New York Times: ‘Child Proofing Harry Potter’

The serious reader who sent me this ‘Child Proofing Harry Potter’ piece that appeared on the Times’ Adventures in Parenting page noted that it may have been written by an internet troll longing to excite literature-mavens-who-blog into a lather of condemnation of what she calls “pink washing” texts. “Pink washing” is the stripping of everything challenging, politically incorrect, or of any depth by changing words as reading aloud or by explanation of what is “really meant.”

The historical terms for this are not “pink washing,’ which is admirable at least in simultaneously being offered as label by the practitioner and being at least as revealing and pejorative as any moniker a critic could have dreamed up, but Bowdlerization and expurgation. Think Adventures of Huckleberry Finn without the word “nigger.”

Yes, I find this sort of thing unfortunate and reprehensible. No, while I see the reader’s point about the troll baiting, I confess I am not tempted to ‘go there’ in terms of righteous condemnation.

Instead of anger at mom what I feel is pity for the child whose imagination is so tightly circumscribed by a mother who is so entrenched in her age appropriate categories and righteous mother protectiveness. And Mother Messina probably deserves my sympathy, too, because of her mental posture and invincible confidence in her parenting control and omniscience vis a vis what is best for child is only evidence of her being thoroughly, even inescapably enmeshed by school-mind.

Mom, in other words, shows all the smug assurance of an ideological Marxist or Christian fundamentalist, albeit here in the professional educator’s mechanical surety of what right things are allowed in a child-student’s head and the exact sequence with which they are allowed entrance. She is forever immunized against the reality of how human beings actually learn and mature because of the Newtonian educational universe in which she imagines herself. Which universe, sadly, because we are all children of our own schooling like it or not, we all inhabit to greater or lesser degrees.

Your comments and corrections, please. A tip of the eHat to John and Eric!


  1. Louise Freeman says

    Well, I will admit to bleeping over a few swear words in the later Harrys when reading them to my son, (then aged 9 or so) as well as the “Can I look at Uranus, Lavender?” joke. But then again, when my daughter was 11 and we were reading Deathly Hallows aloud, when we got to the line about Snape not wearing nightclothes, I paused and said, “My goodness, he must be walking around Hogwarts completely naked!” and we both roared with laughter for about 10 minutes. (It was late, and we were getting a bit punchy, OK?)

    But, if you don’t think your child can handle key plot points, like the fact that, uh, people get killed in Harry Potter, just put the book away until the child can read it for him/herself. It reminds me of a sanitized version of the Three Little Pigs I once saw when the Big Bad Wolf’s only malicious goal was to *tickle* the little porkers. Or the parents who banned Veggie-Tales videos after (gasp!) the little asparagus “Dave” binged the giant cucumber named “Goliath” in the noggin with a (horrors!) *rock!* My goodness, Who would ever have thought of authoring such a horrible and brutal story for *children*??

    The fact is, children’s fiction has always depicted undesirable actions. Snow White’s original stepmother was disposed of by being forced to dance in red-hot shoes until she died. Rapunzel’s guardian figured out the prince was visiting the tower when the girl turned up pregnant. And these were the Grimm brothers’ “sanitized” versions!

    If you are going to share fiction with your child, delve into the richness and examine the difficult issues together. Imagine if Hermione had decided to have the first Elder Wand thief “stick out his tongue at the first brother for good measure.”

  2. This really is a bit unfair. First of all, her son is *five.* I think it perfectly legitimate for a parent to be a bit nervous about introducing him to a story that begins with the near-murder of a baby. Harry Potter is not exactly a fairy tale, after all; while it borrows elements of the fairy tale, its contemporary setting lacks the distancing of classic fantasy. You make the poor woman sound like Dolores Umbridge; actually, she more closely resembles the Molly Weasley of *Order of the Phoenix*–maybe wrong-headed in her protectiveness, but fundamentally motivated by love. She’s actually also refreshingly introspective about her concerns, recognizing that her attempt to bowdlerize Harry has only partly to do with her son; “It isn’t only Emmett who isn’t ready for Harry Potter; I’m not either.” She also makes a perfectly good point about the later books of the series–that the original readers experienced them as they themselves were maturing, and the increasing depth of the books matched the increasing depth of the readers. *I* find *Deathly Hallows* heavy reading, and I’m 65. I think that, as is all too often the case, you’re reading your own obsessions into other people’s writing; she’s just stepped in front of a curse intended for someone else.

  3. OK–On reviewing Ms. Messina’s piece and some of the comments, I note a legitimate problem with her approach. She treats the “broomstick” episode in *Philosopher’s Stone* as one of serious misbehavior, from which Harry escapes any serious consequence. A seventeen-year-old girl from New Zealand offers the perfect response:

    “Harry Potter is about good triumphing over evil, love over hate. In the section you have mentioned, Harry is standing up for the awkward nerdy kid, who is being bullied by a murderer’s son. He understands that doing this will get him expelled – he knows and is willing to accept the consequences of his actions – but, because he is a good person, he does it anyway.”

    Hannah Aisne gets it. Lynn Messina doesn’t.

  4. David, Thanks for the rebuttal to the “broomstick” episode. It’s not like McGonagall knew what Madame Hooch had said. She found a seeker for her house team and wasn’t undermining the discipline of another teacher. How come that is overlooked?

    I really think that Ms. Messina just picked the wrong book for a 5 year old. I allow my kids to have Harry Potter when they are able to read it by themselves–usually 8 years old. Then I stop them and they can’t read “Prisoner of Azkaban” until they are 9, then books 4-7 at age 10. We do LOTS of talking about each book and the themes. We talk about Order of the Phoenix and how dark it is before they read it. I point out that the kids have little moral oversight, since they are at boarding school (when they notice the lying, for instance). The kids know how much I LOVE Harry Potter and they respect that he and his frends are growing and making mistakes, just as they are. This approach with Harry works for my family, but I respect that other families use other timelines. I think Ms. Messina bit off more than she and her five year old could chew and tried to make the best of it–then she wrote about it for the NYT. Backing off and waiting a year or three might have been a better solution (in my opinion).

  5. 1. Why would you read the series to a 5 year old?
    The author’s intent is for parents to read the series with their child, beginning at age 11. Subsequently, each following year, the parent is to read the next book aloud and discuss the themes/life situations with their child.
    2. Life is made up of the good, the bad and the ugly.
    Parents who “pinkwash life” for their children, are setting their children up for failure in the “real world” through the alternate reality they have created for themselves. The story of “Sleeping Beauty” is a perfect example of this. If the King had taught Briar Rose about the ugly, she wouldn’t have been duped by the evil fairy and her enchanted spinning wheel.
    3. Fairy tales were written to teach moral stories to both adults and children.
    Parents do yourselves and your child a favor, purchase a compilation of fairy stories. Read the stories with your child. Discuss the themes and life issues within the stories. They will thank you for it one day.
    4. If C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien and J.K. Rowling had not read fairy tales, our world would be devoid of some of literature’s most memorable characters: Aslan, Bilbo and Harry. So I raise my glass in toast to the fairy tales. Long may they live!

  6. I don’t really think people should pile on the author of the article. She pretty much agrees with you, Kathy: the series is not appropriate for a five-year-old. She concludes the series by saying that she is going to wait till her son is older to continue the series. Like everyone here, I don’t agree with her bowlderizing the text (nor with her use of the term “pinkwashing” which has a very specific meaning). But I don’t think her choices were awful, either, and she certainly isn’t a troll. She’s reflecting on a balancing act all parents and guardians have to perform. Kids are aware of popular culture, and they’re particularly drawn to books, music, games and movies older kids love. Some of those works just aren’t appropriate for little ones. Whatever you think of “Harry Potter” (and I think it’s a very mixed bag), I don’t see anything controversial in stating, basically, that it’s not appropriate for small children.

Speak Your Mind