Briefly, Harry Potter from an Objectivist
I've finished the last book and I finally understand what the whole series is about and thus why I'm drawn to it. It's theme [analogous to "the significance of Atlas' and the conditions under which they exist or not" for Atlas Shrugged] is "the vast difference between living a fulfilling life rather than avoiding death at any cost, and the superiority of the former".
There are of course some curse words bandied about throughout the books, such as 'selfless', 'guilt' and 'for the greater good' but within the given context their actual meaning reinforces the theme. For example, when Harry is "selfless" he is more concerned for the safety of his dear loved ones than his own, the very people who help bring a treasured joy to his otherwise suffer-filled life. Such an act is not selfless, it is profoundly selfish. I dare anyone who might contest my use of those terms to look at Voldemorte, the picture of ruthless "selfishness", and with a straight face state that what he did to himself, how he destroyed his life, was is his own self-interest. Voldemorte hasn't a decently selfish bone in his body, not a single shred of respect for the soul he ripped apart. Whereas Harry covets his soul, loves the life he's been trying to build with the people he admires, so much that he's willing to walk into his death to protect them. So, though Rowling uses commonly mistaken terms, her loyalty to a noble soul, a life well-lived, is unerring.
Comments
oh, and its always nice to have some of my favorite things benefit from a bit of objectivist thought. thanks again