(Guesswork based on feelings and handwaving; discount appropriately.) I am more worried by the unstated or mostly-unstated assumptions of children’s stories than I am by what they say clearly and explicitly. I have three reasons (or rationalizations) for this. (1) If something’s explicit, then it’s easier to talk about it, to say “this is probably wrong”, etc. (2) Fiction is usually more explicit about differences from the real world, presumably partly for reasons of parsimony, so readers are used to assuming background stuff as fact. (3) When something is stated explicitly, you are more likely to notice its odd features than if it’s just left fuzzily in the background.
Consider, e.g., books in which magical things go on. Narnia or Harry Potter, say. I wouldn’t worry much about children becoming serious believers in magic as a result of reading such books, or actually expecting that if they crawl into a wardrobe they might find themselves in another world. On the other hand, in such stories it’s usually true on some level that Good Always Wins In The End, or that Love Conquers All (for some notion of “love”, usually not the same one as in escapist material for adults), and I think children are more likely to absorb that sort of idea uncritically.
Actually, while I like HP, the thing I found most disturbing in the series was the whole “hey, it’s okay to mindwipe muggles to hide ourselves. No real moral issue with raping someone’s mind for our own convenience...”
It’s a matter of least-harm. Keeping magic away from Muggle view is the best way. When that fails, a minor deletion of memory is a lesser but acceptable option.
What other options are there? Killing the Muggle? Kidnapping them and never letting them have contact with ‘normal’ human society? Removing the memory only of the incident isn’t a bad alternative.
Yes, the technique could certainly be abused. But the way it’s being applied isn’t particularly objectionable. It certainly shouldn’t be the first line of defense, but it isn’t being treated that way.
I believe he’s implying that fiction can convince us that Good Always Wins In The End, or that Love Conquers All, and that, to some extent, these beliefs become self-fulfilling.
(Guesswork based on feelings and handwaving; discount appropriately.) I am more worried by the unstated or mostly-unstated assumptions of children’s stories than I am by what they say clearly and explicitly. I have three reasons (or rationalizations) for this. (1) If something’s explicit, then it’s easier to talk about it, to say “this is probably wrong”, etc. (2) Fiction is usually more explicit about differences from the real world, presumably partly for reasons of parsimony, so readers are used to assuming background stuff as fact. (3) When something is stated explicitly, you are more likely to notice its odd features than if it’s just left fuzzily in the background.
I think I see what you mean, but would you be willing to provide an example?
Consider, e.g., books in which magical things go on. Narnia or Harry Potter, say. I wouldn’t worry much about children becoming serious believers in magic as a result of reading such books, or actually expecting that if they crawl into a wardrobe they might find themselves in another world. On the other hand, in such stories it’s usually true on some level that Good Always Wins In The End, or that Love Conquers All (for some notion of “love”, usually not the same one as in escapist material for adults), and I think children are more likely to absorb that sort of idea uncritically.
Actually, while I like HP, the thing I found most disturbing in the series was the whole “hey, it’s okay to mindwipe muggles to hide ourselves. No real moral issue with raping someone’s mind for our own convenience...”
It’s a matter of least-harm. Keeping magic away from Muggle view is the best way. When that fails, a minor deletion of memory is a lesser but acceptable option.
What other options are there? Killing the Muggle? Kidnapping them and never letting them have contact with ‘normal’ human society? Removing the memory only of the incident isn’t a bad alternative.
Yes, the technique could certainly be abused. But the way it’s being applied isn’t particularly objectionable. It certainly shouldn’t be the first line of defense, but it isn’t being treated that way.
One could always, well, NOT keep magic a secret.
If there is no better way to protect yourself then I’m totally in favour!
Well yes—that’s the point of fiction, it’s an ingredient of the miracle by which civilization is built from killer apes.
Could you be more specific about what particular feature you’re saying is the point of fiction?
I believe he’s implying that fiction can convince us that Good Always Wins In The End, or that Love Conquers All, and that, to some extent, these beliefs become self-fulfilling.
Harry Potter. I’ve seen the outcry of churces against the book and they have good reason to be scared.