speaking of arguments being compromised by zeal, how about comparing Easterbrook to Ann Coulter? If you want to talk about writing pap, how about referring to TV psychics as "mystics"? I mean, the dude's a fellow at probably the single most respected think tank in America. He's also an editor at one of the smartest magazines extant. He's a multipublished author, a respected thinker, and, what's more, he's one of the few public figures in the contemporary tsunami of self-righteousness who's brave enough to admit when he is wrong. For that last, especially, I admire him. I hardly think questioning his very commitment to reason is justified here.
I also think your entire Harry Potter argument is incoherent and irresponsible. Easterbrook makes a completely reasonable -- and, I think, astute -- observation that the Harry Potter series skirts the issue of religion and/or God. If true (I have no idea), that's a notable absence: you won't find many 200-page novels that don't mention God in some sense, much less a series of a half-dozen books, some of which weigh in north of 700 pages. The issue of God and religious belief is even more important in children's books, I think: parents should understand and appreciate whether and how their children are being indoctrinated by what they read (and watch, and hear, for that matter).
And what you conveniently fail to mention, Diesel, is that the religion issue arises not because Easterbrook artificially holds Harry Potter up against other children's series -- as both you and your selective quotation of the column suggest -- but because Rowling decided to directly quote the Bible multiple times in the final book.
Easterbrook's observation of this phenomena remains exactly that: an observation. He soon drifts off into a critique of the Golden Compass series and anti-Christian books in general (more on that later). He never commends Rowling for including Biblical quotations; he just points them out and discusses them. By so doing, he's actually empowering any parents who may read the column to make their own decision regarding the religious content. So to accuse him of inventing the issue in order to "bully" anybody, much less atheists, is both disingenuous and irresponsible. I understand that you're very attuned to the precariousness of the atheist position in an increasingly religion-dominated world, but I think you're inventing the oppression in this case.
However, again.
The second half of your letter could not be more accurate. I absolutely and vehemently agree with you about Easterbrook's use of the word "jihadis" when describing the three other "anti-Christian" authors. That is hyperbole at its most asinine, and it shocked me when I first read the word. I expect much better from a mind like his. He does have some history of head-up-assedness when it comes to his choice of words, especially when critiquing movies and books, and this latest column -- especially the "jihadi" -- seems like the kind of thing he might wind up regretting. Respected intellectuals simply can't go around comparing their rivals to terrorists in an international forum. It's indefensible, it's stupid, and it's wrong. Further, I think it warrants an apology.
If it does, though, I bet he gives that apology. I'll give him that much credit, and to me, that means an awful lot.
I've also liked Easterbrook's stuff in the past, and I also have a number of problems with the latest TMQ offering. For one thing, this installment seems notably more prolix than usual. He's always written long, but he usually keeps me reading, and this time I found myself scrolling past paragraphs at a time. Part of it is the subject matter; the preseason has not even started in earnest, and so he's left to ruminate on things neither I nor, I imagine, many other of his readers care a whole lot about: the player's union, Harry Potter, the AFL, lawnmowers, and so on. I understand that his broad expertise and interests are supposed to be part of his appeal, but still, I think this is a big mistake on his part: just because it's the preseason doesn't mean you have to bombard us with all of this irrelevance. If you're not generating any interest from me -- one of the more academic and longer attention-spanned football fans you're likely to find -- it's probably safe to say you're boring the shit out of pretty much everybody. The answer's simple: cut it short. Of course, much of this points toward the biggest problem with Page 2, which is that there's apparently no editorial oversight whatsoever, except for the censors watching out for anything that could be construed as anti-Disney. I've covered this at length before.
His stances on a lot of the topics also strike me as gratuitously contrarian, in some cases bizarrely so. The Sopranos critique, for instance, simply baffled me: he blasts a mafia series for being too violent and too breasty? Then he rips it for not being realistic enough, basing most of his claim on obscure details like the botany of the Pine Barrens and the intricacies of liquor licenses in New Jersey? Spare me. It's drama, not reality television. Don't be such a technical dick.
And it only gets worse from there: He even goes so far as to call anybody who claims to like the Sopranos for the family scenes a liar. Here's an idea, Easterbrook: I think the Sopranos was so innovative because it was perhaps the first phenomenon-popular TV series that dealt with crime and social issues without designating the good guys and the bad guys. Maybe it's such a great show, such a cultural institution, not because it has a lot of violence and tits -- you can get both on late-night Showtime (or so I hear...) -- but because David Simon created some of the most interesting and complex characters television has ever seen. Maybe it was considered so innovative because it was really the first successful foray by a premium cable channel into multi-season dramatic series, and because it turned out to be such a high-quality show. It had great actors, great directing, spectacular writing -- it was essentially an 80-hour-long good Mafia movie. That's never been done before, and it paved the way for even better stuff, such as the single greatest television series ever made, The Wire.
He seems to be basing a lot of his judgments, against the Sopranos and elsewhere, on staunchly moralistic grounds. So, yes, I do think he's starting to sound preachy. Actually, he's starting to remind me too much of a preacher: one minute he quotes the Bible, and the next he's quite lecherously discussing thongs and making cracks about the natural hair color of cheerleaders. It's all a little weird to me, a little creepy and repressed, and it smacks of everything I hate about born-again-ism: the judgmental worldview, the superiority, the hypocrisy, the evangelism.
However.
I've also got some real problems with the first half of your letter to Easterbrook. It's ridiculous to claim that the man's "rational worldview is being seriously compromised by (his) religious zeal." Speaking of arguments being compromised by zeal, how about comparing Easterbrook to Ann Coulter? If you want to talk about writing pap, how about referring to TV psychics as "mystics"? I mean, the dude's a fellow at probably the single most respected think tank in America. He's also an editor at one of the smartest magazines extant. He's a multipublished author, a respected thinker, and, what's more, he's one of the few public figures in the contemporary tsunami of self-righteousness who's brave enough to admit when he is wrong. For that last, especially, I admire him. I hardly think questioning his very commitment to reason is justified here.
I also think your entire Harry Potter argument is incoherent and irresponsible. Easterbrook makes a completely reasonable -- and, I think, astute -- observation that the Harry Potter series skirts the issue of religion and/or God. If true (I have no idea), that's a notable absence: you won't find many 200-page novels that don't mention God in some sense, much less a series of a half-dozen books, some of which weigh in north of 700 pages. The issue of God and religious belief is even more important in children's books, I think: parents should understand and appreciate whether and how their children are being indoctrinated by what they read (and watch, and hear, for that matter).
And what you conveniently fail to mention, Diesel, is that the religion issue arises not because Easterbrook artificially holds Harry Potter up against other children's series -- as both you and your selective quotation of the column suggest -- but because Rowling decided to directly quote the Bible multiple times in the final book.
Easterbrook's observation of this phenomena remains exactly that: an observation. He soon drifts off into a critique of the Golden Compass series and anti-Christian books in general (more on that later). He never commends Rowling for including Biblical quotations; he just points them out and discusses them. By so doing, he's actually empowering any parents who may read the column to make their own decision regarding the religious content. So to accuse him of inventing the issue in order to "bully" anybody, much less atheists, is both disingenuous and irresponsible. I understand that you're very attuned to the precariousness of the atheist position in an increasingly religion-dominated world, but I think you're inventing the oppression in this case.
However, again.
The second half of your letter could not be more accurate. I absolutely and vehemently agree with you about Easterbrook's use of the word "jihadis" when describing the three other "anti-Christian" authors. That is hyperbole at its most asinine, and it shocked me when I first read the word. I expect much better from a mind like his. He does have some history of head-up-assedness when it comes to his choice of words, especially when critiquing movies and books, and this latest column -- especially the "jihadi" -- seems like the kind of thing he might wind up regretting. Respected intellectuals simply can't go around comparing their rivals to terrorists in an international forum. It's indefensible, it's stupid, and it's wrong. Further, I think it warrants an apology.
If it does, though, I bet he gives that apology. I'll give him that much credit, and to me, that means an awful lot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
