Rule-Breaking: Some More Pottering About

In an essay on the Harry Potter books (it will appear eventually in Touchstone), I took certain writers to task for fussing about the bad example of rule-breaking Harry and his friends set for young readers.  My argument was that anyone old enough to read the books was old enough, if properly taught, to judge bad behavior appropriately.  The criticism I was hearing from these quarters did not seem sufficient to discourage children from reading what I believed would pass Luther’s test for was Christum treibet:  Harry is an imperfect, yet clearly recognizable, icon of the Lord.

But, ah, the rule breaking:  There are indeed a great many children’s books these days which, along with other media, glorify it for its own sake, which make the will and desire to break rules a virtue, and the actual breaking a heroic slap in the face of the prigs and prunes who imagine they have the authority to impose upon the infant Invictus.  The other day day I came upon this piquant title among the children's books in the New York Times Book Review: How Alice Roosevelt Broke the Rules, Charmed the World, and Drove her Father Teddy Crazy.  

I’m pretty sure I recognize the genre, and am decidedly of the Hillaire Belloc school when it comes to the like.  I have not seen many Newbery or Caldecott Award books lately with titles like, How Johnny Smith Broke the Rules and was Chopped to Pieces Under the Wheels of a Train, or, How Suzy Jones Broke the Rules and Lost Both Arms in the Grain Auger, or, How Billy Bezel Broke the Rules and Lost Every Friend He Had, or, How Charlie Bungbluster Broke the Rules, and Was Regarded as a Fool by Everyone Who Knew Him for the Rest of His Short, Unhappy Life.  Granted, there are counter-stories that are just as true-to-life:  How Dickie Dodge Broke the Rules and Became the Richest Man in Town, all patterned on the original, How Lucifer Broke the Rules and Received All the Kingdoms of the World and Their Glory.  

To keep the good rules, however, we must break the bad ones; to keep the great ones, we must maintain the smaller ones in subordination to them--and we must teach the importance of this to our children if we value their lives, both temporal and eternal.  This seems to me no great revelation, but here is a place it needs repeating: the question is not whether rule-breaking in itself is good or bad, but whether it is good or bad in this situation or under these circumstances, which is to say, What kind of rule are we dealing with here, the kind that should be broken, or the kind that should not?  (The devil knows how to make rules, too, and we should be in the business of breaking as many of them as we can. ) This is not "situation ethics," but simply Ethics, and the fundamental reason why all believers must pray without ceasing--not an impossible mandate that only the greatest saints can hope to obey, but normal Christian life.  

Having read all the Harry Potter books myself, I judge Harry and his friends to have developed, in their zeal to do good, excessive independence of authority, and with it wisdom, to which they should have subscribed.  (Among us these are pre-eminently our parents and Church.)  Harry, for example, should have come clean to Dumbledore and sought his aid on several important occasions when he foolishly chose not to.  He would have been wise to give Snape, however nasty the man might have been, the deference and hearing he deserved. Failing to do so, he involved himself and his companions in much gratuitous rule-breaking which, while plot-sustaining, does not appear their Author excuses them for.  Children who take advantage of what they read here to break good rules themselves likewise have no excuse for their behavior before the rod of parental discipline.

In full agreement, however, with those who protest rule-breaking-in-general as a deplorable theme of modern children’s literature, I join them in warning parents that a good many writers of these books are indeed trying to make their readers into little devils, or at the very least, to break them on the wheel of a reality in which rule-breaking causes enduring pain.  The child is told no more about this by these authors than the Serpent told Eve about the unspeakable results of her pomary repast.  They can be very subtle, and they don’t play fair: they are child molesters whose blandishments are intended to seduce the relative innocence of children into the transgressive sphere where the authors already exist, the closest wickedness can come to happiness being pleasure in shared guilt and misery.  The book market is full of dragons who eat children.  

Harry Potter, though, seems to me one of the other sort.  There are only two Sides, and it is very easy to tell which he is on.  If he is an invention of the devil, then the devil is, as in the Crucifixion, out in his calculations.  I am immensely grateful to J. K. Rowling for writing these books, think Christians well-advised to read them, and to use them to full effect in their discourse in the Muggle world. 

Comments

[Kamilla]

I'm sort of miffed about Rowling's other sort of rule-breaking - changing a character's history/motivation/emotional state after it is all done and dusted. Rather tarnishes the entire series for me.

Kamilla

[Stuart Koehl]

I don't suppose it's ever occurred to you that every time Harry, Hermione, Ron or any other character "breaks the rules" (often man-made, arbitrary and capricious rules, but rules nonetheless), they DO suffer for it, if not sooner then later? Even Dumbledore suffers when he breaks the rules.

As for Dumbledore (and Kamilla's veiled reference to his announced homosexuality), why does this bother anybody? A close reader of the stories would even say it had been broadly suggested for some time, and it made fairly explicit in the Deadly Hallows. It was easily apparent that the adolescent Dumbledore had a crush on his glamorous friend Grindelwald, which in turn caused him to develop the sin of pride, complete with delusions of being able to take over and remake the Wizarding World "for the greater good". As a result of that infatuation, Dumbledore's beloved sister is killed, Grindelwald escapes, and eventually wreaks havoc upon the world.

Dumbledore spends the rest of his life atoning for his sin. He gives up all ambition and pretensions to power and devotes his life to teaching. He foreswears his devotion to wizard superiority, and becomes champion of muggles, mudblood, house elves and the other magical races. He fights and defeats his old friend, becoming holder of the Elder Wand, but he never uses it either to kill or to gain power. Instead, he becomes the rallying point of resistance to Voldemort, even at the cost of his life.

There is no evidence that Dumbledore ever falls in love or even has any truly close friends, though he has many acquaintances and proteges. Dumbledore has no sex life. He has become a true celibate, foresaking erotic love for true agape.

Does anyone have a problem with that?

[margaret]

"There is no evidence that Dumbledore ever falls in love or even has any truly close friends, though he has many acquaintances and proteges. Dumbledore has no sex life. He has become a true celibate, foresaking erotic love for true agape."

If that's so, in what sense is he homosexual? ...if he's never fallen in love, has no sex life, truly celibate, forsaking erotic love... doesn't look like any homosexuality I've seen.

[labrialumn]

I do fear that those Christians who complain that the students 'break the rules' in order to do good, are raising good little Germans in their homes who will quite obediently turn their parents into the Obamajugend when the time comes.

Alles in ordnung is not a Christian virtue, at least not as a stand-alone complete virtue without any context.

[Kamilla]

Stuart,

If it is so "broadly suggested" why did no one notice until after JKR's announcement? I read a number of assessments, both pro and con (including the kind of ill-informed anti-Potter stuff that would have gleefully glommed onto any hint of homosexuality in the series - gasp! A potential pederast in charge of all those boys?!?!!!) and NO ONE mentioned it.

As for why it bothers anyone? I couldn't give a flying fig if Dumbledore is or isn't. The point is you do not break faith with your readers by changing the rules or revealing major information about a character that potentially changes motivation, etc. after it is all done and dusted.

That's just not cricket.

Kamilla

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>If it is so "broadly suggested" why did no one notice until after JKR's announcement? <<<

Just dense, I guess.

Dumbledore is a man who has no close female friends, who makes no reference to any women in his life at any time, and who seems to have a major problem with intimacy. We lean that as a child his family situation tended to isolate him from his peers, until he goes off to Hogwarts (which is, I remind you, modeled after a British public school). Then we read of an adolsecent fling with a glamorous, dashing slightly older boy, and they get on like gangbusters. It is clear that Grindelwald is the dominant personality in the pair, and that Dumbledore adores him. Was there anything physical involved? We aren't told. but the homoerotic tension in their relationship is palpable. It could very well be that Dumbledore found himself sexually attracted to the older boy, which allowed him to fall into folly. When Grindelwald killed Dumbledore's sister, the sense of guilt and betrayal was such that, regardless of Dumbledore's sexual inclination, he rejects all of them. And has a major "change of heart". He rejects physical love and redirects his energy into a greater love.

You may not accept this interpretation, but it is laid out there for all to see, it is consistent with the narrative, and it does explain so much. Rowling, who said she had the entire story in her head from beginning to end, is very good about plotting and continuity, so it seems to me that she had made this determination about Dumbledore fairly early in the game.

I still don't see the big deal.

>>>That's just not cricket.<<<

No, but it is quiddich.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>If that's so, in what sense is he homosexual? ...if he's never fallen in love, has no sex life, truly celibate, forsaking erotic love... doesn't look like any homosexuality I've seen.<<<

So, you are saying that a homosexual cannot resist his sexual urges, cannot live a celibate life in continence, and cannot be morally good because of his inclinations? If a heterosexual man can be celibate, why not a homosexual man? And if homosexuals are more inclined to promiscuity than heterosexuals, doesn't this make his celibacy even more heroic?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I do fear that those Christians who complain that the students 'break the rules' in order to do good, are raising good little Germans in their homes who will quite obediently turn their parents into the Obamajugend when the time comes.

Alles in ordnung is not a Christian virtue, at least not as a stand-alone complete virtue without any context.<<<

I am rather inclined to agree with Labrialumn on this one, and point out the irony that most of those who criticize the Potter books because of the "rule breaking" tend to be Protestants, whose attitude towards authority has tended to be somewhat individualistic (ask Sam Adams), while those who have embraced the books the most tend to be Catholic, who supposedly have much greater deference to authority.

Also note that the rules Harry breaks are, for the most part, imposed by the authorities for arbitrary, capricious or self-serving reasons. The Wizarding World is governed not by a king, or by a parliament, but by a ministry: it is the world's first pure bureaucracy, in which career civil servants run everything and are accountable to no one but themselves. It is, I believe, a caricature of life in Britain today as it is actually lived by ordinary people, and a devastating one at that. In such a situation, confronted by an amoral and pervasive authority that demonstrates no inclination to engage and destroy evil, what choice does the moral person have other than to break the rules.

Remember, these are really war stories, and for the last three books, Dumbledore and his allies are at war not only with Voldemort, but also with the Ministry of Magic itself. Dumbledore, Snape, McGonigal, the Weaselys, the entirety of the resistance movement is 'breaking the rules". Got a problem with that?

As for the adolescent rule breaking, again I remind you that every time Harry and his friends do break the rules, they pay a price, even if the overall outcome is a good one. As Dumbledore notes, we are shaped by our choices, but as Labrialumn says, our choices have to be judged in the context of the situation in which they are made.

[Stuart Koehl]

My wife (fan of Alan Rickman that she is), has just pointed out that Snape is the character you would vote "Most Likely to Be Gay"--he's waspish, aloof, very definitely single, doesn't seem to get on with women. But this, too, can be explained through the sequence of love, loss and redemption. Snape, like Dumbledore, is alienated from his peers by his family situation and his awkward personality. He falls in love with Lilly Potter, becomes jealous of James Potter, ends up betraying them to Voldemort in return for a promise that Lilly will be left alive (for him). But Lilly dies, Snape confesses all to Dumbledore, and begins his life as a double agent in the Order of the Phoenix, eventually sacrificing his life to redeem himself through the destruction of Voldemort. Much as he loathes Harry, who reminds him too much of his nemesis James, Snape takes considerable risks to protect Lilly's son. Throughout this entire period of his life, he appears to have turned his back on sex. Lilly was his true love; he betrayed her, and because of that, he can have, and wants, no other.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

(1) Stuart Koehl reads Harry Potter. Very cool and hip neo-con. (FWIW, I never read a single book and have watch only the first 2 or 3 movies.)

(2) Steve Hutchens reads and likes Harry Potter too.

(3) Stuart Koehl agrees with Labrialumn... for a change.

(4) First time that sweet, gentle Kamilla has ever gotten pi$$ed off at anyone on a MereComments thread.

(5) Who did that? None other than choose-your-adjective Stuart Koehl.

LOL. Dat's funny.

[S. M. Hutchens]

For what it's worth: I noticed that my children were reading and enjoying the Harry Potter books, but probably wouldn't have read them myself if I hadn't been asked to review the first two for Touchstone, and later prepare a series of lectures on them for a conference in Bavaria. David Mills and I in particular felt it was good to keep tabs on these things.

I accidentally fell into writing about children's literature, which I had incidentally read a lot of, having children and having been a child myself, but upon which I never regarded myself as expert. I didn't read the Chronicles of Narnia until I was in my late twenties, and don't even have a firm category in my mind for "children's literature." There is only "literature," for anything written for children worth reading is worth reading for grown up children, too. In any event, I fell into Harry Potter accidentally as well.

Now parenthetically, Mr. Koehl, Mere Comments readers will soon receive notice that the site is going to be fully moderated. Beginning a comment with an insult like, "I don't suppose it's ever occurred to you" will cause the whole thing to vanish without a trace. I would regard this as unfortunate, since much of what you have to say is of value. Fair warning.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"Now parenthetically, Mr. Koehl, Mere Comments readers will soon receive notice that the site is going to be fully moderated."

Way to go, Moe.
-------------------

Dear Dr. Hutchens, if it's not too late, I should like to respectfully request that this decision be prayerfully reconsidered, and God willing, rescinded.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Dr. Hutchens,

I really appreciate the editors being willing to take the time to do this rather menial task. It takes time and effort, and I know this isn't free. But the benefit to us all would be tremendous - raising the level of the discussion and trimming the rather nasty polemic rabbit trails.

[Nick]

I'd advise against it. It really isn't worth the time. I also thought Stuart's comment was out of line...mostly because he was agreeing with you.

As to Dumbledore, I think you've changed your position Stuart. What's wrong with Albus just being celibate period? Why does it have to have a homosexual motivation. When I read the story I saw something of my old best friends in the relationship between the two great wizards and I never had any intention of snogging him as it were.

[smh]

The official, detailed annoucement of moderation will be made by Jim Kushiner, and is yet to come.

This decision has been under consideration by the editors for years. The only thing that has kept us from lowering the axe sooner has been our inability to find a suitable volunteer with the time to do the moderation. I was the only one who put forward arguments against it, but friends have convinced me otherwise, primarily by asking me to reconsider my lack of difficulty with the idea that this should be a forum unfriendly to all but the voluble and tough-minded.

Speaking for myself, I have not put any prayer into it at all. That would seem to me a way of mocking God by avoiding decisive action on what he has been teaching us our whole lives is the right thing to do. Life experience has trained me to recognize the admonition of men to pray almost always as the command of God to act.

[Beth from TN]

Just curious. Am I the only person in the universe who just didn't *like* the Harry Potter books? I read the first three and no more, because I was bored out of my mind and didn't want to waste any more time . . .

[Matthias]

Great idea. The best religious blog on the web, IMHO, is Fr. Stephen's "Glory to God For All Things". He is absolutely ruthless about excising personal attacks and sarcasm the instant they appear. I'm sure it's a ton of work, but it elevates the level of discussion wonderfully.

If this blog could reach that level of consistency it would truly be a marvel.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>As to Dumbledore, I think you've changed your position Stuart. What's wrong with Albus just being celibate period? Why does it have to have a homosexual motivation. <<<

Because the story doesn't sustain that thesis. Dumbledore undergoes a severe emotional trauma that involves both the death of his sister and betrayal by his friend. Go back and look at how the relationship between young Dumbledore and the slightly older Grindelwald is described, both in recollections of others and in Harry's flashbacks, and you can see how the intellectually precocious but socially backward Dumbledore could develop a physical crush. It's not really that unusual, and it does not mean that the relationship was physically consumated.

[Stuart Koehl]

Steve,

I am sorry you took offense, when by "you" I simply meant anyone. It seems you are as hard a person to agree with as to disagree with.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Great idea. The best religious blog on the web, IMHO, is Fr. Stephen's "Glory to God For All Things". He is absolutely ruthless about excising personal attacks and sarcasm the instant they appear. I'm sure it's a ton of work, but it elevates the level of discussion wonderfully.<<<

I wonder how many of the Fathers would make the cut, what with their equally ruthless training in classical rhetoric and tendency to go for the jugular in both apologetics and homiletics? Certainly, guys like Jerome and Cyril of Alexandria would be blackballed in short order.

[David Gray]

>I wonder how many of the Fathers would make the cut

I see the same thing on Lutheran and Reformed blogs where people will excuse their discourtesy by noting that Luther played rough at times. I didn't find it compelling then either.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I see the same thing on Lutheran and Reformed blogs where people will excuse their discourtesy by noting that Luther played rough at times. I didn't find it compelling then either.<<<

Luther did more than just play rough. Luther unleased the odium theologicum with a vituperousness that I would find hard to approach even on my most inspired day. And his bile was reciprocated by his opponents both Papist and Reformed. It puts the Pyongong Times to shame. I suppose, then, that it was a product of the time in which they lived.

[Margaret]

Beth, I"m with you. I find the books pleasant enough, but by no means top drawer.

[Nick]

Why would it have to be a physical crush? If its the recognition that he was dashing, so what? Am I expressing homosexual tendencies just by mentioning that? I think that's way to open of a definition of homosexual.

[Nick]

BTW, I agree that I'd pick Snape long before Dumbledore...

[Rob G]

"Just curious. Am I the only person in the universe who just didn't *like* the Harry Potter books?"

I really feel the odd man out, as I've never had any interest in reading them at all, despite my love for Lewis, Tolkien, etc. Then again, I haven't read any 'new' fantasy in about 20 years, so that may be the reason.

[smh]

Offense was not taken, Stuart. I knew you were agreeing with me. My observation on language remains the same. You have much of value to contribute, and I will hate to see your comments removed for incivility to anyone.

I don't blame anyone for lack of enthusiasm for the Potter books. There are a number of authors favored in Touchstone circles that I do not enjoy. It had never occurred to me, though, until I read the MS of John Granger's article (pp. 28f of the December, 2008 issue), that the Potter canon may well have become the "shared text of the twenty-first century." I think he is on to something here, and for this reason it may be important to know these stories, whether or not we find them engaging.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I think that's way to open of a definition of homosexual.<<<

Well, perhaps "gay curious" would have been more precise. I would say it is pretty obvious from the way Rowling wrote about their relationship that, on Dumbledore's part, at least, there was an erotic component. And I think when Grindelwald killed his sister and then fled, he felt tremendous shame and guilt regarding it.

[smh]

Surely we are given examples by the Lord and the saints to speak the truth, to identify evils as what they are in the harshest terms, and call things by their right names, however offensive. This is why our ban on "incivility" is not absolute. But when it appears it will now draw the contributor into the field of editorial judgment on whether it is warranted. Clearly it is our opinion that much of what has appeared in these pages has not been, and we intend to take appropriate action.

[Firinnteine]

Dumbledore can plausibly be interpreted as "homosexual," if by that word you mean a person who experiences same-sex attraction. He can also be plausibly interpreted as NOT. I don't see the books as definitive either way.

In the context of the books, Dumbledore is clearly celibate, whatever sexual attractions he may or may not experience; and as someone said, committed to selfless agape, or the closest thing the Harry Potter universe has to it.

His (clearly disciplined) sexual tendencies just aren't that important to the story.

What the books DO clearly portray, curiously enough, is a strongly family-centered world. (Consider the end of the seventh book!!) Many characters' parents are dead, or otherwise out of the picture (Harry, Luna, Neville...), but in spite of the fact that Rowling herself is divorced and remarried, I don't know of any magical character in the stories whose parents were divorced -- except (effectively) Voldemort.

Forget Dumbledore's sex-life, or (more accurately) lack thereof. Where, in twenty-first century British society, did J. K. Rowling find a vision for a society ordered around the traditional family??

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Firinnteine: "Where, in twenty-first century British society, did J. K. Rowling find a vision for a society ordered around the traditional family??"

Where indeed. Certainly not from the UN.

"A leader in the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has declared that the breakdown of traditional families, far from being a “crisis,” is actually a triumph for human rights.

Speaking at a colloquium held last month at Colegio Mexico in Mexico City, UNFPA representative Arie Hoekman denounced the idea that high rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births represent a social crisis, claiming that they represent instead the triumph of “human rights” against “patriarchy.”"

From: United Nations Population Fund Leader Says Family Breakdown is a Triumph for Human Rights".

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

"Great idea. The best religious blog on the web, IMHO, is Fr. Stephen's "Glory to God For All Things". He is absolutely ruthless about excising personal attacks and sarcasm the instant they appear. I'm sure it's a ton of work, but it elevates the level of discussion wonderfully."

I heartily second this point. The tone on Father Stephen's blog is amazing, and the conversation astonishingly constructive. He has a gift.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

For the record, I'm not a huge fan of the Potter books (though I don't hate them either). The first few were good train commute reading, but I stopped and haven't really felt the need to pick them back up. As to them being the "shared text of the twenty-first century", I'd say that's awfully premature. I prefer not - I don't personally think they are good enough to warrant that. Perhaps "shared text of the first decade of the twenty-first century" is more likely.

[smh]

I think "shared text of the twenty-first century" is closer to the mark. The majority of people who have read these books are young, and will carry them in memory, reinforced by the films, well past the middle of this century. (The Social Security Administration expects an American female born in 1995 to live to 2075.) These books are, moreover, of unprecedented international celebrity.

This is an instance, I believe, of what Lewis in Pilgrim's Regress called "picture smuggling." When darkness was deep, and people had lost the ability to read, God smuggled pictures to them that awakened Sweet Desire for what can only be found beyond the boundaries of the world. It would be a mistake for those who are not enthusiastic to underestimate the strength of the penetration.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Am I hoping in vain that the Bible will be more of a "shared text of the twenty-first century" than the Harry Potter series?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Am I hoping in vain that the Bible will be more of a "shared text of the twenty-first century" than the Harry Potter series?<<<

Which one? Go back a century or so, and in the United States the King James Bible was indeed the common text of the vast majority of people, both Protestant and non-Protestant. Catholics had the Douay-Rheims text, which in many ways was quite similar (both, I believe, relied heavily on Tyndale). And the unique language and phrasing of the KJV had infiltrated the general culture--politics, literature, art, even daily conversation.

Today, there is such a plethora of biblcal translations on the market the emergence of a shared text is well nigh impossible. Which bible should we use? An entire generation of Catholics raised on the miserable New American Bible would not recognize the KJV, the RSV, the Jerusalem Bible or any other text. Evangelicals use so many different texts they have a hard time understanding each other. Is it King James Only, or the lugubrious "Good News Bible"? Hieratic English or breezy colloquial?

For the Bible to be the common text, there must be a common Bible, and we haven't had one for a long, long time.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

I guess, Dr. Hutches, I fully expect another series of books to become every bit the sensation that these are in another five or ten years, complete with movie adaptations.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I guess, Dr. Hutches, I fully expect another series of books to become every bit the sensation that these are in another five or ten years, complete with movie adaptations.<<<

I actually don't see it. Remember, Lord of the Rings was published in the 1950s, did not really take off as a publishing phenomenon until the 1960s (remember the awful Ballentine paperback set with the garish, psychedelic covers?), and really did not become embedded in the public consciousness as a common text until AFTER the Peter Jackson movies. And, though LOTR inspired a slew of imitators, none of them were even vaguely equal to the original, because the original was sui generis: to write something like LOTR, one would have to be something like J.R.R. Tolkien.

Similarly, Harry Potter, while reliant on earlier works in a range of genres (fantasy, bildungsroman, public school tales, medieval alchemy), is itself sui generis, because to write something like Harry Potter, you would have to be something like Jo Rowling--and she seems to be a pretty unique individual.

Now, I will grant you that as "pure literature", the Potter novels are mediocre--Rowling's strong points are plotting and characterization, but her narrative tends to be unfocused, her style fully middle brow. But those are entirely beside the point: the Potter stories grabbed an entire generation looking precisely for something "middle brow"--accessible yet meaningful. And I really don't think any serious reader of the stories could say that Rowling did not write with the intention of grasping with serious issues of good and evil, and of moral choice. That her plots dovetailed very nicely with current events only helped matters: the generation whose first real encounter with the world was 9/11 looks at the Potter stories and sees a moral template for dealing with the issues of our times. That is going to make it a received text, no matter what.

Remember, when LOTR came out, it was criticized by the high brow critics as trash, its writing dreadful, its characters two-dimensional. All that got swept aside because of the novels' narrative grandeur and its ability to address deep issues in a way people could understand and assimilate.

To show the superiority of narrative and message over pure style, look at Philip Pullman's Dark Materials, the Atheist's Narnia. Pullman is by all accounts a much better writer than Rowling (possibly better than both Tolkien and Lewis, at least in this genre). But though his books have sold well, and one has been adapted into a movie, they have had nowhere the success of either Potter or LOTR, and especially not as children's literature (I don't see too many tweens or teens sitting around reading Pullman; most of his gushiest fans are in fact adult skeptics and atheists, which means Pullman is merely preaching to the choir); his message is not one that resonates with children. If fairy tales are supposed to entice a child's sense of wonder, Pullman goes out of his way to say all wonder is false. Buzzkill. He may get some alienated late-teen goths, but never normal, emotionally healthy children.

So my guess is you are just going to have to learn the various Harry Potter references that are making their way into the culture, just as others have had to learn to recognize references from Lord of the Rings. This stuff will become genetic, and in the absence of a common Biblical text, it will become one of the common shared texts of the 21st century.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

You may be right, Stuart, but if I were betting, I would bet on you being wrong. People like Harry Potter, for sure, but I don't see it becoming (say) what the first three Star Wars movies were. I've read the first three books, and seen all the movies, and I just don't have a lot of memorable quotes or story moments that become touchstones.

Consider:

Help Me Obi Wan Kanobi - you're my only hope
Use the force, Luke!
There is no escape from the dark side
Do or do not - there is no try
Your mind tricks will not work on me, boy
Luke, I am your father

etc.

Maybe it's just the difference between something more dominant in my present culture (software engineering geekdom), but I can't produce a single memorable quote from harry potter that evokes an entire moment/outlook/philosophy like these do. Oh well. Perhaps I'll eat my words in 20 years. We'll see.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

The HP books definitely get better as the series progresses. I don't think I could read the first two books again, but I've read the last two several times and still cry toward the end of the final book (and I'm not sentimental except about babies). JKR's writing is pedestrian but she sure has some good things to say about life, death, sacrifice, the will to power, and living in families. They mythic structure is well thought out and sustains lapses in other areas of storytelling.

I also support the list being moderated but I trust the editors will have a light hand on the delete button.

[Stuart Koehl]

To whom do the first three Star Wars movies really, really appeal? Answer: people of our age. I actually saw each one in a theater during the opening week. That was our "common cultural reference point". Kids my daughters' ages grew up with the last three Star Wars movies, of the puling little mop-top brat, Jar-Jar Binks, whiny adolescent Anakin (Hayden Christensen), bitchy Princess Amidala of the weird accent and stranger hairstyles (makes her daughter Princess Leia look like the epitome of good taste), and hyperkinetic Yoda. It never engaged them the way the Harry Potter books did. The only books that have engaged them more are Tolkien, and then because I made sure to read them all aloud, twice, when both were very young. As they grow up, Harry Potter is something they share with all their peers. And that will be true of their demographic cohort for the rest of their lives.

[Stuart Koehl]

Of the last three Star Wars movies, the best quotes in fact come from the various parody fan-flicks. I personally love the one in which Obi-wan tells Yoda and Mace Windoo that Anakin has gone over to the dark side.

Obi-wan: He's bad, I tell you, bad to the bone, really evil!

Yoda: Warn you we did. Listen you did not. Now screwed we all are.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The HP books definitely get better as the series progresses. I don't think I could read the first two books again, but I've read the last two several times and still cry toward the end of the final book (and I'm not sentimental except about babies).<<<

The Potter books actually tell the same story over and over again, in a kind of spiral, with each iteration going deeper and darker into the abyss that one must face when fighting true evil. You are accidentally dragged into what appears to be harmless children's stories, but by the third book, you get the suspicion that something is amiss, that more is going on than you can see. By the middle books, the tone is definitely more somber, and the last two books are actually written in an epic voice, and are an almost unrelieved account of tragedy and loss. Rowling, unlike, say, George Lucas, did not get frightened by her material or where it was taking her. Lucas copped out, Rowling did not. She wipes out almost the entire generation of Harry's parents' and their classmates, she inflicts death and mutilation on some of the most beloved characters in her books. Victory comes at a price.

She shares this view with Tolkien, and I have not forgiven Peter Jackson for deliberately omitting "The Scouring of the Shire" from the movies (he said he did not like that chapter, but it is absolutely essential). Frodo tells Sam the truth very bluntly: "We went on the quest to save the Shire, Sam. And it has been saved. But not for me". You see hints of this in the movies, such as when the four Habbits are in the Green Dragon quaffing their ale, look around them, and realize that none of the other Hobbits of the Shire would be able to understand anything that they have seen or done. And they shrug and go back to their ale.

As for crying, I do it all the time. I can't read the last two paragraphs of Return of the King, and usually gave them to one of my daughters to read. Found myself bawling out loud in the theater at the end of ROTK, to my daughters' amusement and embarrassment. Dumbledore's speech at the end of Goblet of Fire has pretty much the same effect.

[Matthew N. Petersen]

Regarding the Douay-Reims: The original Douay is nearly unreadable. But some time later a convert took the KJV and changed it to agree with the Vulgate, rather than the Greek or Hebrew. So the one we read today is esentially the KJV with a few modifications.

Regarding Pullman: I've read the whole trilogy, and while Pullman has a clear gift for telling compelling stories, the final end of the third book was very underwhelming. The climax was that the Kingdom of Heaven has been replaced with The Republic of Heaven. That's it? Cromwell won? Several key characters repent in the end and finally come to the right side. Their reward? To fall ceaselessly through the Abyss. Even after they die, their consciousness will continue to fall, for all eternity. Somehow I found this more than a tad underwhelming. "Yeah they repented. Oh, but they don't even die a good death." Death is destroyed, but its destruction is just that people can really die now, rather than being tortured eternally. Woohoo! And the criticism of the Church is that it supresses our natural urges. The criticism is most pithily stated by one of the characters who was a consecrated member of the Regnum Christi. (Presumably. Pullman didn't actually mention Regnum Christi, but her chrism was basically the Regnum Christi one.) She left Regnum Christi and the Church because she wanted to have an afair. Boo Church. It won't let people love. But then in the climax of the book, the two heroes, now closer lovers than Beatrice and Benedic, must separate, simply because it wouldn't be right for them cheat the universe and stay together. So Boo morality for repressing our desires, except when they should be repressed.

[Benighted Savage]

Stuart Koehl writes:

>>> As for crying, I do it all the time. I can't read the last two paragraphs of Return of the King, and usually gave them to one of my daughters to read. <<<

Now that would be a another good topic for discussion: name a prose or poetry passage that elicits a certain weepy feeling.

[Ethan C.]

Speaking of "bad rules that need to be broken," has anyone noticed that the rules of Quidditch are horrible? It combines the worst aspects of cricket (excessive length), soccer (difficulty in scoring), and sudden death overtime (manifest unfairness).

The Golden Snitch idea is awful. It would be like if in baseball, a home run counted for 50 runs and automatically ended the game.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Speaking of "bad rules that need to be broken," has anyone noticed that the rules of Quidditch are horrible?<<<

That's what makes it so ENGLISH! Ever read the rules of cricket or rugby? Now combine the two, add flying broomsticks, and voila! Quidditch! Actually, the book Rowling wrote on Quidditch for charity has a detailed explanation of the origins and evolution of the game (it originally involved bodily mayhem--oh, wait. never mind).

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Now that would be a another good topic for discussion: name a prose or poetry passage that elicits a certain weepy feeling.<<<

How about liturgical services that do the same?

[Lisa R.]

I've enjoyed the comments (read them all!) But I must confess that I was somewhat taken aback by the threat of moderation of this blog because of some perceived insult by Mr. Koehl ("I don't suppose it's occurred to you. . .") I'm relatively new to this site, enjoy coming here when time permits and am confused as to the tension I'm picking up on. Is there a history here of which I am unaware?

RE: Harry Potter, his books and movies. I've not read any (my eldest child read the first 5 books, but is now waiting to read the remaining ones after each movie.) We've seen and enjoyed the movies as a family, partly purely for the enjoyment of an adventure with characters that are easy to care about. Early on in her reading, my daughter caught on to Harry's Christ-type characterization, albeit an imperfect one.

I've always been puzzled by the Christian parents who choose to denigrate the series based on its setting in a school of magic and on its characters, mostly wizards and wizard-wannabes. Some of these same parents no doubt have rented or even bought books and movies such as "The Wizard of Oz" (no real wizard but a couple of witches!), the "Star Wars" books/movies, which contain an amazing amount of humanism and eastern philosophy, and other "acceptable" stories.

[Beth from TN]

I asked my son, after reading this thread, what he has noticed about the Harry Potter phenomenon on campus. He just turned 18, is a college freshman at the college where I teach. I know that LOTS of students here have read the books, seen the movies, thoroughly enjoyed them. But I've not noticed Harry Potter allusions, comments, quotes, etc., such as I hear all the time in reference to other popular movies. My son said that he hasn't noticed it at all, either. (He's a film major, but is pretty eclectic in his friends.) I find that interesting. We are a small school, of course, and perhaps not representative of anything in the broader culture. Still, I find it interesting, especially at a Christian school where the books are generally seen by their readers as upholding Christian values . . . . Time will tell.

[bonobo]

Regarding the Douay-Reims: The original Douay is nearly unreadable. But some time later a convert took the KJV and changed it to agree with the Vulgate, rather than the Greek or Hebrew.

I take it he also added the LXX books that have occasionally disappeared from the KJV, right? That in itself would improve any Bible version's concordance with the original Greek, let alone correcting errors that have crept in to the Masoretic text.

[Stuart Koehl]

But Jerome used the Masoretic text in the Vulgate, which is why we Byzantine Catholics need our own unique translation.

[labrialumn]

Moderation or censorship? Who will watch the watchmen? This is always a problem. And once moderation is 'fully engaged' (as opposed to blipping bad words, for instance) can never be discussed, because doing so is seen as lese majeste. Moderators typically are unrestrained themselves, and 'moderate' those with whom they disagree, perceiving their personal disagreement as a sign of the other person as having violated the rules of civility.

I guess we will see if this will be any different.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

I'm not too concerned about "who will watch the watchmen" when it comes to Jim Kushiner, Tony Esolen, and Steve Hutchens. I assume they will "watch each other", in so far as they need to do this at all. I trust these people's judgment on civility, and if I didn't at least to some degree, I probably wouldn't be visiting this site.

[labrialumn]

Stuart,
I can't let Luther off the hook on the basis of 'the times' because Erasmus did not do so, nor Francis de Sales (as far as I know in both cases). Melancton got a little snarky at times but was mostly irenic (for which some Lutherans criticize him)

Removing all sarcasm, let alone all -perceived- as sarcasm would result in a mighty thin Bible, though. We tend to see in posts we disagree with a more negative 'tone' than is actually meant. Moderation by deleting posts rather than allowing for revision quickly becomes the means for censorship. Those the moderator agrees with can get away with a good deal, whereas those the moderator disagrees with are usually deleted for questionable reasons. I've seen it again and again. "Stand Firm" was a good example of this problem that can and usually does, arise.

I certainly don't see any erotic or homosexual elements in Dumbledore. He is a sort of father figure, and children typically don't think of their parents in erotic situations. It would have been, I think, out of type, for Dumbledore to have had a visible sex life (as opposed to perhaps a marriage, or unrequited love). Due to my holding to the Biblical view of homosexuality, I don't see how someone so God-hating and rebellious as to be given over to that abomination which causes desolation could also be heroic, noble and self-sacrificing.

JKR's writing may be pedestrian, middle-brow, especially when compared to Tolkien and a few others, who can from time to time, make the language sing, but she writes into a time with the middle brow is far above the common state of things, and so she does elevate many of her readers, as well as provide a hint of the Gospel, not only in the final book, but also in cryptic statements such as "as long as you can go to the place where the blood that was shed to save you, yet lives, often enough that you can still call it home, you will be kept safe from the Dark Lord."

It is difficult not to cry for joy in reading Tolkien's full poem _Mythopoeia_.

Lisa, this is an environment which says "mere Christianity" but where Bible-believing non-Catholics are resented, where citing the Bible over and against the traditions of men is called 'bomb-throwing' and so forth. I suspect it will become the sole domain of Roman Catholics of several rites, along with existentialist neo-protestants.

[Margaret]

Lisa, a history per se is neither here nor there. That the editors want to do more to ensure that the blog they're responsible for presents a excellent Christian witness is both commendable and unremarkable.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Labrialumn: "Moderators typically are unrestrained themselves, and 'moderate' those with whom they disagree, perceiving their personal disagreement as a sign of the other person as having violated the rules of civility.

We tend to see in posts we disagree with a more negative 'tone' than is actually meant. Moderation by deleting posts rather than allowing for revision quickly becomes the means for censorship. Those the moderator agrees with can get away with a good deal, whereas those the moderator disagrees with are usually deleted for questionable reasons. I've seen it again and again."

I'm inclined to agree with Labrialumn. But this afterall is the Touchstone editors' blog. Render unto the editors what is the editors purview to do. C'est la vie.

[Ethan C.]

Lisa R.,

There is indeed a bit of a history. I've been reading and posting here for a few years. Some of my favorite compatriots from the olden times have quit because they came to dislike a change in the tone and general civility of the site. I dearly hope that a little moderation might lure them back.

On Quiddich: I should add that it also includes the perverse incentives of basketball (look up Hack-a-Shaq).

Here's how it happens: Catching the Golden Snitch scores 150 points and immediately ends the game. If a team is behind by more than 150 points, it immediately becomes in their interest to *not* catch the Golden Snitch, in order to prolong the game in the hope that they could come back. So in the only instance in which the rest of the scoring matters, it actually makes one team not want to accomplish the game's main goal. Otherwise, the only purpose of the chasers and keeper -- that is, four out of the seven players on the team -- is merely to keep the game within a 150-point margin.

I'll bet American wizards play some other game that's similar, but actually makes sense.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

Lisa,
I'm a Bible-believing non-Catholic (and not an existential neo-Protestant whatever the heck that is) and I don't know what Labrialumn is talking about. A lot of the main contributors to discussions, including Judy Warner, GL, Bill R., David Gray, TUAD, Ethan, and Michael are Protestant. Of course Protestants have seldom been known to disagree among themselves--they're rather like continuing Anglicans that way; just one happy family united in the bonds of faith and charity.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

"We tend to see in posts we disagree with a more negative 'tone' than is actually meant. Moderation by deleting posts rather than allowing for revision quickly becomes the means for censorship. Those the moderator agrees with can get away with a good deal, whereas those the moderator disagrees with are usually deleted for questionable reasons. I've seen it again and again."

I have too, Labrialumn, but have also seen some wondrous counter-examples (Father Stephen's blog). It depends on the moderator. I trust the editors to be good ones, and am excited about the level of discussion around here being raised.

This question is potentially an interesting theological one, by the way. Is the potential for corruption in authority preferable to the assurance of bullying in anarchy? I'd say the scriptures tend toward support for the former.

[Francesca]

>>Harry, for example, should have come clean to Dumbledore and sought his aid on several important occasions when he foolishly chose not to. <<

Harry's lack of respect for rules and his tendency to lie readily to authority figures stem in part, I think, from the constant bullying and belittlement he endured at the hands of the appalling Dursleys. The abuse left him self-effacing, unsure of himself, and with little faith or trust in those with power, although it never tarnished his innate kindness. The abuse also heightened his sense of (un)fairness and his identification with the powerless (Dobby, for example.) There's a lesson here too. When those with authority or power wilfully damage and abuse, they diminish respect for all sources of authority.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Mr. Godbold, how did I come by the impression you were Orthodox?

For the record, I'm an Evangelical Anglican. Does that make me an existential neo-Protestant?

[Rob G]

**Lisa, this is an environment which says "mere Christianity" but where Bible-believing non-Catholics are resented, where citing the Bible over and against the traditions of men is called 'bomb-throwing' and so forth. I suspect it will become the sole domain of Roman Catholics of several rites, along with existentialist neo-protestants.**

Please. What is resisted in your case is a sort of belligerent sola scriptura absolutism which insists that the historical-grammatical method is the sole way to interpret Holy Scripture. If any others of us were equally belligerent and absolutist about our respective traditions, we'd have trouble here also.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

Wonders,
I'm a deacon in a continuing Anglican church in central Virginia. I was raised Roman Catholic (like my mom and sister) with a lot of my religious education supplied by my Methodist father. I started attending a DCK parish in college back in early 1987. My brother as he grew up went (rapidly) from nominal atheism to an Anabaptist-like cult to Anglican to Orthodox (OCA). There he has been for the last 14 years. Much of my desire for Christian ecumenism is rather Rodney King-ish.
:-)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Harry's lack of respect for rules and his tendency to lie readily to authority figures stem in part, I think, from the constant bullying and belittlement he endured at the hands of the appalling Dursleys. <<<

That, and the fact that Dumbledore seldom comes clean with Harry, a fault that Dumbledore readily admits at certain times, in part because he wishes to spare Harry from further grief and anxiety, in part because he thinks he can find a "third way" to resolve the issue that does not result in a direct confrontation between Harry and Voldemort. Because Dumbledore's manner with Harry can be highly cryptic, Harry is frequently left to shift for himself at critical times. In the end, this works to his advantage, because he is forced to develop his inner resources and to become brutally honest with himself.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Mr. Godbold, how did I come by the impression you were Orthodox?<<<

He's got really good instincts.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

I...I...find myself in agreement with Francesa about something. And Stuart appears to as well. This is astounding.

[Bill R]

I welcome moderation of Mere Comments. I harbor no resentments against anyone, for I think we all need moderation at times in our comments. There are some of my own posts that I regret and wish others could have caught and deleted. Though the editors are under no obligation to do so, they may wish to post a few (non-exclusive) rules that will form the basis for their intervention. I suspect these would include the following:

1. No ad hominem attacks.

2. No general assaults on the traditions of other Christians.

3. No wandering far afield from the topic raised in the editor's post.

[Ethan C.]

Bill, I like your first two rules, but third makes me...a little sad. I fondly remember a few conversations that have perhaps started on topic, then wandered away to some other delightful place. But perhaps you're right, and "thread hijacking" should be discouraged.

[Judy K. Warner]

Gene, I consider myself Anglican Catholic, though in a way all Anglicanism can be considered Protestant, even when it's Catholic.

[Bill R]

"Bill, I like your first two rules, but third makes me...a little sad."

Ethan, the key word is FAR afield. I suspect the editors will give us a little leeway here.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

The late Fr. Tarsitano (who used to write for Touchstone) once told a class of us seminarians that, for certain people, it was perfectly acceptable to engage in ad hominem attacks. I wasn't perfectly sure what he meant, but I gathered that, for some people (like maybe Voltaire?) the life of the man could illustrate the wrongness of his philosophy. Of course, this wouldn't apply to folks we'd be dealing with in this forum.

I agree that general assaults on other traditions are uncalled for, but I think that occasional, mildly snarky jibes that are quickly answered and not sustained should be tolerated. And folks should always be allowed to criticize their own household.

[David Gray]

>And folks should always be allowed to criticize their own household.

That is the most productive approach. And it avoids the problem of badly educated people passing untruths about churches they don't comprehend.

[Bill R]

Then we can revise Rule #2 to read:

2. No general attacks on Christian traditions other than one's own.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

So *I* can say that continuing Anglicans are highly fissiparous. But if David says that, I get to smack him. (Or maybe sue him or something.) And *I'm* not allowed to say that those of the Reformed persuasion are lower than weasel snot on a universal ontological scale because--if I did--I'd have to stay there and take a stiff punch from him. Or at least a fierce noogie.

[David Gray]

>But if David says that, I get to smack him.

Sow the wind... :)

[W.E.D. Godbold]

I've often noted how the very (very) sharp (even nasty) things that I've seen some women say to other women in the workplace are not said by women to men or men to men because (I rationalize) that a man (or woman) knows a man will only take so much before physical violence threatens (and you never know where that line might be). But a faceless forum can encourage catty behavior. That's why I think using real names and knowing something about the participants helps restrain outright rudeness. (There *are* some counterexamples, of course, but I think this generally true.) If you've invested something of yourself into the proceedings, you tend to make better decisions regarding what you might say. Anonymity (as has often been noted) encourages irresponsible comments.

[Bill R]

One gets the impression that "highly fissiparous" ought to mean "sowing the wind," but not quite breaking it. But I guess not...

[Kamilla]

I was starting to wonder about Ethan after his comment about the experiment he hadn't yet performed, but then Gene agreed with Francesca and now, I don't know who to worry about more!

Judy, I am rather fond of "Reformed Catholic", although I am going to visit the mother parish of the Anglican Catholic church this coming Sunday.

Are we far enough afield now?

Kamilla

[Bobby Neal Winters]

>>I...I...find myself in agreement with Francesa about something. And Stuart appears to as well. This is astounding.<<

The moderation is working already.

[GL]

TUAD,

As the editors are giving everyone a fresh start, let us follow their example and do likewise. I am extending my virtual hand out to shake yours. Let's begin anew.

[GL]

Lisa R.,

We are kind of like dorm mates who have grown a little to short with each other at times. I plead guilty to my own charge. Perhaps a RA will do us all a world of good.

[Bill R]

"Perhaps a RA will do us all a world of good."

Except I remember how we short-sheeted the RA. Good thing he (she?) is anonymous!

[KAmilla]

Short-sheeting?!?!?!!! Is THAT all you could come up with? We once successfully removed all the tap handles on the boys side of the dorm - without getting caught.

Kamilla

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"TUAD,

As the editors are giving everyone a fresh start, let us follow their example and do likewise. I am extending my virtual hand out to shake yours. Let's begin anew."

Dear GL,

I'm pleased to accept your virtual hand and to give it a virtual hearty handshake.

I hope you will allow me the courtesy of saying that my past disagreements were more with your arguments, and really not so much about who you are as a redeemed and adopted son of Christ.

Iron sharpens iron.

[Bill R]

"Short-sheeting?!?!?!!! Is THAT all you could come up with?"

Ah, Kamilla. Moderation in all things! (Someone is listening....)

[Bobby Winters]

>>Short-sheeting?!?!?!!! Is THAT all you could come up with? We once successfully removed all the tap handles on the boys side of the dorm - without getting caught.<<

I once un-shortsheeted a bed. The short-sheeter thought the short-sheeted was lying and the short-sheeted (actually the un-shortsheeted) was clueless.

[Stuart Koehl]

One summer, when I was a counsellor at Ten Mile River Scout Camp in upstate New York, we took down another counsellor's tent while he was sleeping inside it, picked up his cot, carried him down to the lake, placed him on a hand-pulled cable ferry that went across the lake, pulled the ferry to the middle of the lake, and lashed the cables together. Then we went to breakfast.

Short sheeting is for wimps.

[GL]

Why does this revelation not surprise me, Stuart? ;-)

[Mike Melendez]

A minor suggestion for one and all. Mr. Hutchens noted that Mr. Koehl had become insulting using a "you" interpreted to be personal. Mr. Koehl noted he meant it as an ubiquitous "you". (My apologies. The word "ubiquitous" is the closest I can come to "her pomary repast", a phrase of which I am in awe.)

I, for one, struggle with the personal/ubiquitous "you" problem. I have found it useful to substitute the personal "I" in its place. If I find I cannot include myself in the intended ubiquitous "you", it is not an ubiquitous "you" and should be discarded.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Why does this revelation not surprise me, Stuart? ;-)<<<

I had a lot of fun there. I think a strung a mile of bell wire through a tree next to my tent so I could pick up WOR AM in NYC to listen to Jean Shepherd's show on Friday nights. And I learned a lot of neat things, such as, if you are tired enough, you will not mind that a skunk is hiding out under your bed.

At the end of the year we put the guy on the barge, we pulled one other great prank: we stole a 30-foot aluminum war canoe from the Scout camp on the other side of the lake, weighted it down with stones, and sank it underneath the diving raft in the swimming area. They searched all over for it, including up in trees (someone had done that to them in a previous year), but they never found it. We returned it to them at the end of the season for a ransom of steaks.

Also at the end of the season, our ferry was finally condemned as rotten and unsafe. We decided that, rather than haul it out of the water and take it to pieces, such a faithful servant deserved a Viking funeral, just like Kirk Douglas. We doused it with kerosene, turned it lose in the lake, and as the current took it down towards the dam, we played the soundtrack from "The Vikings" on the PA system and shot fire arrows at it until it was well ablaze. It burned right down to the waterline, and then the styrofoam floats underneath it caught in a very smokey and aromatic climax,

Of course, if we did that today, we would all go to jail. So maybe America is going to hell after all.

[GL]

>>>Of course, if we did that today, we would all go to jail. So maybe America is going to hell after all.<<<

There you go! ;-)

[Judy K. Warner]

>>>I, for one, struggle with the personal/ubiquitous "you" problem. I have found it useful to substitute the personal "I" in its place.<<<

Isn't the word "one" supposed to serve that function?