HOME / assessment: Taking stock of people and ideas in the news.

Harry PotterPampered jock, patsy, fraud.

Warning: This article contains a few spoilers about the Harry Potter books and movies.


Illustration by Charlie PowellLike most heroes, Harry Potter possesses the requisite Boy Scout virtues: trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent. But so do lots of boys and girls, and they don't get books and movies named after them. Why isn't the movie that comes out next week titled Ron Weasley and the Chamber of Secrets? Why isn't its sequel dubbed Hermione Granger and the Prisoner of Azkaban? Why Harry? What makes him so special?

Simple: He's a glory hog who unfairly receives credit for the accomplishments of others and who skates through school by taking advantage of his inherited wealth and his establishment connections. Harry Potter is no braver than his best friend, Ron Weasley, just richer and better-connected. Harry's other good friend, Hermione Granger, is smarter and a better student. The one thing Harry excels at is the sport of Quidditch, and his pampered-jock status allows him to slide in his studies, as long as he brings the school glory on the playing field. But as Charles Barkley long ago noted, being a good athlete doesn't make you a role model.

Harry Potter is a fraud, and the cult that has risen around him is based on a lie. Potter's claim to fame, his central accomplishment in life, is surviving a curse placed on him as an infant by the evil wizard Voldemort. As a result, the wizarding world celebrates the young Harry as "The Boy Who Lived." It's a curiously passive accomplishment, akin to "The Boy Who Showed Up," or "The Boy Who Never Took a Sick Day." And sure enough, just as none of us do anything special by slogging through yet another day, the infant Harry didn't do anything special by living. It was his mother who saved him, sacrificing her life for his.

Did your mom love you? Good, maybe you deserve to be a hero, too. The love of Harry's mother saves his life not once but twice in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Not only that, but her love for Harry sends Voldemort into hiding for 13 years, saving countless other lives in the process. The book and the movie should be named after Lily Potter. But thanks to the revisionist histories of J.K. Rowling, Lily's son is remembered as the world's savior.

What Harry has achieved on his own, without his mother, stems mostly from luck and, more often, inheritance. He's a trust-fund kid whose success at his school, Hogwarts, is largely attributable to the gifts his friends and relatives lavish upon him. (Coming soon: Frank Bruni's book, Ambling Into Hogwarts: The Unlikely Odyssey of Harry Potter.) A few examples: an enchanted map (made in part by his father), an invisibility cloak (his father's), and a state-of-the art magical broom (a gift from his godfather) that is the equivalent of a Lexus in a high-school parking lot.

Harry's other achievements can generally be chalked up to the fact that he regularly plays the role of someone's patsy. Almost all Harry's deeds in the first book take place under the watchful eye of Hogwarts headmaster Dumbledore, who saves Harry from certain death at the end of the book. In Chamber of Secrets, the evil Voldemort successfully manipulates the unsuspecting Harry, who must once again be rescued. In Goblet of Fire, everything Harry accomplishes—including winning the Triwizard Tournament—takes place because he is the unwitting pawn of one of Voldemort's minions.

Even Harry's greatest moment—his climactic face-off with Voldemort in Goblet of Fire—isn't much to crow about. Pure happenstance is the only reason Voldemort is unable to kill Harry: Both their magic wands were made with feathers from the same bird. And even with his lucky wand, Harry still needs his mom's ghost to bail him out by telling him what to do. Once again, Lily Potter proves to be twice the man her son is.

Harry's one undisputed talent is his skill with a broom, which makes him one of the most successful Quidditch players in Hogwarts history. As Rowling puts it the first time Harry takes off on a broom, "in a rush of fierce joy he realized he'd found something he could do without being taught." Harry's talent is so natural as to be virtually involuntary. Admiring Harry for his flying skill is like admiring a cheetah for running fast. It's beautiful, but it's not an accomplishment.

In fact, Harry rarely puts hard work or effort into anything. He is a "natural." Time and again, Harry is celebrated for his instinctual gifts. When he learns that he is a Parselmouth, or someone who can speak the language of snakes, Rowling writes, "He wasn't even aware of deciding to do it." (In fact, when Harry tries to speak this language, he can't do it. He can only do it instinctively.) When Harry stabs a basilisk in Chamber of Secrets, Rowling writes that he did it "without thinking, without considering, as though he had meant to do it all along." In Goblet of Fire, during Harry's battle with Voldemort, Rowling writes that "Harry didn't understand why he was doing it, didn't know what it might achieve. …"

Being a wizard is something innate, something you are born to, not something you can achieve. As a result, Harry lives an effortless life. Although Dumbledore insists, "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities," the school that Dumbledore runs values native gifts above all else. That's why Harry is such a hero in wizard culture—he has the most talent, even if he hasn't done much with it. Hogwarts is nothing more than a magical Mensa meeting.

If you liked this Assessment column, check out Backstabbers, Crazed Geniuses, and Animals We Hate, a collection of our all-time funniest, meanest, sweetest, and weirdest profiles.

Print This ArticlePRINTEmail to a FriendE-MAILShare This ArticleRECOMMEND...Get Slate RSS FeedsRSS
Chris Suellentrop reviews games for Slate.
Illustration by Charlie Powell.
COMMENTS

Remarks From The Fray Editor:

New to The Fray? Check out the posts below (and some of the others) before posting. The Fray usually works better when it's a discussion.

Now, on to the posts thus far. Everyone hates Suellentrop's piece. Well, not really. Dan likes it, and socalchango thinks it's at least worth doing. James follows up on the Harry Potter/George W. Bush parallels with some future installments of the series (I only quote one below.) Those who think he got it wrong believe he missed out on the significance of Harry's childhood of abuse (see Gilker Kimmel below). Lastly (for now) Ben Kirkup thinks Suellentrop has it basically right, but that this only sets the stage for Rowling's next installment: a typically British novelistic negotiation with resentment and squandered excellence…

Notes From The Fray:

You don't often come across someone who not only admits to misreading a children's book but publishes his misunderstanding on a major news web.

If I understand the Rowling books myself, Harry Potter is a kid who has been abused from shortly after his birth. His parents were killed and he was fostered by abusive relatives who treated him as a slave and locked him in a cupboard nightly. With this upbringing, Harry still managed to grow into a level-headed, well-balanced kid, a heroic achievement when you consider how easily some people convince themselves that their own perceived victimization justifies any and all egregious behavior.

Once Harry discovers the birthright that his aunt and uncle have denied him, rather than immediately turning its power to selfish ends, he embarks on a course of study and discipline. During the course of those studies, unfair obstacles and dangers are faced and overcome by Harry, often in the face of abuse by his peers and suspicion from adults.

What kind of a morally bereft person reads Harry Potter and comes away thinking, "Geez, he doesn't deserve to be considered a hero"? Yeah, they are kid's books full of questionable decisions made by the children involved - a more realistic (if that word is at all appropriate) reaction from Harry every time his scar twinges should be to start calling for Dumbledore at the top of his lungs.

But that would be very unHarry-like because one of the lessons of the books is that Harry has learned to ignore people telling him how worthless he is and to find his own meaning in life, despite all adversity and, most of all, to take care of himself as best he can. It plays him wrong, this feeling of self-reliance, since eleven (and twelve, thirteen and fourteen) year olds should look to those older and supposedly more responsible for guidance and protection. But considering Harry's background and experience, such mistakes are understandable.

What isn't understandable is how someone could read fairly simple children's books and come away with such a poor understanding.

-- Gilker Kimmel

(To reply, click
here.)


At last, someone has had the courage to stand up to the mindless juggernaut that has been the Harry Potter franchise.

Why are we all supposed to like Harry Potter? Because it has children reading? Reading the latest Harry Potter provides no more intellectual stimulation that the Dukes of Hazzard reunion television movie (which was more substantial than the Harry Potter books by virtue of its rich and multilayered insider's look into our nations' mores and fantasy life).

-- Dan

(To reply, click
here.)


Mr. Suellentrop derides Harry Potter as a "glory hog who unfairly receives credit for the accomplishments of others and who skates through school by taking advantage of his inherited wealth and his establishment connections." As history shows us, however, Harry Potter has an auspicious life ahead of him. Watch for the following best-sellers!

"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Budweiser": HP sees trouble brewing abroad. Voldemort is fomenting war in a distant land, hoping to lure the glory-seeking HP to a gruesome end. HP heeds the call but his mother's ghost returns to dissuade him, whereupon HP joins up with the Hogsmeade Air National Guard in spite of there being a long waiting list to get in and further in spite of the fact that HP had no credentials whatsoever other than family. Voldemort again slinks away in defeat. Adding insult to injury, HP skips duty for more than a year at the Hogsmeade Air National Guard but still emerges with reputation intact.

-- James

(To reply, click
here.)

I think we can expect to see his pampered status catch up with him; particularly with regard to Cho Chang, Hermione, and Ron. Expect to see Ron's permanent 'sidekick' status eat away at him (just as he envies his brothers) and his jealousy over Hermione create a serious problem. Ron indeed has had to work for everything, without even Hermione's gifts. And Hermione is a mudblood, an outcast in some senses. Trying to cope with their problems will not be easy for Harry, handicapped by their natural resentment of him.

Into this picture, then, will Harry be the spoiled jock, the patsy, the child of fortune? Yes and no. Snape has come down hard on him in the past for potential pride, intimating that his past won't necessarily carry him. Dumbledore has tried to keep him humble.
But in the near future, his protectors will be stripped away, his talents will be matched by another, and he will have to face fate without friends, gifts, or much hope.

-- Ben Kirkup

(To reply, click
here.)

(11/8)

What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
TODAY'S PICTURES
TODAY'S CARTOONS
TODAY'S DOONESBURY
TODAY'S VIDEO
The Berlin Wall.4/091109_TP.jpg
Cartoonists' take on guns and shootings.2/091109_TC.jpg
Ins and outs.73/091109_TD.jpg