The "Danger" of Harry Potter and Fantasy...

I came across this piece written by the late Paul Kurtz (RIP) in which he bemoans young people's interest in books of fantasy, wishes there was more counterbalancing literature grounded in reality and speculates that fantasy novels like the Harry Potter series might have negative effects.

I find the view that fantasy novels are somehow negative or dangerous to be quite ridiculous and I am usually disappointed when I come across someone espousing this opinion. In Paul Kurtz's case, I am disappointed because I would not have expected such sentiments to come from him. Although I believe him to have been unnecessarily aggressive in his stance on psychic phenomena and other elements of the paranormal, he had always appeared to be a reasonably tolerant, fair-minded individual, displaying none of the rudeness and nastiness that I have come to expect from some prominent media sceptics. He did not appear to be prejudiced against religious or spiritual people and he acknowledged that religion contained positive elements. He was critical of the behaviour and attitudes of some of the New Atheists and stated that he objected "to militant atheists who are narrow-minded about religious persons." I respected this about him.

So I was surprised and a little disappointed to see his criticism of the Harry Potter novels - and, by association, fantasy books in general. For the benefit of readers, here is the passage to which I am referring:

"I am astonished by the fact that six books on atheism have been published by five authors (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel C. Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and Victor Stenger) to such vitriolic comment in the press. Taken together, these six titles constitute perhaps one million to one and a half million books currently in print (before returns). Yet nary a word of criticism has been made about the fact that the latest Harry Potter book by author J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, had a first printing of twelve million copies. I do not wish to be ac­cused of being an old fuddy-duddy, but I deplore the fact that millions of young people rush out to devour books of fantasy, touting witchcraft and other paranormal phenomena, without even a semblance of skepticism. Bookstores are so eager to stay in business, they’ve had special parties for readers heralding its publication. Why not have such parties for best sellers that are science fiction but at least ground their speculations in responsible ex­trapo­lation from the known? At their best, books of fiction can inspire human imagination while remaining in touch with the empirical world. One might argue that books of blatant, untrammeled fantasy such as the Harry Potter books and films have a negative effect, especially when these tales are not presented—or understood—as pure fantasy. I surely believe in freedom of the press and the aesthetic power of novels; but I wish that there were counterbalancing literature to pure fantasy."

I can't help thinking that Kurtz's objections are off-base and that he appears to have missed the point of people reading fantasy in the first place. One point that he seems to miss, or ignore, is that most people don't just read to learn things, they also read for FUN. For pleasure. For entertainment. Reading to learn is commendable and should be encouraged, but the role of entertainment should not be devalued. Just as learning should be celebrated, so should simple, light-hearted fun. The biggest and brightest academics like to take breaks from their studies and indulge in hobbies for pleasure, whether that be reading fiction, listening to music, watching films or TV, playing sports, etc. And reading fantasy novels is one such activity that people like to do for fun.

Kurtz states, "I deplore the fact that millions of young people rush out to devour books of fantasy, touting witchcraft and other paranormal phenomena, without even a semblance of skepticism."

But surely scepticism is only necessary when dealing with purported facts and knowledge, or beliefs and opinions stated as fact? How is scepticism necessary when one is reading children's fantasy books like the Harry Potter series, in which the reader is already fully aware that what they are reading is merely the product of someone's imagination?

This is the point that Kurtz seems to have missed. Readers are not applying scepticism to fantasy books such as the Harry Potter series, because there is no *need* for scepticism - they are already aware that it is all fantasy! They don't question or consider for a moment that what they're reading might be factual - they take it for granted that it's all fiction.

To further emphasise this point, imagine you are watching the old animated Disney movie of 'Cinderella'. Imagine you are watching the scene in which the fairy godmother appears and creates a horse-drawn carriage for Cinderella with a few flicks of her wand. Now imagine that someone approaches you and insists that you should apply scepticism to what you are watching. How would you react?

Most people, I believe, would find the suggestion laughable - because they know that what they are watching is purely a fantasy movie! They are well aware that they cannot wave a wand and cause a carriage to appear out of thin air! They do not NEED to apply scepticism, as it is not necessary in such context!

Kurtz's criticism of young people devouring books of fantasy "without even a semblance of skepticism" can be construed as insulting to young people's intelligence and implying that they cannot comprehend the boundaries between reality and fantasy. I am sure that Kurtz did not mean it in that way, but that is how it could be taken.

I feel that the majority of young readers of fantasy - even those as young as, say, seven or eight - are well aware of the difference between reality and fiction and are well aware that the actions taking place in their fantasy books do not pan out like that in the "real world." I read fantasy books as a child and was aware from a very young age that it was nothing more than fiction - that things like this just didn't happen in reality. Perhaps there are a few young people who blur the lines between reality and fantasy, but they are surely few and far between and make up the tiniest of minorities. The vast majority, I believe, are perfectly capable of distinguishing fact from fiction.

Kurtz goes on to say that "books of fiction can inspire human imagination while remaining in touch with the empirical world." That is certainly true and all well and good - but what about people - readers and authors - that don't want to be restricted to the "empirical world?" What about people who like to *escape* from the "empirical world" from time to time and throw themselves into a purely fantasy world? What Kurtz seems to be missing is that the empirical world is often just not enough for a lot of people - not interesting enough, not exciting enough. That's one of the reasons that so many forms of entertainment and art forms exist. Not everyone is interested in this world, or at least not interested in being restricted to it. Some people like to get out and create and explore imaginary worlds of their own or others' making. Surely Kurtz does not object to this? Yet, one might think so by reading his piece.

Certainly, reading books about the 'real world' - scientific texts about the nature of reality, for example - is to be commended. But it is by no means the only thing that people should be praised for reading. As I said earlier, many people read purely for entertainment purposes - and there is nothing wrong with that. How many people are going to read, for example, 'The Origin of Species', for fun? Perhaps those who have a passionate interest in science/biology/evolution, but for many people, they will not be interested enough to be entertained by it. A lot of people want, require, need, even - something 'out of this world' to give them enjoyment and pleasure.

Fantasy books perform a great service. They are a necessary and beloved means of entertainment to many people and they can help get children interested in reading.

Kurtz adds, "One might argue that books of blatant, untrammeled fantasy such as the Harry Potter books and films have a negative effect, especially when these tales are not presented—or understood—as pure fantasy."

Fair enough, it's valid enough to speculate on - but is it actually the case? I highly doubt it. As I said before, there may be a small number of people who read books such as the Harry Potter series and have trouble grasping reality, but they must be a very, very, *very* small minority, negligible, almost. Kurtz can speculate that fantasy novels could, conceivably, have a negative impact - but does he actually believe that that is the case? I sincerely doubt that there is much substantial evidence to support such a claim. There seems, to me, to be much more evidence that fantasy books such as the Harry Potter series have a positive impact. Firstly, they give a lot of people (adults and children alike) a lot of of joy, entertainment and plain old FUN. And, as I pointed out earlier, they can also be instrumental in getting children interested in reading. And I firmly believe that most people are well aware of the difference between fantasy and reality, so I am in complete disagreement with Kurtz's suggestion that fantasy books might have a negative impact.

Kurtz finishes by saying "I wish that there were counterbalancing literature to pure fantasy." Well - there IS counterbalancing literature to pure fantasy. Literature isn't just made up of fantasy novels and nothing else. There is a huge amount of fiction, for both children and adults, which is set in the real world, and deals with "real world" problems. So I'm not sure what he is complaining about here? There is far from a dearth of literature dealing with reality.

To conclude, it really does seem to me that Kurtz was complaining about nothing. He seems to miss the point of why people read fantasy in the first place and ignores the fact that a lot of readin is done for fun, rather than academic purposes. I have always believed Kurtz to be a kinder and more tolerant individual than some other media sceptics, but I find his views here to be disappointing.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
red pill junkie's picture
Member since:
12 April 2007
Last activity:
3 hours 33 min
  • Written books
  • Fiction novels
  • Waltz
  • Movie films
  • Rock & Roll

These are just a few of the things which have been decried in the past as being a horrible way to corrupt the minds of the young.

And the list will keep on growing. Of that I can be certain ;)

It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

Red Pill Junkie
_______________
@red_pill_junkie

Inannawhimsey's picture
Member since:
14 April 2009
Last activity:
1 year 6 weeks

i prefer Colin Wilson's riffing on what Romanticism has wrought, that it was predicated on an escape from this reality into some other 'better' reality and an optimism, but that our particular civilization has focussed on the Romanticism rather than what it shows and, thus, our civilization continues to 'suffer' because of it...

---------
All that lives is holy, life delights in life.

--William Blake

Greg's picture
Member since:
30 April 2004
Last activity:
4 hours 30 min

Good critical view of this opinion (also held by Dawkins, who was concerned that fantasy novels were poisoning young minds to some degree). Nice job!

Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things
@DailyGrail

Rick MG's picture
Member since:
2 May 2004
Last activity:
5 days 21 hours

"I deplore the fact that millions of young people rush out to devour books of fantasy, touting witchcraft and other paranormal phenomena, without even a semblance of skepticism."

So Kurtz had something in common with the Vatican. Who knew?

If only Kurtz took the time to actually speak with fantasy readers. Most fantasy readers I know are card-carrying skeptics, atheists, and agnostics. Heck, most fantasy authors are too. Philip Pullman, Neil Gaiman, Terry Pratchett, China Mieville, Ursula K Le Guin, Alan Moore to name a few examples.

Kurtz also makes the mistake of claiming fantasy has nothing intellectual to offer. He has a point with the Twilight series, but the authors I just mentioned would tear him apart in a debate. HG Wells and Jules Verne inspired today's NASA scientists and National Geographic explorers -- who knows what today's fantasy and scifi authors will inspire in the future.

And that's not to say fantasy authors who do believe in god/s, magic/k, spirituality, or witchcraft are a few trombones short of a parade either. Tolkien was a devout Catholic and an intellectual, inspiring mythologists and literature for the better half of a century.

Fantasy does corrupt one thing though -- our waistlines, no thanks to all that talk of elevenses and second breakfasts...

"The one place gods unarguably exist is in the human mind."
~ Alan Moore.

~ * ~

@levitatingcat

Tap's picture
Member since:
6 April 2012
Last activity:
4 days 6 hours

Thanks, Greg! I found the Kurtz passage purely by accident but I personally found his view so ridiculous that I just *had* to critique it.

I really find it mystifying when people say that fantasy books might have a negative impact. Do they object to imagination? Do they object to entertainment? Do they object to people having fun?

It seems to me like some people want others to only read books which contain factual information about the material world. Well, factual texts just don't cut it for everyone! I consider myself a fairly academic individual, I am university educated and I enjoy reading factual texts about spirituality, the paranormal, music, even the odd science text. (Science is not really an interest of mine, I'm more inclined towards literature and music.)

But many people just want to read for entertainment. And this is where people's love of fantasy come in. Someone may not be learning much about the world by reading the Harry Potter books, but that's not the point of them - the books are to entertain people, nothing more, nothing less. And, as Rick MG pointed out, sometimes people *can* learn from reading fantasy.

Unfortunately, Kurtz really does come across to me here as doing nothing more than complaining about young people having fun.

red pill junkie's picture
Member since:
12 April 2007
Last activity:
3 hours 33 min

And there's also the slight chance that people might get INSPIRED from reading Fantasy. And it might help them pursuit an interest to bring a little part of that Fantasy world into our own reality.

It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

Red Pill Junkie
_______________
@red_pill_junkie

Inannawhimsey's picture
Member since:
14 April 2009
Last activity:
1 year 6 weeks

neet article by Paul Kurtz -- he's riffing on the creation of a new Belief System and calling it 'neohumanism'

we come across this all the time here on thedailygrail -- there are 'Possibilians', 'New Atheists', 'Discordians', 'jerks' etc etc etc

here's the link to the article I believe Tap is riffing on...

and on the bits that Tap chooses to riff on above, it is 'sad' in a way that certain books aren't gobbled up as much as certain other books...imagine if Physics textbooks or books on calculus were as popular to the general public as Harry Potter? :3 then everyone would be more able to 'hack' reality...not to mention have even more esoteric and complex jokes at parties *waggles eyebrows*

something to think aboot outside of one's personal tribalisms...

---------
All that lives is holy, life delights in life.

--William Blake

SummerSaphire's picture
Member since:
7 December 2012
Last activity:
1 year 45 weeks

There are some nice points being made here. And just to add my own "two cents," if it weren't for the fantasy genre, I would have been "assimilated" long ago!
I believe, in order to cope with the high amount of stress that society is bombarded with (many times caused by itself,)a coping mechanism is necessary for continuance of that society. Not only that of coping, fantasy and imagination in general enables humans to think creatively so as to evolve and grow mentally.

red pill junkie's picture
Member since:
12 April 2007
Last activity:
3 hours 33 min

Welcome to the Grail --You and your Teddy ;)

It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

Red Pill Junkie
_______________
@red_pill_junkie

emlong's picture
Member since:
18 September 2007
Last activity:
13 hours 27 min

The paranormal is certainly not the stuff of fantasy. It exists in the "empirical." The author is either very unobservant or very poorly informed.