Outrage?

[littlemanpoet]

Another fantasy novel occurs to me in this connection: Neil Gaiman's American Gods; also his London subway novel, the name of which I forget. Those two novels also function the way Harry Potter does. Do they also abuse the way you suggest?

Anticipating the application of The Saucepan Man's question about "why Harry Potter, now", and not Neil Gaiman's, I'd say that it's an issue of popularity as well as timing.

It strikes me that more fantasy novels are going to be this "non-traditional" kind of "transitional fantasy", and I think this is because there has been a paradigm shift in the consciousness of modern readers as opposed to just 30 years ago, when Thomas Covenant was written, namely: Tolkien's thesis and wish for escape, consolation, and recovery, seems to have occurred to our society as a whole, in that many readers have recovered a sense of, and desire for, the fantastic; for wonder. One result of this is that magic (for lack of a better word) is understood and accepted as possible in our world, rather than having to go outside, or into space, or underground, to find it. The frame of mind seems to accept that the fantastic can happen here, and now, instead of beyond our borders. Far from being a problem or 'sin', I think that this is a fascinating development which allows for all kinds of new stories to be written, and I congratulate Rowling on her ability to tap into the desire that had been woken by Tolkien and others. Expect more stories like it. As I said before, each of these stories needs to be judged on its own merit as story. As soon as you have started critiquing it in terms of spiritual/philosophical underpinnings, or whatever this world standards, you have broken the enchantment, which is something many of us have a far better understanding of than we did a few short months ago.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

One result of this is that magic (for lack of a better word) is understood and accepted as possible in our world, rather than having to go outside, or into space, or underground, to find it. The frame of mind seems to accept that the fantastic can happen here, and now, instead of beyond our borders. Far from being a problem or 'sin', I think that this is a fascinating development which allows for all kinds of new stories to be written, and I congratulate Rowling on her ability to tap into the desire that had been woken by Tolkien and others. Expect more stories like it. As I said before, each of these stories needs to be judged on its own merit as story. As soon as you have started critiquing it in terms of spiritual/philosophical underpinnings, or whatever this world standards, you have broken the enchantment, which is something many of us have a far better understanding of than we did a few short months ago.

Problem being - the magic originates within this world. It does not have an external source. There is nothing beyond the circles of the world. Neither is there any other place to go to after death - Harry's parents merely hang around as ghosts - inevitably, as there is nowhere for them to go. Also, nothing can 'break in' to this world. This world is a closed system. If people are to be 'saved' they must save themselves, there is no external,objective standard of Good (or evil).

Tolkien's 'escape' includes (as it must if it is to be a true escape) the escape from death - ie the escape from the circles of the World, to a place where there is 'more than memory'. In HP all there is after death is memory - ghosts. What writers like Rowling do is not make this world more 'magical' they simply make it odder & more chaotic. The 'magic' has no logic, no explanation. In a fairy story set in a secondary world this would not be a problem - it would be simply a 'given'. When it happens in this world it requires an explanation in terms of the 'rules' of this world - or at least an explanation of why this world's rules are incorrect.

[littlemanpoet]

You are asking for more than the story is meant to give. If this is necessary for you in all your fantasy, I wish you luck in finding satisfying reading material.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

You are asking for more than the story is meant to give. If this is necessary for you in all your fantasy, I wish you luck in finding satisfying reading material.

I'm not a big fan of fantasy per se, but I don't see why we can't expect products of the genre to be Art as well as entertaining. Do you think Rowling wasn't capable of that, or was it that she just couldn't be bothered?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm not a big fan of fantasy per se, but I don't see why we can't expect products of the genre to be Art as well as entertaining. Do you think Rowling wasn't capable of that, or was it that she just couldn't be bothered?

I think Rowling was capable and achieved it, so the second part of your question does not obtain. It's not Tolkien calibre, but what is? Not every mineral in the ground can be diamonds, my friend.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Anticipating the application of The Saucepan Man's question about "why Harry Potter, now", and not Neil Gaiman's, I'd say that it's an issue of popularity as well as timing.

I acknowledge of course that Rowling comes under particular scrutiny because of the current popularity of her works. As far as I am concerned, however, logic dictates that, if one is to criticise one body of work on the basis that it fails to meet certain criteria, then one should criticise all works that fail to meet the same criteria on the same basis. It is this lack of logicality in the approach of those who would seek to ban Rowling's works that I find unacceptable.

Davem - I find your distinction between tales set in "our world" and those set in an "other world" overly technical. Rowling's works are set in a world where wizards and witches live alongside muggles. That is a fantasy world, regardless of the familiarity of many of the surroundings. It is not real, any more than Oz, Narnia, Middle-earth or the world of the Brothers Grimm's tales are. The distinction between all of these worlds and the real world is a distinction which most young readers are perfectly capable of making. To the extent that they are not, then the failure lies in their upbringing, not in the authors of the books that they read.

This is why I find it both illogical and unacceptable that Rowling's works are singled out as being such a bad influence on young readers, when the multitude of other tales which similarly have no "theological underpinning" are not.

That said, I regard the lack of any "theological underpinning" as irrelevant, given that all of the tales that we are discussing here clearly have a strong moral underpinning. When one strips away the superficial devices of magic and wizardry, the messages that they are giving to their readers are good ones. I fail to see a problem.

[Lathriel]

Some of those adults who want HP banned probably don't realize that the kids themselves are capable of making their own desicions about what is fantasy and what isn't. They think that when young kids read it they will believe every word. I think these people are just too overprotective and don't give their children some space to make their own choices on such matters.

lmp you might be right about the transitional fantasy books. I have already seen so many HP clones.

I myself don't always like "transitional fantasy". I think it can quickly become cheesy or the main character from our world is all questions throughout the book, thus there is no real chance for character development. When I do read "transitional fantasy" I really read several pages of the book and flip through it etc. for if it is well done it is very neat.

Overall I think people are making too big of a deal about HP. It is just a childrens book and not meant to be taken seriously. I would be much more concerned if I found my child flipping through a book in the Erotica section. (The saction has lately been popping up in Chapters and I always quickly walk past it)

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

... logic dictates that, if one is to criticise one body of work on the basis that it fails to meet certain criteria, then one should criticise all works that fail to meet the same criteria on the same basis. It is this lack of logicality in the approach of those who would seek to ban Rowling's works that I find unacceptable.

Quite. However, we are dealing with a branch of Fundamentalism here. And as with Islamic, Christian Fundamentalism has its own logic which has its bases in fear, a sense of dis-empowerment, and the adulation and adherence to a charismatic leader who speaks what their hearts secretly believe and promises what they desire. Thus they follow a Falwell or bin Laden, preferring clear leadership to logic. (Funny, it just occurred to me that Hitler fits this definition too - so Nazism was a kind of Germanic Fundamentalism.)

Obviously unacceptable, but maybe more understandable. Of course, you probably understand already.

[Kath]

Quite. However, we are dealing with a branch of Fundamentalism here. And as with Islamic, Christian Fundamentalism has its own logic which has its bases in fear, a sense of dis-empowerment, and the adulation and adherence to a charismatic leader who speaks what their hearts secretly believe and promises what they desire.

This made me think that perhaps the fear in these circles about HP may be due to the internal message of the book. Voldemort is this charismatic leader who makes promises to his followers that they will be richly rewarded, and anyone who stands against him does so in fear. Possibly Fundamentalists fear that people will draw parallels between the way of life that they follow and the occurrences in the book. There have been some posts on this thread that say Fundamentalists are, if not stupid then at least unable to see that there is a distinction here, maybe they cannot see this distinction as it is similar to their religion.

Of course this occurs in LotR as well so there is the major flaw in my theory!

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Since it's taken me this long to discover this fascinating thread, I've got a long post addressing many comments. Here goes:

In Rowling's world magic is of this kind - people are not born with natural abilities that may appear to the Sams of this world as 'magic'. They study & practice to gain powers they would not have had otherwise

Not exactly, davem. Just like in Tam Pierce's land of Tortall, where some people are born with the Gift, Rowling's wizards are either born with or without magic (remember Squibs and Muggle-borns). The point of the school is not to teach them evil magic and that sort of thing, it's to teach them to develop the powers they were born with. A safe haven for them, much like Xavier's school for gifted youngsters in X-Men.

No concentration or manipulation of the individuals mind, energy etc..., just a parody version of 'magic'.

Actually, lindil, you're wrong. Upon the introduction of Professor Snape, he says "There will be no foolish wand-waving", among other things, saying that Potions class is far more subtle. Also, the study of Occlumency, which is shielding your mind against attack (Leglimency). Harry refers to Leglimency as "mind-reading" and once again, Snape brings the point of subtlety and how the mind is many-layered and cannot be read as a book, but can still be observed and prodded.

HP is for all practical purposes arguably neck and neck on the first 2 levels, but so far leaves one completely w/out direction as to any afterlife, revelation of purpose, destiny etc.

Hey, hey! What about those ghosts floating around? Nearly Headless Nick tells Harry in Book 5 that the reason Sirius won't come back in ghost form is because his life was complete and he was not afraid to continue on to what came next. Nick was still hanging out because he was afraid to face the unknown and so chose a poor imitation of life. Harry seeing his parents in Book 4 was a fluke, but they came back sort of in angel form to give guidance and love to their kid who was about to die. Also, Dumbledore's words on Flamel: "To the well organized mind, death is but the next great adventure." There is mention everywhere of life not being the end. Just no mention of what the end actually is. Which mirrors LotR and the Silm in that Men die, but nobody knows what happens after.

I mean I don't believe magic works but if it did it would be immoral to use it.

Quite frankly, Mith, I have to disagree with you. I don't believe in magic (a lot of superstitious hocus-pocus, as far as I'm concerned, much like ghosts) in the way of chanting a spell and getting results, or that sort of thing. But if it did exist... is it not worse to ignore a gift, than to use it for a good purpose? Although, really, I just sounded like Boromir in regards to the Ring.

The only magic I see is what lies before me on a regular basis. The love between parent and child. Budding flowers and newly opened leaves. A fresh layer of snow glimmering in the early morning light. What's more magical than the beauty of existence? Onward...

Magic is a neutral power & only its use determines whether it is good or evil.

You got it, dave. Magic is not good or evil in and of itself, it is a tool to be used. Unlike the Ring which was made for evil uses and so became evil by default, magic is an ability, like physical strength, or skills with debate. It is entirely up to the individual to make the choice whether to use it for good or evil.

but then, who decides what a 'good' or 'bad' use of magic is? Where/what is the yardstick?

It's pretty easy. Bad magic hurts people (like Voldemort trying to purify the world by killing off half-bloods and Muggles, or like Umbridge's quill). Good magic helps people (like Lily dying to save Harry, or Hagrid helping his veggies grow).

If we start to think that all works which include witches, wizards, elves and suchlike must have a theological structure then where does it stop? Do we ban all fairy tales and nursery rhymes? The world would be so boring and colourless without them.

*shudder* A world with no art? What would be the point of living? Although I suppose some truly *insert words* people could say that since art is only imitation of what God has already made, then art is evil in and of itself and should also be banned. I'll admit that I've heard such ideas of modern art, but since the idea was tied to the Nazi party...

I'm using LOTR and DC comics.

Hey alatar, do you come in clones? One about 18, not nearly ready for kids yet, but maybe eventually, and available at a location near me?

Dumbledore is a magician and little else. Gandalf is angelic in every way, looks aside.

Dumbledore is a good man, and a good role model. I'll even venture to say that he's a heck of a lot more accessable to children than a grouchy old angel. He's the grandpa we all wish we had; there to teach us the difference between good and evil, to protect us as much as he can, and to smile a lot and enjoy the fun things in life (like ten-pin bowling and chamber music). Gandalf, though a good role model if you're interested in subtle leadership, religious connotations, explosives, and short tempers, is harder for kids to understand than the benevolant head of the school.

There is no "magic" in revelation. The only thing that comes remotely close is the power of God, His angels and His wrath, and the power of Satan and his demons.

Which, to many, is magic in and of itself.

In the HP books the individual magician/scientist is entirely capable to the task of conquering evil without the aid of any larger beneficent force in the universe guiding him along. This stance is essentially anti-religious.

Sure it is. But that doesn't make it wrong. It just makes it entirely unreligious. See, the trouble with religious folks is that they automatically assume that if their religion is "right", then every other way of thinking is "wrong". Why not stick with plain old faith (personal relationship with God, as it's been defined) and spirituality and go with a nice moral lifestyle, trying to help others, trying to make the world a better place; without condemning people, or books?

I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with holding a few traditions, when those traditions divert from scripture and start to take centre stage, then I tend to get a little nervous and sometimes objective because of what the Bible says.

What scares me more is that people take books written by men as supreme truth. Men are fallible, with the possible exception of the Pope, who, of course, never makes mistakes.

Another thing about Harry Potter... any kid who sits down with a book that's got a brightly coloured dust jacket depicting a cartoon kid with a wooden stick and actually believes that this book is "real" has some seriously negligent parents.

And boy do I have a crazy feeling some of you lot would hate Lamb: the Gospel According to Biff. That book is just plain hilarious but if you're easily offended, avoid it like the plague. It spends a few hundred pages making fun of Jesus in a well-written sort of way, and yet a story that involves flying broomsticks and house-elves with a penchant for socks and knit hats is more of a threat to Christianity and the eternal salvation of the soul.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Kath

This made me think that perhaps the fear in these circles about HP may be due to the internal message of the book. Voldemort is this charismatic leader who makes promises to his followers that they will be richly rewarded, and anyone who stands against him does so in fear. Possibly Fundamentalists fear that people will draw parallels between the way of life that they follow and the occurrences in the book. There have been some posts on this thread that say Fundamentalists are, if not stupid then at least unable to see that there is a distinction here, maybe they cannot see this distinction as it is similar to their religion.

Well, my sense is that Fundamentalists would be scandalized by the association you have made, and say something like, "But we're nothing like them! We're doing God's will, not Satan's!" Of course, if you tried to explain to them that breeding hate and fear are an evil that they are guilty of, they would then answer that it is right to hate and fear evil, and it's only the power of Jesus that can overcome it (that last part is something I do not deny, but there is much that I understand differently than my fundamentalist <ahem> brethren such that my belief in that final phrase leads me toward attempts at reconciliation and justice rather than censorship).

[Orominuialwen]

Men are fallible, with the possible exception of the Pope, who, of course, never makes mistakes.

But that's not what the Catholic Church teaches. The Pope, as an individual, is fallible, but the Church as a whole is not. Just wanted to clear that up.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

But that's not what the Catholic Church teaches. The Pope, as an individual, is fallible, but the Church as a whole is not. Just wanted to clear that up.

Ah, sorry. So the Church's platform of noninvolvement during the Holocaust can be construed as not being a mistake? The Inquisition was loads of fun as well.

My point, tongue in cheek though it was, is that the Church has been wrong before, so who's to say the Fundementalists who are trying to say that fantasy stories are wrong... aren't wrong also?

Not that I'm saying it's the Catholic Church that is behind book banning as we speak of it, but that churches in general have been wrong in the past and people should not forget it.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

So the Church's platform of noninvolvement during the Holocaust can be construed as not being a mistake?

Feanor, your'e being just a tad offensive in regard to the Catholic church, which is beloved those who belong to it (which doesn't happen to include me). This is not Gaurhoth.

The "papal infallibility" doctrine is very specific and circumscribed, such that only a specific kind of pronouncement from the papal see is considered to be infallible. I don't happen to accept the doctrine myself, but that's an aside.

Nevertheless, the point you're trying to make about churches not always being right, is apt.

[Lalwendë]

I've been thinking about Harry Potter (as you do ) and I would suggest it's not a transitional fantasy at all, it is set in our world. So is it fantasy? It is entirely based in the real world where there is a shadowy existence of wizards, witches and fabulous creatures which we as Muggles cannot see. All this is being kept hidden from us by the Ministry of Magic who interestingly co-operate with real world Government including our Prime Minister - as seen when Sirius Black escaped.

The activities of the wizarding community are kept hidden, there is even a Misuse of Muggle Artifacts Department which covers up misdemeanours of experimenting wizards like Mr Weasley, who indeed faced discipline at work because of his own activities. There is even the Office of Misinformation which comes up with lies to tell Muggles when they have seen a magical creature; these are then passed on via the real world civil service.

This is more akin to The X Files which portrays a hidden, shadowy aspect of society where strange creatures, aliens and 'men in black' operate. This is all going on under our very noses too, kept hidden by the powers that be. I for one liked to speculate on the possibility that things portrayed in The X Files might be 'real', as it invited us to do so, playing on our paranoia. The difference with Harry Potter lies in that we are all brought up with fairy tales and are eventually told or discover for ourselves that there is 'no such thing' as a wizard like Dumbledore, nor are there unicorns or three headed dogs. The same thing is not said of shadowy government agents and secret experiments.

So I'd venture to say that Harry Potter isn't dangerous in any way, as we all eventually (and possibly sadly ) learn that the magical good/evil world of fairy tales doesn't exist in our own world. Whether it exists in another world or form is a different matter entirely. Possibly the most serious danger arising from Harry Potter is that children might want to follow in his footsteps in the form of his career ambitions. He wants to join the Ministry of Magic and become an Auror. Maybe hordes of young people brought up on Harry Potter will take a sudden interest in joining the Civil Service?

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Feanor, your'e being just a tad offensive in regard to the Catholic church, which is beloved those who belong to it (which doesn't happen to include me). This is not Gaurhoth.

Nevertheless, the point you're trying to make about churches not always being right, is apt.

Many apologies to any I've offended. I did not mean to be directly so. Or really, indirectly. I could have made the simple "What about the Salem witch trials?" comment, but it's been over-done so many times that people might begin to plug their ears to it, so to speak, and not notice my point.

It is entirely based in the real world where there is a shadowy existence of wizards, witches and fabulous creatures which we as Muggles cannot see.

Parallel universe, Lal?

[Bêthberry]

I'm sure all of you can imagine my very great disappointment when I discovered, after having left King's Cross station last August (in the midst of a fire alarm in the Tube station below) that there is indeed a platform nine and three quarters at King's Cross, with directions for us tourists to find it. Clearly, that fire alarm was a conspiracy. I really don't feel, having been pushed out into London, that I was saved from a greater evil.

Of course, there were many signs concerning Middle earth about Oxford.

[Legolas]

Please leave out your personal opinions and social commentary on religions, countries, etc. out of this forum and focus on the original topic, else this thread will not be open much longer.

I had also just been reading Harry Potter and remembered that when it came out, and now, it had been banned in many churches and church schools because it was condoning witchcraft and other things that went against church teachings.

I was just wondering whether The Lord of the Rings received this type of response when it was published, as it contains many of the same elements (think Dementors/Nazgul and so on, you can do it for most of the book).

[alatar]

Along with the release of the new Potter book there is this, which of course would be as expected.

"We just have to generate some news somehow...hmmm, maybe still up and old controversy or two?"

[littlemanpoet]

Based on the article, which doesn't exactly say enough, it would seem that Ratzinger's concerns about Harry Potter would obtain equally to LotR. Given that, I disagree with him about both.

Blur good and evil? How? I haven't seen that in any of the novels. Fantasy tends to accentuate the differences between good and evil .... that is, unless you have a skewed sense of evil because your beliefs are tinged somehow with fundamentalism, which means you're sure that you're right. At least the pope prefers to fight with a pen instead of bombs.

[Kath]

the Potter novels blur the boundaries between good and evil and impair young readers' ability to distinguish between the two

Erm, no. If anything they have incredibly obvious divisons between good and evil and help young children to distinguish the two. But I think this has been said and argued with before.

[Lathriel]

I actually picked up the Harry Potter book yesterday at Chapters at 12:00. My friend had pre-ordered the book so I decided to pick it up at 12:00 and take a look at all the Harry Potter freaks etc. (Don't mean freaks in a bad way)

[Kath]

Maybe that's part of why the books generated such a response. For them to be so popular that thousands of people will willingly sit outside a bookstore til midnight just to be the first ones to get and read the books does speak of an obsession that we will never have a chance to see with LotR. I don't believe that LotR was popular enough when released to warrant this kind of attention so there would be less of a reason for people to feel threatened by it.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

People (even those who believe in a loving God) find it easier to hate than to love.

[alatar]

Or is it that the Christian scriptures state that one should not dabble in witchcraft/sorcery (Deuteronomy 18:9-11, Galatians 5:19-21, Leviticus 19:31, Leviticus 20:6 ) and the oft quoted verse regarding permitting witches/sorcerers to live (Exodus 22:18 and similarly Leviticus 20:27).

Is it that Christians fear that their children will somehow turn to witchcraft, being influenced by the Potter books, and though no one would stone witches today, these children would have gone over to the dark side, and be an affront to the Christian God?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by alatar

Is it that Christians fear that their children will somehow turn to witchcraft, being influenced by the Potter books, and though no one would stone witches today, these children would have gone over to the dark side, and be an affront to the Christian God?

Most Christian parents fear only that their children may at some point in their (likely) adolescent life, dabble in witchcraft, or something associated therewith, and thus render themselves unprotected against the wiles of the evil one. The ramifications of that could lead to anything from addiction to some sinful pleasure, to bondage, to turning away from the faith and die unsaved. That's actually in keeping with orthodox Christian teaching.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by alatar

Is it that Christians fear that their children will somehow turn to witchcraft, being influenced by the Potter books, and though no one would stone witches today, these children would have gone over to the dark side, and be an affront to the Christian God?

The fear is more for the fact that they will go to Hell. People anger God, rather than offend him, with any kind of Sin. And no one who sins can enter heaven, as shown in 1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 10:

9Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

But even if all these sins have been committed, grace is still granted. Christianity is not about following rules, because no one can possibly follow them all. And besides, breaking one commandment is as bad as breaking them all. To follow Christ is to be forgiven, not someone who follows a load of rules to the letter. That doesn’t mean we can still go out and sin. If you are a true Christian, you won't want to, because it angers God.

Besides, there is blasphemy all over the place these days, and no one seems to care. If you insult any other deity, you are thrown in prison or something (perhaps not so extreme, but you see what I’m getting at), but it’s some how okay to insult (for lack of a better term) the Christian God. I hear people saying "Oh my G**" and shouting Jesus' name as a curse. This is all blasphemy and that is an insult to God. Sin, angers him. Witchcraft is a Sin. It angers God.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

But even if all these sins have been committed, grace is still granted. Christianity is not about following rules, because no one can possibly follow them all. And besides, breaking one commandment is as bad as breaking them all. To follow Christ is to be forgiven, not someone who follows a load of rules to the letter. That doesn’t mean we can still go out and sin. If you are a true Christian, you won't want to, because it angers God.

So what then exactly is the issue with the Potter series? As I understand it, the books may promote interest in witchcraft and may also blur the lines between good and evil. If all of this can be forgiven (that is, even if one were to become a witch then recant), then why the outrage?

Aren't Christians (I use them as an example as I am more familiar with this religion and group) supposed to "be in the world yet not of the world?" To me this means that Harry Potter and ilk could be used as a way to evangelize, as seemingly there are many people who have read the books. I know that LOTR has been and is used in this manner too.

Thoughts?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

So what then exactly is the issue with the Potter series? As I understand it, the books may promote interest in witchcraft and may also blur the lines between good and evil. If all of this can be forgiven (that is, even if one were to become a witch then recant), then why the outrage?

How would you feel about a series that promoted rape and murder as something good and fun for kids?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

How would you feel about a series that promoted rape and murder as something good and fun for kids?

Is that how you see it? I've not read the books, and so did not see it as something that extremely felt. There are many dangers out there, and as a parent I think that it's my job to screen what my children will read, view, etc. However, one day I won't 'be there' to guide them, and they will have to make a selection/choice using their own wits. Hopefully I will show them by guidance and by example that some choices are unhealthy.

But I'm not sure that by 'banning' these books in my household (my kids aren't at the reading age yet, and so this is hypothetical) is doing my children a service. Would it not be better to read them together and show my children that, although Harry is a witch (or whatever he is), he (in my worldview) is just a fantasy person and that the world does not work thus.

I mean no disrespect, but there are parts of the Christian Old Testament that I would not want my children reading until they were older.

My children own the first movie and have watched it a few times. I don't know the difference between the books and the movie, but the movie has made no impact in regards to my children and increased interest in witchcraft. LOTR has, however, produced an interest in swordplay (but that is most likely my doing).

Anyway, my point (if there in one in this post) is that there is a lot worse out there, and if we teach our children to be discerning, along with guiding them and helping them to mature, then we would be doing a greater service to them than by just seeking to get HP banned, as there will always be something else on the horizon that will require banning.

Note that if this 'discussion' should be moved to PM, that would be fine.

Cheers.

[Kath]

How would you feel about a series that promoted rape and murder as something good and fun for kids?

Where on earth do you find that in Harry Potter! Any murdering is done by the baddies in the book and as such it is shown as being repellent. And I don't remember anything about rape in it.

[Lalwendë]

I had a response all typed up but really all I want to ask is why are we all getting so worked up about the vague possibility that a story might, just possibly, maybe, at an outside chance, lead someone into 'witchcraft'? Do people even know what 'witchcraft' is?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I was giving an extreme example. I did not say that it was actually in Harry Potter, but its the same thing in God's eyes.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I had a response all typed up but really all I want to ask is why are we all getting so worked up about the vague possibility that a story might, just possibly, maybe, at an outside chance, lead someone into 'witchcraft'? Do people even know what 'witchcraft' is?

Thanks Lalwendë. Those are points that if I have not made, then I would like to make them. There is much worse out there, and I would assume that those children that go awry were influenced by much more than just a book or a series of books. Children model more of what they see than what they read etc.

And there are many groups, Christians included, that have misconception about others' beliefs, whether they are of other demoninations with a religion or other world religions/belief systems, such as 'witchcraft' or Wicca.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

And there are many groups, Christians included, that have misconception about others' beliefs, whether they are of other denominations with a religion or other world religions/belief systems, such as 'witchcraft' or Wicca.

Cheers, alatar.

Now I'm going to paraphrase an author that I really liked but whose name has escaped me. He wrote "Lamb: the Gospel According to Biff" which is a terribly funny and extremely irreverant portrayal of the Christ's teenage years. What he says in the end is that if reading a book makes you question your faith, than your faith wasn't strong enough to begin with. That's my words for adults, now here's children.

I know kids are impressionable, but if, as a parent, you take part in what your kids are reading/experiencing, and guide them a bit with discussions on why witchcraft should not be tried in our world, but that in a book, it's part of the story, and that sort of thing, it should not be a problem.

To use an example, I'm nearly 18. I still discuss a lot of what I'm reading with my parents, especially if it's odd or in some way disconcerting. Reading Huxley's Brave New World, I talked to my parents and brothers about how eugenics and the way people are created for a purpose can tie in to God creating individuals for a purpose (my brothers are not remotely religous, but my dad's Catholic and my mom Methodist). Good and evil are discussed using Harry Potter (I was upset at the end of Six, but I'll save it for when more people have actually read Half-Blood Prince and I'm not spoiling it) and the LotR.

Even though I'm not a kid any more, my parents still play an active role in my life. Duh, I wouldn't want it any other way. But my point is, parental involvement really keeps kids, not to sound all cold and cynical but, molded to the way you want them.

And here's another paraphrasing (this one from Tamora Pierce): Only those who want to be corrupted will become so. If your kids are going to be swayed into doing some weird "stuff", than there must have been something up to begin with. It's just like the prejudice against certain video games. Inanimate objects do not force kids to do things. They are simply there.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

It's easier to see that people walking between Mordor and Gondor are either soldiers of the Black Tower or of the White.

It's easier to attire yourself in the livery of the White Tower and say, "Destroy the soldiers of the Black Tower!"

However, we Christians--yes, I'm referring to all of you there, even the one who wrote that article--are called to love first and foremost. However unpalatable the concept, we're supposed to love Saddam Hussein. We're supposed to love that kid hooked on drugs, even his dealer. We're supposed to love the one who just got an abortion, even the doctor who did it. We're supposed to love those who dabble in (detestable, yes) witchcraft, and even those who are remotely interested in it. Why? Read your Romans 5:8. That's why.

Instead of doing that, we are content to stay in our Minas Tirith, and say to other people, "If you do not fall under the rule of Denethor, you are not with us."

Post-traumatic possum. I think I just confused people with my switches between LR quasi-quotes and real-world stuff. Sorry.

[Encaitare]

This whole thing has gotten really off topic, and the idea of the condemnation of entire groups of so-called "unrighteous" people makes me feel very uncomfortable.

[littlemanpoet]

Perhaps the whole issue is not one of Christians versus witchcraft. Alatar makes a good point about "in but not of the world". You see, it seems to me that there is a psychological piece to this issue as well as the religious/faith issue: there are people who are given to fear, and there are people who have wrestled with their fear and have become courageous. I'm trying to make the transition myself. Anyway, there are a lot of Christians who are given to fear, and they need - yes, need - objects for their ready fear. Harry Potter is simply one of the chosen objects. There are also a lot of Muslims who are given to fear, and they cry out against the Great Satan in the West, by which they usually mean the USA. But there are also courageous Christians and Muslims - and wiccans, no doubt - who have moved past fear to understanding; these people do see themselves as part of a community and try to build others up. When there is real Evil afoot, aka actual bombings and murders, etc., the fearful and the courageous tend to forget their differences and band together to deal with the real threat in their midst.

All of which is to say, I really think this is not a Christians versus witchcraft issue.

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

If people who denounce LR (and Harry Potter) stand back for a while and see if what they're doing is helping them or not, I think the outrage would stop.

C'mon, people! We're supposed to be letting morality flow from within, instead of attempting to enforce morality at large! It never works, anyway--see the Inquisition and Calvin's Geneva. And Communist Russia, for that matter.

And as for the Professor being a "hellbound Roman Catholic"--ha! Double ha! This guy understands my faith better than I do (but I'm trying to change this now, of course). If people took the time to know their "enemy"--instead of attacking it outright (and foolishly, I might add)--they might realise they're not really up against an enemy. Then, the outrage might stop.

But this wouldn't happen. As I have said, people will find it easier to hate than to love.

[davem]

Just found a discussion on the Pope's comments re HP on the Second Spring website. This is from Professor Ted Sherman's post:

Rowling is a more sophisticated and complex author than many literary folks give her credit for. She does write "addictive" page-turners, as Francesca called them, but they are more than that, especially with each successive novel. She is creating a universe that is internally consistent (as Tolkien did), but that is also closely related to our own world. She's doing this for at least a couple reasons: she's writing a fairy-tale (or a series of fairy-tales if you want to look at each story independently) and all fairy-tales are ultimately about our world, the world we inhabit with all its problems. Remember, it was Tolkien who said (and I quoted this in my talk last summer--which was about Tolkien's "On Fairy-Stories" essay and Harry Potter) that "creative fantasy is founded upon the hard recognition that things are so in the world as they appear under the sun; upon a recognition of fact, but not slavery to it" ("On Fairy-Stories"). I don't know whether Rowling is familiar with the essay; but her fairy-tale is just as founded upon the hard recognition of fact as any modern, realistic novel. She is first and foremost telling a story, but her story does have a point, and part (at least) of that point is how does one behave and engage in the ongoing battle between good and evil? And the answer she continually shows Harry coming to is that one engages evil on a very personal level, and that the only way to combat evil is to do it oneself. One cannot wait for others to solve the problem, to defeat Voldemort, to report the suspicious package at the tube/train station, etc. As is attested to Burke (which I also quoted last summer), evil thrives when good men do nothing. Lord Voldemort returns in Book 4 and thrives in Books 5 and 6 precisely because the wizarding community turned its back on Harry and Dumbledore who were telling them the truth about Voldemort's return. And as Harry sees, and others in the larger tale only gradually learn and accept, it is up to each of them to decide whether or not to stand in the way of evil. We saw at the conclusion of Bk 4 what happens when an innocent got in Voldemort's way--he was killed.

Rowling's larger story is a parable or fairy-tale of spiritual warfare. As a parable or fairy-tale it can be read on at least two levels, the superficial (literal) level of rollicking good story, and the deeper (analogical) level of spiritual enlightenment. At this deeper level, we see a boy with no spiritual understanding or development when we first meet him develop (by the end of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix) into someone who now ponders the mysteries of life--and death. Indeed, it is the death of his godfather that awakens in him the desire to know what happens to people when they die. And it is through the "loony" Luna Lovegood (notice that surname!) that Harry is reminded about the voices he heard "beyond the veil" (a _very_ biblical metaphor and image there) and taught that he will see Sirius, and indeed his entire family, once again. The name Rowling gives to Luna suggests, I believe, the foolishness of God--she is taken for a fool by most of the students, but only because she is different, she believes things they don't, and she sees and understands things they don't. She is akin to the medieval fool who was commonly thought "touched by God." She is an analogue to many "holy fools" or "fools for Christ."