New Harry Potter Book out in June

[Piebald]

The Order of the Phoenix

I've been waiting for this book since I finished the fourth book of the Harry Potter series. Anyone else excited?

Yes, I'm a nerd. :thumb:

But I really do enjoy the Harry Potter series. I originally read the first one to see what all the controversy was about... by the third chapter, I knew I was really going to love this series of books.

[Ric]

http://skins.hotbar.com/skins/mailskins/em/062802/062802puke_prv.gif
Harry Potter

[Rubia Warren]

:shrug: I don't know why...... I just can't get into Harry Potter, Lord Of The Rings, or anything like that. I'm probably a dork.
:idea: I like to read Better Homes And Gardens, though!:dufus:

[Patroclus]

I don't know why you can't get into them either. I haven't read the Harry Potter books, but I intend to. As for Tolkien's work, just wait.

/me wonders if Ric has ever read the Harry Potter books.

[Ric]

Patroclus:
* Patroclus wonders if Ric has ever read the Harry Potter books.

No need to wonder if I have ever read that trash or not!

But I have studied about the Harry Potter trash quite a bit!

Now if you want to read something good, read the "Lord of the Rings"!

[Patroclus]

No need to wonder if I have ever read that trash or not!

But I have studied about the Harry Potter trash quite a bit!

Do I smell a debate coming on?

How do you know that it is trash before you have read it? Are you worried about the magic? Have you read any unbiased criticism of the books? Are you aware of the weaknesses of mimetic criticism?

[Ric]

Today @ 05:05 PM
Patroclus:

Do I smell a debate coming on?

Nope, I really don't want to get into that trash! :no:

[Patroclus]

Is debate trash?

Here are some topics for you:

Literature that closely depicts matters of occult is trash. (You would be affirmative, I would be negative)

Literature that depicts moral relativism is trash. (You would be affirmative, I would be negative).

Criticising literature from a mimetic (a realistic system, such as Christianity) without reading the work in question is a flawed approach. (I would be affirmative, you would be negative).

Disregarding literature that closely relates the occult or any other religion, based on the fact that it is not Christian, is a bad approach to literature. (I would be affirmative, you would be negative)

None of these threads need to have anything to do with Harry Potter, since HP is a blip on the screen in face of the larger issues. Of course, HP can be used as evidence, as can any other relevant literature.

Whadyya say, Ric? Anybody else?

[Patroclus]

Hey, Ric--

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5030

[Piebald]

But I have studied about the Harry Potter trash quite a bit!

Hi Ric! Don't believe alot of what you hear. When I was listening to Hank Hanegraaf and that ridiculous "The Menace behind the Magic" guy, I was absolutely revolted at the Potter series...

---then I read it. And now I find their comments so ridiculous that I am incredibly disapointed in Hanegraaf for endorcing the man's criticisms.

(I am normally a big fan of the Bible Answer Man)

Now if you want to read something good, read the "Lord of the Rings"!

Lord of the Rings is indeed good, but they are two different book series'. Harry Potter is simpler than LotR but still manages to be really charming and intriguing.

People have spun the Lord of the Rings just as badly as Harry Potter.

Lord of the Rings teaches witchcraft! And at one moment Aragorn talks to the dead - that is Necromancy pure and simple! I threw that abominable work by Tolkien into the trash as soon as his agenda was clear

and other such things like that.

[Ric]

Today @ 07:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=106822#post106822)
Hamster:

But I have studied about the Harry Potter trash quite a bit!

Hi Ric! Don't believe alot of what you hear. When I was listening to Hank Hanegraaf and that ridiculous "The Menace behind the Magic" guy, I was absolutely revolted at the Potter series...

---then I read it. And now I find their comments so ridiculous that I am incredibly disapointed in Hanegraaf for endorcing the man's criticisms.

(I am normally a big fan of the Bible Answer Man)

Now if you want to read something good, read the "Lord of the Rings"!

Lord of the Rings is indeed good, but they are two different book series'. Harry Potter is simpler than LotR but still manages to be really charming and intriguing.

People have spun the Lord of the Rings just as badly as Harry Potter.

Lord of the Rings teaches witchcraft! And at one moment Aragorn talks to the dead - that is Necromancy pure and simple! I threw that abominable work by Tolkien into the trash as soon as his agenda was clear

and other such things like that.

But the biggest problem I have with the Harry Potter books is that it makes acts of wrong (i.e. lying, stealing, etc...) ok and moral. It has nothing to do with the "magic" or whatever, it's the unmoralness of it which a am totally against.

[Patroclus]

But the biggest problem I have with the Harry Potter books is that it makes acts of wrong (i.e. lying, stealing, etc...) ok and moral. It has nothing to do with the "magic" or whatever, it's the unmoralness of it which a am totally against.

Hey, I agree that is a moral problem. So, you might be interested in number 2:

Literature that depicts moral relativism is trash. (You would be affirmative, I would be negative).

C'mon man, I have the itch.

[Piebald]

it makes acts of wrong (i.e. lying, stealing, etc...) ok and moral.

Actually it does not, and the reason that Harry engages in such rule breaking has an almost biblical parallel, but it's hard to explain without posting massive spoilers

So:
Readers Beware! Spoilers Ahead!

I am not sure how familliar you are with the Potter series, but Harry Potter is very famous in the wizarding world. When Harry was just a child of 1 years old or so, an evil wizard tried to kill him, but the spell (which was a GUARANTEED kill) did not kill him... instead it bounced back and hit the sinister wizard who cast it. This wizard was Voldemort, whose reign of terror was so awful that most of the Wizarding world cannot bear to say his name.

The reason that Harry survived is not fully revealed yet, but we know it had something to do with his mother's sacrifice to save him - her love saved him, basically.

"Your mother died to save you. If there is one thing Voldemort cannot understand, it is love. He didn't realize that love as powerful as your mother's for you leaves its own mark. Not a scar, no visible sign ... to have been loved so deeply, even though the person who loved us is gone, will give us some protection forever. It is in your very skin. Quirrel, full of hatred, greed, and ambition, sharing his soul with Voldemort, could not touch you for this reason. It was agony to touch a person makred by something so good."

That is what the scar means in the book -- not lightning to signify Satan's fall from heaven "like lightning," but a symbol of sacrifice and intense love. It is more comparable to the seal which believers in Jesus Christ's act of love receive in their foreheads.

But what were the effects of this spell? What long-term effects does it have on Harry? For while he was able to inadvertantly survive the spell (through an act of pure grace on behalf of his mother) did getting hit by the attack have any long term affects on Harry?

Yes - for one thing, it affects his character:

"Unless I am mistaken, he transferred some of his own powers to you the night he gave you that scar. Not something he intended to do, I'm sure..."

"Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" Harry said, thunder-struck

"It certainly seems so"

....

"Listen to me, Harry. You happen to have many qualities of Salazar Slytherin {= Ancient Villain, and ancestor of Voldemort} prized in his hand-picked students. His own very rare gift, Parseltongue -- resourcefulness - determination - a certain disregard for the rules, he added, his mustache quivering again."


Again, it is difficult to explain unless you have read the stories (lots of details about the way the school works, the history of the school, etc.) -- but the jist is this: Harry had the character/qualities to belong to one of the school's "houses" which prize rule-breaking, ambition, and craftiness -- but through a conscious decision of his own, he chose to belong to the house that prized courage and valor.

And does Harry ever have to take responsibility for his wreckless rule breaking? Yes. I am having trouble finding the quote, but one of Harry's friends (a professor at the school) chastizes Harry for breaking the school rules and traveling to a nearby town - reminding him that actions like that dishonor his mother and father who died to save him.

[DanielleJoy]

I personally can't wait... june 21 YAY! *ducks*

Anything I can think of in the HP series that comes under the heading of ''lying and stealing'' does get punished... and everything I'm thinking of under that heading is done in order to actually do the right thing... no one is stealing just to have something, they'll take a book from the restricted section of the library so that they can study it to get rid of a legitimate danger... and then return it. correct me someone if there is an example of lying and stealing that is for malicious purposes.

[Rubia Warren]

:egad: Dang-EE.......... patty's on a roll, look out! Hehe
I have never even tried to read the books..... I guess my interests are changing. For quite a while now, I have been more into non-fictional type stuff.
I saw the movie, to see if I could see what all the hoopla was about, but I fell asleep halfway through and didn't get a chance to see it all.
As for the lying and stealing part......ummmmm.......I am in no way defending nor slamming HP, but it's my observation that, well, YOU'LL HAVE THAT. I find few things these days which are perfectly moral and "pure" (aside from the bible), you can pick out lots of stuff from everything, so that doesn't really get my knickers in a twist a whole lot.

[Patroclus]

and everything I'm thinking of under that heading is done in order to actually do the right thing... no one is stealing just to have something, they'll take a book from the restricted section of the library so that they can study it to get rid of a legitimate danger...

This is the moral relativism issue. If lying and stealing are only wrong in certain instances, then lying and stealing aren't wrong, it is the ends that are wrong.

Morality is relative to the situation.

[Piebald]

By the way, I just want to say that I think there are perfectly reasonable reasons (as a Christian) that one might want to avoid the Harry Potter series. If someone is impressionable (like a child) they might become interested in the occult, equivocating the fairy-tale magic with neo-pagan "magick".. thinking that the two are the same thing because they share terms on occasion.

I just don't think it's always the case that people are that impressionable, and are able to distinguish fairy tales from modern occultism.

One time my sister said to me, "I heard that some magic is real only they like to be called wiccans" -- I just about fell out of my chair.

I'm somewhat familliar with Wicca (witchcraft religion that assosciates nature with divinity/deity), and I see a sharp distinction between Wicca ("real" witchcraft) and the magical aspects of Harry Potter (witchcraft akin to the kind you read about in fairy tales).

So it struck me as kind of odd that she would assosciate it with neo-paganism. Especially since the magic is mainly just a vehicle for the story and a satire. Harry Potter, for example, has a Godfather and celebrates Christmas (not the pagan "yule"), which may lead one to believe that he has some sort of Christian background.

[Entropic Gnosis]

Occult magic, to my eyes, has always represented the things we wish we could do but cannot. It has nothing to do with evil or devil worship in anyway really. We cannot perform magic despite all our efforts to do so. If i get angry i cannot turn someone into a frog much as i would like to. Magic in this was is something like irrational technology, it allows for seemingly impossible feats. Now i can see how summoning daemons and selling souls would be evil (seems to be the domain of evil wizards in books anyway) but when you really think about it, how is flying on a broom stick different, on a truly basic level, than flying a plane? Magic is simply a non scientific means of trying to alter the world. Science and technology have put magic firmly in the realm of the imagination. Sure we would all like to be able to turn into a dragon, or make ourselves invisible, but we also all know that we cannot do these things.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistnguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark

More specifically, the way the HP books are writen is not intended to show the way the world works or to instruct people in magic, its a fairy tale like anyother.

[Piebald]

Very insightful post, thanks!:thumb:

I believe Tolkien said something about the "magical" things in his books being akin to a sort of technology.... but I can't remember precisely.

[Epoetker]

Ever notic how most of Gandalf's magic tends toward the practical? People need lights, magic swords, door-closing spells and exploding pinecones for the eminently practical aim of killin' orcs and such.:ddw:

[Entropic Gnosis]

Gandalf, the Mcgiver of Magic? I'm not sure my lofty view of old Olorin is quite ready for that. But yes he does have "practical" magic.

[NEONBlack]

I am of the same opinion about Harry Potter ... I am terribly negative toward it, to the point of disgust whenever I see, hear, read, am in the same timezone as, etc. anything dealing with it.

However, hear me out.

My point is similar to the one that Hamster himself made: this is a book marketed toward children specifically. The very first time I heard anything about this Potter person was about how children were making their parents take them out to the bookstores to wait overnight for the next book. While this in and of itself is not a bad thing--I think reading is a dying pasttime, personally--it was the subject matter that haunted me.

It was an instinctive dislike from the moment I heard his name. There was something in me that just actively reacts with severe negatism to this over-hyped British phenom (and just about every other over-hyped phenom, British or otherwise, to be honest). I will openly admit I have never read the books and most likely never will.

On the same token, I've never read Tolkein (didn't mean that as a rhyme) because I tried to read the Hobbit and was bored to tears--but I love the movies.

I think the thing about it all that just sets me off is not Potter the character or even the books--it's Rowling. She seems to revel in the controversy (not to mention the money!) while all the while maintaining she is just trying to give children something good to read.

Isn't that what Dr. Seuss did without waving magic wands?

[PostHoc]

Here is a worldview essay I wrote about the book, if anyone cares to read it

At the mention of Harry Potter, bright smiles and excited grins can be found on children’s faces all through Britain. This is due to the recent phenomenon of the Harry Potter book series. The phenomenon has spread across the world and now even adults are reading about the adventures of Harry Potter. Every book on the market presents one worldview. Whether it be subtle or crystal clear, all books present one unique view on life. By comparing Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone with the essential questions of life, with the Bible, with other reviewers, and finally myself, it is clear that the novel presents a Cosmic Humanist worldview.
J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone begins with Harry Potter’s parents being killed by the evil Voldemort. Because Voldemort did not succeed in killing little infant Harry, Harry is then sent to his aunt and uncle. The story then jumps ten years to the future and finds Harry very miserable. He still lives with his detestable aunt and uncle and they have not even told him of his parents’ death. Along with that, Harry is bullied by his cousin Dudley Dursley and mistreated by Mr. and Mrs. Dursley. Harry is miserable but accepts his situation with a good attitude.
Harry’s whole life changes when he receives a letter to attend Hogwarts, a school for wizards and witches. It is here that he makes two good friends, Hermione and Ron. These two stick by his side during his many adventures at the school. At the school the trio struggles with the mean teacher such as Snape and they are encouraged by the school headmaster, Albus Dumbledore. Harry and Voldemort meet again and fight for the priceless Sorcerer’s Stone and Harry comes out victorious.
Cosmic Humanists believe in a philosophy that is called non-naturalism. This philosophy believes that there is absolutely no physical world, and that everything is spiritual. To them, the physical world is just a manifestation of the spiritual world.
Surprisingly, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone attempts to tackle the question, “Is there anything more than the physical world?” and it is answered clearly in the book. Hogwarts is plagued by ghosts and is abundant with items that defy the laws of physics and these phenomena can only be explained as supernatural. When Harry first arrives at the school, he is astonished to see ghosts. The ghosts are described on page 115, “About twenty ghosts had just streamed through the back wall. Pearly-white and slightly transparent…” (Rowling).
This is a clear answer to the question listed above. The ghosts fly through walls and are superior to the physical world. This coincides with the Cosmic Humanist philosophy of non-naturalism. The ghosts are merely out of their human shells and revealed as nebulous ghouls. While ghosts surely stand out as elements beyond the physical world, another magical item is accentuated even more.
The Mirror of Erised is an enchanted mirror that reveals what someone truly wants. Albus Dumbledore, the headmaster of the school explains the mirror much better when he says, “It shows us nothing more or less than the deepest, most desperate desire of our hearts” (Rowling 213).
In this novel, a physical object exists that can enter the human mind, explore the depths of the soul, and these depths are projected to the outside world through itself. This mirror is clearly using powers that are neither of the physical world nor subject to the laws of the physical world. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone addresses the question, “Is there anything more than the physical world?”
“Who or what am I?” is a question that humanity has pondered since the beginning of time. Cosmic Humanists believe that every person is a god. All the person has to do is figure it out for himself or herself and realize who he or she really is on the inside. In fact, the general Cosmic Humanist philosophy regarding this states that “each of us has access to a supraconscious, creative, integrative, self-organizing, intuitive mind whose capabilities are apparently unlimited. This is part of our consciousness that constitutes our god-likeness” (Noebel 42). Cosmic Humanists embrace the fact that they can each be gods. Noebel quotes prominent Cosmic Humanist Ruth Montgomery when she says, “We are as much god as god is a part of us... each of us is god... together we are god... this all-for-one-and-one-for-all... makes us the whole of god” (Noebel 42). Cosmic Humanists approach the subject of godhood in a very nebulous manner that leaves room for much self-interpretation.
The central theme of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone is Harry’s search and realization of who he truly is. When Harry realizes that he has the potential to be one of the most powerful wizards in the world he is overjoyed. This glorification of himself fits perfectly into the Cosmic Humanist worldview. He realizes that he has powers inside of himself waiting to come out and is thrilled when he learns how to utilize them. In the same way, Cosmic Humanists truly become who they want to be when they discover who they are within. When Harry first uses a wand, he is energized at seeing the power that he has with it (Rowling 85). This excitement gives him a purpose and encourages him to further discover the powers within that he possesses.
The one question that every man fears and respects is the ominous question of death. It asks, “How am I to face death? Is there life after death?” The Cosmic Humanist today believes in reincarnation, which is the belief that one passes from one life after another until the individual reaches godhood. In Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone this question has a clear answer.
Albus Dumbledore, the source of wisdom for Harry, states that, “To the well-organized mind, death is but the next great adventure” (Rowling 297). Dumbledore is saying that there are more experiences after death and that they will be exciting. This is a vague reference to the Cosmic Humanist belief of reincarnation.
There are also references to hindering death in the book. The novel’s title includes the powerful Sorcerer’s Stone. Its powers are explained by Nicholas Flamel, the creator of the stone, when he says, “The stone will transform any metal into pure gold. It also produces the Elixir of Life which will make the drinker immortal” (Rowling 220). The hope for a long life and power over death are clearly shown in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone.
When compared with Biblical Christianity, these essential questions of life can easily be answered. Regarding the question concerning reality, the Bible answers it in two absolute and distinct ways. First, the Bible acknowledges that there is more than just the physical world. It firmly states in Ephesians 6:12, “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wicked ness in the heavenly places” (MASB). God Himself is not limited to the physical world. It says in Jeremiah 23:23-24, “‘Am I a God near at hand,’ says the Lord, ‘And not a God afar off? Can anyone hide himself in the secret places, So I shall not see him?’ says the Lord” (MASB). 2 Corinthians 4:18 describes the invisible, spiritual world and the visible, temporal world when it says, “While we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal,” (MASB).
Obviously, Biblical Christianity agrees that there is both a spiritual world and physical world. Genesis 1:1-2:3 outlines God’s creation of this physical world and His declaration that this world is “very good” (MASB). God also has plans for this world, His creation, and He describes the freedom from corruption that it will experience in the future (MASB, Romans 8:20-21). These verses obviously show that there is both a spiritual and physical world and that they are both real and important.
The question “Who or what am I” can be answered easily by using the Bible. Contrary to the Cosmic Humanist belief that every man can become god, the Bible strongly proclaims that man is depraved and sinful. Romans 3:23 says, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (MASB). While man is bent toward evil, God sent His son Jesus to die on the cross for their sins. Now man has a hope of a new life. 2 Corinthians 5:17 promises, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new,” (MASB). In fact, when one believes in Jesus and puts his or her faith in Him, he or she receives a whole new identity and becomes an actual child of God (John 1:12 Bible). This belief strongly contrasts with the book’s view that every man is a god.
Death is an unsure issue for the Cosmic Humanist. One does not know if he or she will come back as a manatee or a fern. Death for the Christian is a wondrous event to look forward to. Philippians 1:21 says, “For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain,” (MASB). Christians will be with God forever when they get to heaven. Christians do not have to fear death.
Christians also are assured that they will die only once. People get only one chance at life, and that is their one lifetime on earth. In Hebrews 9:27 it says, “And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment” (MASB). Cosmic Humanists believe that they will die over and over again until they reach godhood. Biblical Christianity has a clear view on death and that view conflicts with Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone.
The Bible holds the final authority on determining worldviews and what is right and wrong. Still the Bible cannot analyze the literary merit of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. To achieve this, it is necessary to examine other’s opinions on the book.
Critic Stefan Kanfer states that the book is not a children’s book, but a literary masterpiece. He says that the book is “intelligent, witty, and filled with references to classical myths and English lit” (Kanfer). He insists that Harry is just like any other classic hero. He compares Harry Potter with classic literary heroes when he says, “He is the wooden Pinocchio, the orphaned Oliver Twist, the pre-lamp Aladdin” (Kanfer). He says that Harry’s journey “is one of those heroic journeys, buoyed by sense of humor and driven by youthful discoveries” (Kanfer). Kanfer’s main point is that Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone has all the necessary ingredients to create a literary classic. He says, “There is a public out there for the so-called reaction attributes of taste, style, and virtue” (Kanfer). Kanfer is sadly mistaken. He fails to recognize that Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone was written for kids and that it can’t truly be analyzed as a work of art. The book’s real success and trait of merit is that it appeals to kids and that they enjoy reading it.
Critic Alison Lurie has a much different opinion on Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone than Kanfer. She says that the novel glorifies kids and appeals only to Britain and America. She explains why the two nations have embraced the book when she says that in Britain and America “more people never quite grow up” (Lurie). She goes on to say that although that the population from the two nations may “put on a good show of maturity, but secretly they remain children” (Lurie). She says that the book appeals to the immature nations because it “makes fun of grown-ups and exposes adult pretensions and failings” (Lurie). It is unfortunate that she stereotypes entire nations to make her point. It is impossible to classify hundreds of millions of people as immature. She also suggests that the book portrays that “children are braver, smarter, and more interesting than grown-ups” (Lurie). This is a false statement however. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone portrays adults as smart and worthy to be respected. All the students at Hogwarts respect Albus Dumbledore, the school’s headmaster. Lurie determines that Rowling herself is immature. Lurie says that Rowling portrays that the real “world is full of Muggles, or people who don’t understand you” (Lurie). She says that Rowling spent six years dreaming up the fantasy of Harry Potter before she even wrote the book. She views Rowling as a juvenile dreamer. What about other famous authors who were juvenile dreamers? Is it immature to dream up such children’s stories as “The Ugly Duckling”, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, and “Little Red Riding Hood”? Would she be just as critical of Hans Christian Anderson, C. S. Lewis, and the Grimm Brothers? Lurie should think twice before criticizing the literary success and merit of a book that has so captured the hearts and imaginations of both young and old alike.
Critic Lee Siegel praises the book for its expert blend of fantasy and reality. He says that Rowling has “brought reality back into the literature of escape, and back into our fantasy-culture” (Siegel). According to Siegel, Rowling brings the reality of today’s life into the imaginary world of Harry Potter. Siegel continues, “Rowling wants to prove the strength of her fiction by testing its capacity to assimilate the worldliness” (Siegel). Rowling has designed such an ingenious fantasy world that it can support today’s reality. While achieving this, Rowling preserves the discontinuity between fantasy and reality. She calls this hiatus between fantasy and reality “realistic magicalism”. For example, she takes the extraordinary fantasy trait of flying and translates it into the practical game of Quidditch, a combination of soccer and rugby. She makes the game an event of central importance and thus combines reality with magic. In Siegel’s opinion, Rowling’s “realistic magicalism” makes Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone a literary masterpiece.
When reading Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone I found myself taken into a world that I had never been before. Rowling created a fantasy world that kids and adults could both experience. I agreed with Siegel on how “realistic magicalism” made the book believable yet interesting. The book mixes fantasy with reality with such fluidness that the story almost becomes believable. I found myself disagreeing with Lurie and her view that the book made adults look bad. Dumbledore was portrayed as a powerful and wise man. Lurie also wrote her review with the preposterous presupposition that America and Britain’s entire populations are immature. Her exaggeration is very simplistic. I did not agree with Kanfer’s idea of Harry Potter representing most of the classical heroes in literature. Harry Potter is a unique character that Rowling dreamed up by herself. It is insulting to her and the reader when Kanfer infers that Harry Potter is a collaboration of classic literary heroes.
I also saw for the first time why kids were reading these books overnight. But being eighteen, and a fairly strong Christian, I was not addicted to the book nor was I swayed by it. Throughout the whole book I recognized that witchcraft was wrong and that some moral decisions made by the characters were wrong. The characters followed the Cosmic Humanist system of ethics known as --------ethical relativism and I could not bring myself to accept it.
However, I recognized the danger that it poses to young and more impressionable minds. It is for this reason that I feel that this book should not be read by any young Christian child under the age of twelve. By reading this at such a young age, the child’s mind could become clouded. By the time one is twelve, he or she has a well-conceived view of reality. He or she usually knows right and wrong and can discern between fantasy and reality. I would also read to this child what God says in Deuteronomy 18:10-12:
There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord. (MASB)
This verse explicitly shows the Bible’s view on witchcraft. If children are given this balanced biblical view from their parents, then the Harry Potter series can be read as just an exciting fairy-tale that encourages older kids to read. But if not given the proper perspective and warning, a Christian child could easily get swept away in the excitement of witchcraft and spell casting. Fantasy, if left alone, churning in a young child’s mind can be very dangerous. But if it is shown to be fictitious and fanciful, it can be used as a catalyst to encourage a young child to think creatively and to understand important life principles.

[Patroclus]

Thanks for the essay, PH. If you want me to give some stylistic criticism, place it on the Librarian's desk. I printed a copy in double space for the content review that you are going to receive right now.

Every book on the market presents one worldview... all books present one unique view on life

A more simple way of stating this would be to quote Philip Sidney when he says that they purpose of literature is "to teach and delight" (Defense of Poesy (http://www.underthesun.cc/Classics/Sidney/DefenseOfPoesy/)). Although, this is not universally accepted. Edgar A. Poe does not believe that literature must teach anything (Philosophy of Composition (http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/poe/works/criticis/philos.html)). It may be true that the book in question presents a worldview. But, that every book presents a worldview is erroneous.

To them [Cosmic Humanists], the physical world is just a manifestation of the spiritual world.

This is okay, however, it sounds remarkably like Platonism. Is it like Platonism? Perhaps your word choice is not very clear. In fact, some elaboration on this statement would be helpful.

This is a clear answer to the question listed above. The ghosts fly through walls and are superior to the physical world. This coincides with Cosmic Humanist philosophy of non-naturalism. The ghosts are merely out of their human shells and revealed as nebulous ghouls.

This may be so, but this is hardly an example of Cosmic Humanism any more than is Merrie Melodies or any other cartoon. You concede “Christianity agrees that there is both a spiritual and physical world.” But, you clarify that Christianity, and not Harry Potter, maintains, “both are real and important.” However, you have not supported your point that the physical world is unimportant in the novel in question, only that ghosts can travel within it and a mirror can see through it. You say:

This mirror is clearly using powers that are neither of the physical world, nor subject to the laws of the physical world.

When reading Harry Potter, one has to assume an element of magic. This supernatural aloofness is certainly not unique to these books. Look at Gandalf, or the prophets of the Old Testament.

What do you think of the following contradiction:

Albus Dumbledore, the source of wisdom for Harry, states that, “To the well-organized mind, death is but the next great adventure” (Rowling 297). Dumbledore is saying that there are more experiences after death and that they will be exciting.
Then—
Death is an unsure issue for the Cosmic Humanist [a concept for which you provide no proof]. One does not know if he or she will come back as a manatee or a fern. Death for the Christian is a wondrous event to look forward to.

If Dumbledore, as the master sorcerer, is the most representative character for cosmic humanism, he cannot be hopeful about death. However, his outlook on death seems much closer to the Christian perspective. This tends to undercut your entire argument.

The hope for a long life and power over death are clearly shown in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone.

True, it falls under the eternal life motif also found in the fountain of youth and other such types. However, what is the conclusion that Dumbledore and Flammel reach at the end of the story? Where does this tend to place the priorities of the most revedred characters in the book besides Harry, himself?

the book’s view that every man is a god.

You have not provided adequate support for this view. It seems, only, at this point that everybody has godlike, or supernatural tendencies. Though, don’t Christians, as well?

Still the Bible cannot analyze the literary merit of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone.

I completely agree. Though, I fear, not everybody understands this concept.

Concerning Kanfer’s criticism:
Kanfer is sadly mistaken. He fails to recognize that Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone was written for kids and that it can’t [avoid contractions in essays] truly be analyzed as a work of art
It is insulting to her and her readers when Kanfer infers that Harry Potter is a collaboration of classic literary heroes.

Quite honestly, I find such remarks ridiculous. First, even of Rowling told you, personally, that she wrote the books for children that is not proof enough. You are up against the intentional fallacy. Authorial intent can never be proven. In an interview, an author could lie or completely forget. Intent can never be absolutely proven by textual analysis either. The school of deconstructionism proves that much. Second, even if you do want to maintain that this is children’s literature, that is still no reason to presume that it has no artistic merit. On this subject, C.S. Lewis says,

Lewis, “On Stories.” On Stories. 1962. 14
It is usual to speak in a playfully apologetic tone about one’s adult enjoyment of what are called ‘children’s books’. I think the convention a silly one. No book is really worth reading at the age of ten which is not equally (and often more) worth reading at the age of fifty—except, of course, books of information. The only imaginative works we ought to grow out of are those which it would have been better to have not read at all. A matter of palate will probably not much care for crème de menthe: but it ought still to enjoy bread and butter and honey.[/I]

Among the ranks of art that are purported to be “children’s books” are Lewis’ own Chronicles of Narnia (in which literary comparisons and archetypes expected) and Lewis Carrol’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. Furthermore, you go as far as to criticize Laurie for failing to see the “literary success and merit” of such literature, and allow Siegel the luxury of calling Harry Potter “a literary masterpiece.”

[quote]But being eighteen, and a fairly strong Christian, I was not addicted to the book nor was I swayed by it.

Why not?

[Sher]

While I pretty much agree with you, Neon, on several points, I wanted to point out the following: Yesterday @ 06:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=111968#post111968)
NEONBlack:

Isn't that what Dr. Seuss did without waving magic wands?

While Dr. Seuss didn't wave magic wands, his books were actually satire of the times he lived in. An Internet search should provide some background (I don't have any handy sites) ... but it is rather interesting reading from an adult's prespective.

~ Sher, who read Dr. Seuss herself, and later again to her son

[Patroclus]

Isn't that what Dr. Seuss did without waving magic wands?

This seems immaterial to your point about the hype around Rowling. Does it matter if somebody waves a magic wand? I don't hear too many people get upset about Lord of The Rings (Gandalf as a staff!), or the Chronicles of Narnia.

I think that you hit on the issue with that statment. While a few people are dissapointed with some of the moral relativism, most people are upset about the magic.

[NEONBlack]

Today @ 06:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=112422#post112422)
Patroclus:



This seems immaterial to your point about the hype around Rowling. Does it matter if somebody waves a magic wand? I don't hear too many people get upset about Lord of The Rings (Gandalf as a staff!), or the Chronicles of Narnia.

I think that you hit on the issue with that statment. While a few people are dissapointed with some of the moral relativism, most people are upset about the magic.

Patroclus, you are absolutely right about it not dealing with my point on the hype; I was saying it in reference, though, to the fact that it does deal with the magic--which, yes, you did mention also.

My point on it was the fact that this is being aimed at children; while it has been said repeatedly that these books can be enjoyed by all ages, they are targeted specifically toward children.

As another person said (this is to you, Sherbear! :thumb: ), Dr. Seuss was a societal commentator and his books are often social satire in disguise. However, the aspect of magic in these books is different than that in Lord of the Rings in that "Rings" is not really aimed toward children. Even "Narnia" was geared more toward older, discerning readers or those who would read the books along with their children to point out the underlying Christian ethics.

I will concede this, though: even Dr. Seuss used "magic" things in his writing and the universe he created. It is not the magic that I personally have a problem with. It is the presentation of it in a matter-of-fact aspect. One could easily use that same argument in relation to the Star Wars saga (something I absolutely adore) because there is never any mention of a Creator or any real deity of any kind beyond "The Force."

In the end, I suppose that everyone will have their own opinions about any crafted universe, be it literary, movie, whatever; our ability to have differing viewpoints is what makes our free will (wherever one might believe we received it) such a fantastic thing. :thumb:

[PostHoc]

Thanks Patroclus for the review. I was looking for a good quote by C.S. Lewis when I was writing it, that was perfect , thanks for the help

[Vorkosigan]

Critic Alison Lurie has a much different opinion on Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone than Kanfer. She says that the novel glorifies kids and appeals only to Britain and America. She explains why the two nations have embraced the book when she says that in Britain and America “more people never quite grow up?

Obviously, the good Ms. Lurie has never traveled. It sells like hotcakes here in Taiwan, and everyone says my son looks just Harry Potter. In Russia a rip-off of HP is the number one seller.

Isn't that what Dr. Seuss did without waving magic wands?

Bartholamew Cubbins and the 500 Hats? The OObleck? Plenty of magic in Suess. And Disney too.

Vorkosigan

[bar Jonah]

05-24-2003 @ 07:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=106890#post106890)
Hamster:

By the way, I just want to say that I think there are perfectly reasonable reasons (as a Christian) that one might want to avoid the Harry Potter series. If someone is impressionable (like a child) they might become interested in the occult, equivocating the fairy-tale magic with neo-pagan "magick".. thinking that the two are the same thing because they share terms on occasion.

I just don't think it's always the case that people are that impressionable, and are able to distinguish fairy tales from modern occultism.

One time my sister said to me, "I heard that some magic is real only they like to be called wiccans" -- I just about fell out of my chair.

I'm somewhat familliar with Wicca (witchcraft religion that assosciates nature with divinity/deity), and I see a sharp distinction between Wicca ("real" witchcraft) and the magical aspects of Harry Potter (witchcraft akin to the kind you read about in fairy tales).

So it struck me as kind of odd that she would assosciate it with neo-paganism. Especially since the magic is mainly just a vehicle for the story and a satire. Harry Potter, for example, has a Godfather and celebrates Christmas (not the pagan "yule"), which may lead one to believe that he has some sort of Christian background.
Hamster, you might be interested to know that I AM a former Wiccan, was active in the neo-pagan community in a public sense, and I DO see examples of real-life witchcraft and real-life occult history being portrayed in the Harry Potter books.

For anyone who is interested, I wrote an article about my personal investigation of Harry Potter. I went in expecting to find that it wasn't significantly different from the Lord of the Rings, which I love. Instead, discovered I had three major problems with the Harry Potter books. They are outlined in my article with the sources listed.

The article exists at my ministry's website, which you can find at GODISNOWHERE.org (http://godisnowhere.org/Articles/HarryPotter.htm).

All of that said, I don't personally have much of a problem with the Harry Potter books being read by adults. The problem in that area lies with the fact that Harry Potter, as a concept, is marketed to children as young as six years old (according to one of the people involved in marketing Harry Potter).

[DanielleJoy]

my personal opinion: as long as parents are involved and showing their kids what is wrong/fantasy and WHY, there's not a problem... when i was in elementary school and everyone was watching the simpsons, i wasn't allowed to see it until my mom sat down with me and explained that the way bart acts isn't the way i should act, and that if i started acting up because i wanted to be like the show, i wouldn't be allowed to watch it anymore. it seems to me that, considering that a child typically wouldn't know anything about the occult that is actually practiced, they wouldn't see harry potter to be any more real than they do the wizard of oz or sabrina the teenage witch.

[geebob]

The problem in that area lies with the fact that Harry Potter, as a concept, is marketed to children as young as six years old (according to one of the people involved in marketing Harry Potter)....

from the article..

Rowling said in an NPR interview (1) that she doesn't necessarily write her books for children at all, but rather writes books which she would enjoy reading as an adult. She continued, adding that as a child, her reading was never censored by her parents in any way, and she doesn't believe parents today should censor what their children read at all, either.



I have heard or read some conflicting views here to the effect that Rowling has heard of parent reading the book to her very young child (somewhere between 4 and 8, I don't remember the age) and she complained that it was too young because extreme evil portrayed. But I appreciate that she does consider that young children (though only so young) should be exposed to the knowledge of real evil in the world.

I haven't read all of your article though by the way but I intend to take a closer look.

[Patroclus]

it seems to me that, considering that a child typically wouldn't know anything about the occult that is actually practiced, they wouldn't see harry potter to be any more real than they do the wizard of oz or sabrina the teenage witch.

First of all, I totally see where you are coming from, DJ. And to a large part, I agree. However, I think this last statement is false. It isn't that Harry Potter is not seen as "any more real" than Sabrina. Rather, HP is seen as "just as real" as Sabrina. The problem is that children do not know how to separate fantasy from fiction from real life. Furthermore, RightIdea would argue that some of the material in the book is real.

I do not agree with all of RightIdea's conclusions. However, the article that he linked is pretty good, and it gives a well thought-out perspective/

[Epoetker]

I've just read a very, VERY interesting article on the suggestion that Harry Potter may actually go in a quite explicitly Christian direction, based on an analysis of Chamber of Secrets' main foppish fool. The entire article is well worth reading. While it might be too much to hope, some of the parallels could very well mark the positive turning point for the story in general:

http://www.ev90481.dial.pipex.com/harry_potter_granger.htm

The Significance of Gilderoy Lockhart
Chamber is the Harry Potter 'book about books'. We have looked at the 'portrait of evil' Rowling paints in Riddle's diary of the dark, moral philosophy hiding in modernist textbooks; let's move on to the most comic figure in the Potter series, Gilderoy Lockhart.

First, the bad news. Rowling has said in interviews that Gilderoy Lockhart will not return. Any of you having bet on his being the next Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher will have to pay up; Chamber will be his only appearance.

But there is good news. In an interview with amazon.com, she mentioned that Gilderoy Lockhart "started as an exaggeration version of a person I've met." That person is not difficult to identify - and this identification reveals another sort of dangerous book that Rowling warns her attentive reader about. Break With a Banshee, Gadding with ghouls, Holidays with Hags, Travels with Trolls, Voyages with Vampires, Wanderings with Werewolves, Year with the Yeti, Gilderoy Lockhart's Guide toHousehold Pets, Magical Me - Gilderoy Lockhart has written a bunch of books. Here is what we know about them:

Their only purpose is to generate money and fame for Gilderoy;

The adventure stories are all other magical persons' accomplishments; and

Women (that is, witches) love them, wizards do not.

What we learn about Gilderoy, himself, beyond his being "Order of Merlin, Third Class, Honorary Member of the Dark Force Defense League, and five time winner of Witch Weekly's Most-Charming-Smile Award" (which he "won't talk about" but manages to mention four times in Chamber), is:

He is despised by the teachers as an empty headed braggart;

He is adored by the girl students but he sickens the boys;

He lives for publicity, large photos of himself, and other people's admiration;

He favors effeminate colors in robes (jade, lilac, midnight blue, etc.);

He has one good charm (the memory charm); and

He is a Coward, 'Order of Scaredy Cat, First Class.'

His cowardice is revealed in spades when Ginny Weasley is taken into the Chamber of Secrets by Riddle and the teachers tell Lockhart he has a "free rein at last" to slay the monster. When Harry and Ron go to him to explain where they think the Chamber is, he tells them this sort of work wasn't "in the job description":

"You mean you're running away?" said Harry disbelievingly. "After all that stuff you did in your books-"
"Books can be misleading," said Lockhart delicately.
"You wrote them!" Harry shouted.
"My dear boy," said Lockhart, straightening up and frowning at Harry. "Do use your common sense. My books wouldn't have sold half as well if people didn't think I'd done all those things. No one wants to read about some ugly old Armenian warlock, even if he did save a village from werewolves. He'd look dreadful on the front cover. No dress sense at all. And the witch who banished the Bandon Banshee had a harelip. I mean, c'mon -"
"So you've just been taking credit for what a load of other people have done?" said Harry incredulously.
"Harry, Harry," said Lockhart, shaking his head impatiently, "it's not nearly as simple as that. There was work involved. I had to track these people down. Ask them exactly how they managed to do what they did. Then I had to put a Memory Charm on them so they wouldn't remember doing it. If there's one thing I pride myself on, it's my Memory Charms. No, it's been a lot of work, Harry. It's not all book signings and publicity photos, you know. You want fame, you have to be prepared for a long, hard slog."
He banged the lids of the trunks shut and locked them.
"Let's see," he said. "I think that's everything. Yes. Only one thing left."
He pulled out his wand and turned to them.
"Awfully sorry, boys, but I'll have to put a Memory Charm on you now. Can't have you blabbing my secrets all over the place. I'd never sell another book -" (Chamber, pages 297-298)

Harry and Ron disarm him and force him to join them in their pursuit of the Chamber. He gets Ron's broken wand when they are "miles under the school", though, and causes a cave-in by trying another Memory Charm (the wand explodes). The back firing Memory Charm obliviates his memory, which tragedy compels Dumbledore to say later, "Impaled upon your own sword, Gilderoy!" (page 331). Most everyone cheers, professors and students alike, when it is announced at the Leaving Feast that Professor Lockhart "would be unable to return next year, owing to the fact that he needed to go away and get his memory back" (page 340).

In the world of Harry Potter, where the virtues of bravery, selflessness and loyalty are prized above all, you're not supposed to like Gilderoy. We can laugh at him but Rowling clearly doesn't want us thinking of him as a role model. He is a cartoon figure of everything self-important, self-promoting, superficial, effeminate, and emasculating: everything the Harry Potter books hope to overcome and replace with heroic, masculine virtues and 'Stock Responses'.

If we never met him, the name Rowling gives him would tell us we weren't supposed to like him. 'Gilderoy Lockhart' breaks down to ' gilded' (given a deceptively attractive appearance) 'roi' (French for 'king') and 'lock' (shut tight) 'hart' (heart). His name tells us he is a false, 'pretty boy' prince with a closed heart, which is to say a 'hard heart' and 'spiritually dead'. What more could she tell us? Not much.

The fact that his only magic, his 'sword', is the Memory Charm reveals Rowling's estimation of the value of his books. They are lies, were only written for the promotion of their author, and, one has to guess, 'not for guys'. Their strength is they help you forget; they're an escape wherein you can forget what you are about - and what the author really is about, too.
Rowling hates Gilderoy's kind of fiction; it's everything her fiction is not. In this 'second book within the book', then, she offers this character to her critics as a foil to her own work. Children's literature that does not come from true belief and out of genuine love and concern for readers demeans them and distracts them from spiritual combat readiness. There are no 'stock responses' in Gilderoy's books, no right alignment of soul, and certainly no baptism of the imagination in Christian doctrines and symbols. Rather than Christ, the true king, all we find in Lockhart's books is himself: 'Gilderoy', the 'false king'.

So who is the real life model for Gilderoy Lockhart? My guess is Philip Pullman, author of The Dark Materials trilogy and many other, much admired children's books. I have a few reasons for guessing Pullman, some good, some silly. Let's start with the 'off the wall' stuff.

1) Every person I have met or read that loves his books (to include my daughters) is female. Here are a couple of raves from reviews written in the New York Times - by women:

"War, politics, magic, science, individual lives and cosmic destinies are all here. They are not flung together, they are shaped and assembled into a narrative of tremendous pace by a man with a generous, precise intelligence. If you are going to preface your books with passages from Milton, Rilke and John Ashbery, then you had better write well. Pullman does. His prose has texture and flexibility, like excellent fabric. And he gives us so much. Suspense of course, but such degrees of pleasure, excitement (the excitement of meeting characters, not just adventurers) and grief. And such joy - the joy of thinking, of testing your senses and feelings, of knowing your imagination is entering worlds not dreamed of in the usual philosophies" (Margo Jefferson, 'Harry Potter for Grown-Ups', NYT, 20 January, 2002).

"One can only hope that where Pullman leads [the children] will follow, and discover the dissenting tradition from which these books spring. This is remarkable writing: courageous and dangerous, as the best art should be. Pullman envisions a world without God, but not without hope" (Erica Wagner, Times of London, quoted NYT, 'The Man who Dared Make Religion the Villain', 6 November 2000).

2) His Dark Materials trilogy was 'big news' and Pullman a star at English book fairs when Harry Potter was still just a new title from a small publishing house - and it is at one of those events that Rowling is said to have met her 'Lockhart' model; and

3) One of the lead characters in more than one of Pullman's books is named Sallie Lockhart.

Onto more serious reasons for Rowling to choose Pullman as her 'Man Without Chest' Lockhart model:

1) Pullman feels nothing but disdain for C. S. Lewis and the 'Narnia School' of Children's fiction

"Mr. Pullman's book offers an explicit alternative to C.S.Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia, with their pervasive Christian message. In the Narnia books, nestled inside the delightful stories of talking animals, heroic challenges and whimsical scenes, the meaning is clear: the heroes find true happiness only after death, when their spiritual superiority buys them passage to heaven.

"It is a conclusion with which Mr. Pullman thoroughly disagrees. "When you look at what C. S. Lewis is saying, his message is so antilife, so cruel, so unjust," he said. "The view that the Narnia books have for the material world is one of almost undisguised contempt. At one point, the old professor says, 'It's all in Plato' - meaning that the physical world we see around us is the crude, shabby, imperfect, second-rate copy of something much better."

"Instead, Mr. Pullman argues for a "republic of heaven" where people live as fully and richly as they can because there is no life beyond. "I wanted to emphasize the simple physical truth of things, the absolute primacy of the material life, rather than the spiritual or the afterlife," he said" (Sarah Lyall, NYT, 6 Nov 2000).

"He opposes the tradition of children's literature as Christian allegory, made famous by the Narnia Chronicles of C. S. Lewis. He is a disciple of that sensual visionary William Blake. And by revising (as Blake did) Milton's theology of Paradise lost and regained, he is paying tribute to Milton the poet and political dissident. He thinks it's dangerous to believe that innocence is at its best when untouched by experience. Or that morality is at its purest when untouched by joy" (Margo Jefferson, NYT, 20 Jan 2002)

2) Pullman is a public atheist and despiser of organized religion

"Shockingly, Mr. Pullman, a 53-year-old former schoolteacher, has created a world in which organized religion - or, at least, what organized religion has become - is the enemy and its agents are the misguided villains¡K.The author grew up in Wales listening to fantastical stories of his maternal grandfather, an Anglican priest bursting with imaginative energy. 'I think he would be shocked by some of the things in [Dark Materials],' said Mr. Pullman, who was raised a Protestant but became an atheist as a teenager" (Lyall, NYT).

"Pullman has made clear in a lovely essay called "the Republic of Heaven" that he is passionately against any religion that puts its vision of the spirit and the afterlife above human life and the natural world, where our moral and spiritual tests as well as our pleasures are found¡K.. And what does he mean by "the Republic of Heaven"? "No kings, no bishops, no priests," says one of the rebels. "The Kingdom of Heaven has been known by that name since the Authority first set himself above the rest of the angels. And we want no part of it. This world is different. We intend to be free citizens of the Republic of Heaven" (Jefferson, NYT).

Pullman's fiction is not, as he imagines, of the 'dissenting tradition' of Blake and Milton (!), but imaginative stock straight from the materialist warehouse. He doesn't believe in the fantastic realms he creates, only in the naturalist, 'this-world-ly' atheism and anti-clericalism he promotes beneath its surface.

The brilliance and real dissent in Lewis's Christian anthropology and cosmology is lost on him; one has to assume because he forgot his grandfather's wisdom after having been enchanted by the demons in his school textbooks. To believe that the natural world and joy in this life are diminished by discerning what is eternal and what is fleeting in the natural is never to have experienced the natural world in its depth, breadth, and height.

In contrast with the Pullman/Lockhart genre and Riddle's diary, the third book in Chamber of Secrets does not demean or diminish the reader by indoctrinating them with worldly philosophies. The third book Rowling shares with us in Chamber, her 'book about books', is Chamber of Secrets itself. It ends with an answer for her Christian critics that one would think they would have a hard time rejecting: the best books for children are the ones that model for them a heroic life in battle with the Evil One and dependent on the graces only available in Christ. That 'best book' model is evident in the battle scene at the end of Chamber, a Christian morality play for anyone with 'eyes to see'.

[Piebald]

Fantastic Article!!!

I am really, really disappointed in mainstream American Christians' rejection of Harry Potter simply because it uses the kind of fairy tale magic that the stories they themselves grew up on employ.

The fifth book is ocming out very soon..... I'll be at my bookstore waiting for midnight to get it :teeth:

[Piebald]

WARNING - Spoiler's Ahead



Some compare them to J.R.R. Tolkein’s The Lord of the Rings, and to C.S. Lewis’ The Chronicles of Narnia. Are these comparisons fair and logical?

I would say that nothing is comparable to the Chronicles of Narnia. I read those books for the first time as an adult, and pardon me for sounding sappy, but they moved me in a very deep way. I actually had them read to me by my computer, to be specific. Harry Potter doesn't have the same substance as the Chronicles of Narnia, that's a given. But Harry Potter does have an entertaining story.

Potter defenders claim that Rowling's books have nothing to do with real-life occult or witchcraft. Not only is this patently untrue, but Rowling admits that she has done extensive research into real-life witchcraft, pagan religions and other aspects of the occult, stating several times in interviews that roughly one third of the witchcraft in her books is real. In a 1999 interview

Yes, this is true. Rowling has a definite interest in mythology and folklore and "the occult" -- so do I. I find them fascinating. That does not mean, however, that I am interested in believing them or incorporating them into my worldview. They are interesting, but not appealing in that way. I first started studying them when I was in highschool, particularly the old alchemy stuff. I was flabberghasted as to why Rowling had changed the name of the Philosopher's stone to "the Sorceror's Stone" until I learned that this was just for American audiences. I see nothing intrinsically wrong with incorporating this sort of mythology into a story, particularly one that only drops name and doesn't get into details.

This object, in the book, is said to grant its creator and wielder unlimited wealth and power and immortality -- things Satan typically offers in tempting us to corruption

Yes, that is absolutely right. And that is why

1. Voldemort, the villain of the series is after the stone:

"If there is one thing Voldemort cannot understand, it is love. he didn't realize that love as powerful as your mother's for you leaves its own mark. Not a scar, no visible sign . . . to have been loved so deeply, even though the person who loved us is gone, will give us some protection… Quirrel, full of hatred, greed, and ambition {which is why he was after the stone} sharing his very soul with Voldemort {the devil-like character}, could not touch you for this reason. It was agony to touch a person marked by something so good." (Sorceror's Stone, pg. 299)

2. The Stone is destroyed at the end

"As for the Stone, it has been destroyed"

"Destroyed?" said Harry blankly. "But your friend -- Nicolas Flamel -- "

"Oh, you know about Nicolas?" said Dumbledore, sounding quite delighted. "You did do the thing, properly didn't you? Well, Nicolas and I have had a little chat, and agreed it's all for the best"

3. The only way to get the stone which was hidden by Dumbledore (benign father-figure) is to desire not to use it:

"You see, only one who wanted to find the stone -- find it, but not use it -- would be able to get it, otherwise they'd just see themselves {in the magic mirror that displays desires} making gold or drinking elixir of life."

In the book, it was created by a man named Nicholas Flamel. (Side note: Nicholas is a name often associated with Satan in folk lore, but this could easily be coincidence.) The book says that Flamel "turned 665 last year." Odd that the author doesn't want to say what his age is this year.

Nicolas Flamel's age is due to folly -- that is what the Sorceror's stone symbolizes, and that's why the stone is only sought after by the villains (it's hidden and kept away by the "heroes"). In the end:

"To one as young as you, I'm sure it seems incredible, but to Nicolas and {his wife, who also used the stone to stay alive} {dying is} really … like going to bed after a very, very long day. After all, to the well-organized mind, death is but the next great adventure. You know, the stone is not such a wonderful thing. As much money and life as you could want! The two things most human beings would choose above all -- the trouble is, humans have a knack of choosing precisely those things which are worst for them" (Sorceror's Stone, page 297)

Again, it isn't in "posession" of Dumbledore as if he is using it to stay alive and get wealth and immortality -- he is hiding it away from the villains who are depicted as desiring to use it.

As to your point that the names come from mythology, folklore, and the occult -- that is true. That is the vehicle of her story about morality and virtue. I don't think simply having a "magic"-themed story is nescessarily a bad thing, but a Christian should always be cautious and protective of weaker Christians. I got interested in Alchemy and Tarot cards from a videogame's use of them, so I know this is true.

As a mature Christian, I love the Potter books. I would not recommend them to people who are disturbed by the folkloric and mythological aspects of Rowling's books, though. I also think that children can enjoy the books as well, but they need their parents' guidance.

Arthur Edward Waite's Standard Book of Spells

That has to be a coincidence, because "The Standard Book of Spells" in Harry's world is written by "Miranda Goshawk." It is among a list of other whimsical book titles and authors that Rowling employs.

Eliphas Levi's A History of Magic,

Again, this seems like a coincidence. In Rowling's world it's by "Bathilda Bagshot." It's simply not true that these real-life authors are who rowling "Rowling uses as a source of knowledge and enlightenment" in the potter series. Again, it's most likely a coincidence since they are pretty matter-of-fact titles.

Some Potter defenders claim that Rowling portrays magic but doesn't really show how to do it, per se.

Not only that, but Rowling has stated clearly that none of the magic presented in her books actually works. In fact, one of the characters in the books says that music is a magic much more powerful than anything done at Hogwarts (Harry's School). Things like magical potions in the books are impossible to reproduce because the ingrediants do not exist (e.g. Unicorn hair)

In one book, Harry visits a magic store and sees a "Hand of Glory," which was cut off a murderer while still being hanged, then pickled and so on

This is when Harry inadvertantly finds himself in a store frequented by evil wizards. The Hand of Glory certainly isn't "glorified" in this scene. I also don't recall her describing the origin of the Hand of Glory, only it's use (to provide candle-light only to the holder).

Best friend of thieves and plunderers. Your son has fine taste, sir!"

Yes, the evil shop-keeper says it to one of the evil villains/antagonists in the story. Please keep these quotes in context. "Your son" is Harry's arch-enemy, Malfoy, not Harry.

Rowling also often refers to astrology and describes Harry and other students getting their charts done by Prof. Sibyll Trelawney, who also teaches in detail how to scry using a crystal ball, mirror and other means, explaining how to achieve an altered state of consciousness with similar instructions to what one will find in a real-life book on the subject.

And Harry and his friends repeatedly suggest that it is all bunk, and the teacher (Trelawney) is ostrasized throughout the last two books.

Similar instructions are given regarding reading of tea leaves and other such means of divination

And the three main characters find it ridiculous, take the whole thing to be trite, and one of them at one poitn marches out of the classroom because she finds it utterly absurd. This is far from a promotion of divination.

As for the blood and gore issues, I think you are more or less right on. The climactic scene of the first book un-nerved me, and I read it in my twenties! I might be a bit of a wimp, but I don't think it's all that appropriate for the under 12 crowd.

As for the mandrakes getting processed into potions -- it's assumed that they are not comparable to human beings in essence, they only look like human beings. Furthermore, the "babies" were not ground up, but would have been "adult" mandrakes since Professor Sprout had to wait for them to "mature" before she could use them. I really see no difference between this and eating gingerbread cookies shaped like men.

As for Potter's ethics, you are right, he is disobediant, but nothing more than Tom Sawyer. It's not like he's in to cocaine and vandalism. In fact, we find out the reason that Potter is disobediant in book 2 -- Some of Voldemort (the devilish villain)'s qualities were given to him when Voldemort tried to kill him. Harry, then, has to overcome these qualities. He is even verbally chastized by a friend in the third book for breaking the rules, and making light of his mother's sacrifice to save his life.

[Piebald]

Oh, I just want to add that Right Idea is Right on when he quotes the children who "want to be witches" and "wizards." I don't think the books are good for the impressionable. That said, even the chronicles of Narnia (written with the intent to instill Christian values) can lead people astray if they take his inclusion of pagan gods, tree gods, water nymphs, etc. (Lewis makes big use of Bacchus and Silenus at one point) and form a polytheistic worldview. The Author's intent has to be taken into consideration as well. Rowling wants to create a story about good fighting evil, and has used folklore, mythology, and the occult as the backdrop. She is not promoting these things as the basis of a proper worldview, though. This is a danger with the impressionable, however.

[Epoetker]

Hey Hamster, it's priori incantatem time. Here's an article on the person who wrote the previous one I cited, establishing his Christian and literary credentials quite assiduously:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2003/5/prweb62845.php

When Bloomsbury Publishing announced on 15 January that the long awaited Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix would be released on June 21, they released a teaser excerpt on their web site to excite the fans.

"Dumbledore lowered his hands and surveyed Harry through his half-moon glasses. 'It is time,' he said, 'for me to tell you what I should have told you five years ago, Harry. Please sit down. I am going to tell you
everything.'"

John Granger, author of The Hidden Key to Harry Potter (Zossima Press, 2003), simply nodded his head when he learned of the excerpt. It didn’t come as a surprise to him; he’d predicted the ‘Dumbledore Reveals All’ conference last Spring. "The patterns and themes of the books as Rowling has organized them almost require that Harry learn of his destiny as Heir of Gryffindor in Book 5 and that Dumbledore departs from the scene," he explains matter-of-factly.

It’s not that Granger isn’t very excited about the new book’s release. He and his seven children have been waiting impatiently alongside the rest of the reading world for the last two years in anticipation of it’s arrival. What makes this Latin teacher and Orthodox Christian different from your common Potter maniac is his education in Classics and the Great Books, a background he has in common with Joanne Rowling, writer of the Potter series.

Both Granger and Rowling, for example, have honors degrees from prestigious Universities in Classical Languages (Granger from the University of Chicago and Rowling from the University of Exeter). Both have a love of 19th Century English novels (Rowling claims Austen as her favorite before Dickens, Granger Dickens before Austen) and admire the works of the Inklings. Granger lives for the monthly C. S. Lewis Society meeting in Port Townsend and Rowling has said she cannot sit in the same room with one of Lewis’ Narnia books without reading it.

Little wonder, then, that Granger understands things about the books most can’t; their eyeglasses have the same prescription. Unlike most of her fans, he gets all the allusions to classical and medieval literature and philosophy. He understands the characters’ names and the meaning of the Latin spells. Perhaps he is even able to see the patterns and themes well enough to see where the series is headed.

Professor Scott Moore of Baylor University’s Philosophy Department and Great Books program thinks so. "One of the most interesting aspects of The Hidden Key is Granger's bold "prediction" of what will happen in the final three volumes of the Potter series. While predicting in print what an author will write is an endeavor practically destined for failure and ridicule, Granger offers some intriguing speculations, and I, for one, wouldn't be surprised if he's gotten quite a lot right."

But what has the fan web sites and reviewers agog after reading pre-publication copies and from excerpts that have appeared in ‘CSL’ the Bulletin of the NY C. S. Lewis Society and on the UK George MacDonald internet site is not Granger’s predictions of what is coming in the series. It is his conclusion after analyzing the books within the English ‘Greats’ traditions that has tongues wagging.

Granger thinks Harry Potter is a Christian.

Richard Abanes, author of Harry Potter and the Bible: The Menace behind the Magick, couldn’t disagree more. This full time Potter basher disagrees with Granger on most points and feels he has made "factual errors" in his interpretation. A host of literary authorities and Christians think it is Abanes that needs to go back to school.

"The Hidden Key to Harry Potter is a jazzy, gutsy exposition of the secret Christian symbolism that pervades J.K. Rowling's brilliant series’ writes Stratford Caldecott, head of the Chesterton Institute for Faith & Culture. " John Granger shows that Rowling, far from being an agent for the occult, belongs firmly in the Inklings tradition of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien."


Prof. Dr John Warwick Montgomery, Christian apologist, author, and dean of Inkling literary criticism goes a step further. "John Granger's Hidden Key to Harry Potter is the only comprehensive attempt to analyze the genuinely Christian elements in J. K. Rowling's immensely impactive series. Granger will be thought by some to be overstating the case, but everyone else seems to be understating it. The issue, as Granger makes clear, is not the doctrinal precision of Rowling's personal beliefs, but the themes and corresponding values which her books convey. The HIDDEN KEY is 'must' reading for Potterites, whatever their religious orientation."

Frederica Mathewes-Green, author of Facing East and The Illumined Heart, says, "The Hidden Key to Harry Potter captures the reader by stages: it's theses that Harry is a Christian hero and that Rowling is underestimated and misunderstood seem at first surprising, then engaging, and finally persuasive. I invite
readers to go on a journey into Harry Potter's world and see things they never recognized before."

Nimbus 2003 (www.hp2003.org), the first International Harry Potter Conference, has invited Granger to be a featured speaker at their meeting in Orlando, FL, July 17-20. The Latin, Greek, and Logic teacher has become one of if not the premiere Harry Potter authority worldwide.

Is it possible that all the book burning and Deuteronomy citing Christians have been wrong? Granger says ‘yes’ and ‘no’.

"Certainly their intentions are on target’, he says. "The occult certainly is real and dangerous - and invocational sorcery is forbidden by revealed scripture in all orthodox traditions, not just Christianity. Fortunately there is no invocation of spirits in Harry Potter; it’s all incantation, which, of course, is a literary parallel to God’s creative powers by His Word. The magic is a part of her critique of modern naturalism."

Of course. Granger believes the structure of each book as a hero’s journey ending with Harry’s death and resurrection and the prevalence of Christological symbols (he explains the eight major ones in Hidden Key) make the Christian meaning of the series almost explicit. His exposition of the four major themes, the alchemical backdrop to each book and the series as a whole, and the iconographic use of characters as symbols of the soul’s faculties is compelling reading. If Rowling is not a Christian writer, she sure has gone to a lot of trouble to pretend to be.

And how did everyone miss this but Mr. Granger? He thinks the repetition of stories in the media of her having been on welfare obscured her intelligence in most people’s minds; the reaction of fundamentalists, too, made it difficult to think of them as Christian books. That she hasn’t said she is writing Christian fiction hasn’t helped either.

She has said, though, that if she discussed her faith publicly all her fans, "ages 6 to 60", would know what the story is about and how it will end. John Granger didn’t need this confession of faith to figure it out, it seems, to the enlightenment and delight of parents and Potter fans everywhere.

The Hidden Key to Harry Potter (Zossima Press, 2003), paperback, 384 pages, is $18.95 and is available in bookstores, via Amazon.com, and directly from the publisher with free shipping (www.zossima.com)

Also took a gander at one of Gilderoy Pullman's books. Right from the first page they referred to a shapeshifting spirit familiar(called a "daemon!") following and guiding a young girl around. This is exactly the sort of thing we should be focusing fire on. This Granger fellow was right. I suppose the fact that his last name is the same as Hermione's is merely incidental:teeth:

(Cue Morpheus: "We did not come here by accident. There are no accidents. I do not believe in chance.)

[Patroclus]

That is a most intriguing article.

Don't show RI; he might explode

[Epoetker]

Be nice to former witches, now. Abusing the mystical elements in the world is no better or worse than abusing the intellectual elements, and the intellectual elements are less prone to criticism from the religious conservatives.(Indeed, Pullmans' book seems to craft an unholy alliance between the worst of the two. Materialist Magician of the worst sort.)

Sin is sin, after all. Deceiving the young is millstone-worthy whether done from one end, the other, or both. Rowling might have made some mistakes, but cut her some slack(and celebrate! :joy: :ri:)if she goes in Granger's direction.

[Patroclus]

Today @ 01:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=123931#post123931)
Epoetker:

Be nice to former witches, now. Abusing the mystical elements in the world is no better or worse than abusing the intellectual elements, and the intellectual elements are less prone to criticism from the religious conservatives.(Indeed, Pullmans' book seems to craft an unholy alliance between the worst of the two. Materialist Magician of the worst sort.)

Sin is sin, after all. Deceiving the young is millstone-worthy whether done from one end, the other, or both. Rowling might have made some mistakes, but cut her some slack(and celebrate! :joy: :ri:)if she goes in Granger's direction.

I totally agree, Epoetker.

I was just remeniscing about discussions that RI and I have had on this very topic. Plus, considerring his article, I was contemplating what kind of responses he would make.

RI is a good man. I was not putting him down.

[geebob]

The HIDDEN KEY is 'must' reading for Potterites, whatever their religious orientation."

I so want to get this book, but I dispise spoilers, and even good speculation may give too much away.


BTW, as for faulting Harry Potter on the lying and stealing, Here we have yet another parrallel to the Lord of the Ring's series.

I just started the series over again, and finished the Hobbit. Bilbo Baggins was a burglar, and he arguably stole Thorin Oakensheild's most prized posession, the Arkenstone.

[Patroclus]

I just started the series over again, and finished the Hobbit. Bilbo Baggins was a burglar, and he arguably stole Thorin Oakensheild's most prized posession, the Arkenstone.

You have a very good point, Geebob.

[Piebald]

WAHOO!! I gotta get my hands on "The Hidden Key!"

The only thing is, yeah, I would hate spoilers... maybe I should wait...

/me can't wait for Saturday

[Piebald]

And what of the controversy raised by some parents who worry the tale of a young wizard promotes witchcraft and the occult? Her answer is direct and unforgiving. "I absolutely did not start writing these books to encourage any child into witchcraft," she says with an uncomfortable chuckle. "I'm laughing
slightly because to me, the idea is absurd."


http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/an991025.html#31

[Piebald]

By the way, the following has been the most fair-minded review of the Potter books I've read so far by a Christian. He weighs pros and cons and dispells myths that Christians are spreading about the series. I do not, of course, agree with him that the books are only "mediocre" :smile:

http://www.atlantaapologist.org/harrypotter.html


Recall the quote by John Andrew Murray from the beginning of this presentation. "By disassociating magic and supernatural evil, it becomes possible to portray occult practices as good and healthy." If connection with supernatural evil does not exist in the books, then it cannot be occultic or sorcery. That just leaves us with the pretend magic found in most fantasy and sci-fi stories.



As C. S. Lewis points out in The Screwtape Letters, whether we believe that the Devil does not exist or whether we believe that he is running around with a pitchfork and horns both are to his advantage. The same is true for Wicca and witchcraft. Whether kids read the Harry Potter books or just hear about them from their friends, if we as parents suggest that they promote witchcraft, we leave our children unprepared to recognize the real thing when they are exposed to it. That nice, respectful, environmentally conscious friend that they make in Junior High will look nothing like Harry Potter.

[geebob]

As C. S. Lewis points out in The Screwtape Letters, whether we believe that the Devil does not exist or whether we believe that he is running around with a pitchfork and horns both are to his advantage. The same is true for Wicca and witchcraft. Whether kids read the Harry Potter books or just hear about them from their friends, if we as parents suggest that they promote witchcraft, we leave our children unprepared to recognize the real thing when they are exposed to it. That nice, respectful, environmentally conscious friend that they make in Junior High will look nothing like Harry Potter.

That's a fantastic point!

[bar Jonah]

Let's show our kids witchcraft rather than keep it away from them because whether we do or not, it makes no difference, and if we keep it away from them, they will be ill-equipped to handle it when they grow older?

:hrm:

Using that same logic, let's do the same thing with pornography. After all, how will they be able to deal with it if they aren't familiar with it, what it's like, etc. Right?

This goes right to the principle of what my ministry likes to call the Fruit-Sorting Machine.

If you have apples and oranges, and you want to sort them, you might build a fruit-sorting machine. Now, when you design this machine, does it need to be able to recognize apples as apples... AND oranges as oranges?

No, of course not. All it needs to be able to do is recognize one, let's say apples. Because if it isn't an apple.... then what is it? Obviously it's an orange. All it needs to be able to really recognize is one, not both.

By the same token, if you want to design a truth-claim sorting machine, or a morality-sorting machine, do you need to design it to be able to reignize both truth and lies? (Or both morality and immorality?)

Absolutely not. All it needs to recognize is the truth. (Or morality.) Because if it isn't that.... then what is it??? Lies or immorality.

You don't need to teach your children about witchcraft so that "they'll be able to deal with it when they get older." You need to teach them about the truth. Armed with the truth, and with absolute morality, they will then have little trouble recognizing witchcraft as the evil thing it is. That doesn't mean you raise them to be naive about the existence of evil. Frankly, they instinctively knew how to sin without you teaching them anything at all. They certainly don't need any help or encouragement from you.

[Piebald]

logic, let's do the same thing with pornography. After all, how will they be able to deal with it if they aren't familiar with it, what it's like, etc. Right?

Nah, but they should be informed about what pornography is, and how destructive it is.

You need to teach them about the truth. Armed with the truth, and with absolute morality, they will then have little trouble recognizing witchcraft as the evil thing it is. That doesn't mean you raise them to be naive about the existence of evil. Frankly, they instinctively knew how to sin without you teaching them anything at all.

Well, I agree with you, but I do not think that the author was suggesting that one has to teach their children witchcraft, simply being able to identify witchcraft (e.g. Wicca). My astranged sister (not the one spoken of above), for example, is under the illusion that wicca is perfectly compatible with Christianity. Though, she calls herself a "Wiccan." http://www.madmarchhare.com/ForumGoodies/AlternativeSmileys/nonono2.gif

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 01:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125689#post125689)
Hamster:

logic, let's do the same thing with pornography. After all, how will they be able to deal with it if they aren't familiar with it, what it's like, etc. Right?

Nah, but they should be informed about what pornography is, and how destructive it is.

You need to teach them about the truth. Armed with the truth, and with absolute morality, they will then have little trouble recognizing witchcraft as the evil thing it is. That doesn't mean you raise them to be naive about the existence of evil. Frankly, they instinctively knew how to sin without you teaching them anything at all.

Well, I agree with you, but I do not think that the author was suggesting that one has to teach their children witchcraft, simply being able to identify witchcraft (e.g. Wicca). My astranged sister (not the one spoken of above), for example, is under the illusion that wicca is perfectly compatible with Christianity. Though, she calls herself a "Wiccan." http://www.madmarchhare.com/ForumGoodies/AlternativeSmileys/nonono2.gif
Yes, you can talk to them about it and express the existence of pornography without having them view it, themselves.

So why do you condone having children view witchcraft, themselves? You aren't being consistent. If it's okay for kids to read Harry Potter, which incorporates real-life witchcraft and unarguable DOES lead children to witchcraft according even to pro-pagan organizations... then why is it wrong for kids to view pornography with the intention of showing them that it is bad, too?

Your kids don't "need" to identify witchcraft. They need to be able to identify the truth. If they can identify the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ (which states, itself, that there is no other truth), then they won't need to identify witchcraft when they run into it. They'll know it is false because it doesn't jibe with the Truth that they know.

[Piebald]

why do you condone having children view witchcraft, themselves?

What kind of witchcraft? The Fairy tale witchcraft in Harry Potter which draws from folklore? For one thing, I don't think pornography is comparable to "witchcraft". Fairy tales have been using witchcraft and "magic" for ages. As the article I posted a link to demonstrates, there is a difference between "Wicca" and the "witchcraft and wizardry" of Harry Potter.

Pornography is visual stimulus which inflames lust on sight, magic does not. A better comparison would be violence - I certainly do not want my children (should I have any) being violent, but that does not mean that one has to eliminate violence from their literature, movies, videogames, etc. does it?

Harry Potter "witchcraft" is pointing a wand (made of materials which do not exist) and shouting latin-based gibberish. That is obviously different from occultic practices which draw from spirits foreign to Christianity.

Furthermore, making your children familliar with wicca is important if they are going to come in contact with wiccans or they are going to witness to them. I see many Christians failing to witness to Wiccans because they are completely unequipped to challenge their worldview. "Why do you worship Satan?" one Christian asks a Wiccan. The Wiccan scoffs. "Why do you hex people?" a Christian asks a Wiccan. The Wiccan rolls their eyes. etc.

read Harry Potter, which incorporates real-life witchcraft and unarguable DOES lead children to witchcraft according even to pro-pagan organizations

Which pro-pagan organizations? There is obviously a split, than, because all of my wiccan friends tell me that Harry Potter is nothing like wicca, and some wiccans are even angry at the series and resent the fact that it is written by a Christian. One even fumed that the students are riding their brooms "backwards."

What Harry Potter has in common with the occult is European folklore which included magic. The occult seeks to revive these old european "superstitions," modifying them slightly to become the basis of a worldview which sees nature as divine among other things.

Harry Potter revives the old magical superstitions in the ways that fairy tales have always been reviving them: to become the basis for an interesting story. In fact, I would say that Rowling takes the folklore/superstition in her book as ridiculous for granted which is why she doesn't believe that anyone is at risk unless they are incredibly credulous or impressionable. I would imagine that anyone who could tackle a 600-800 page book would be at an age where they can recognize fantasy from reality.

I mean, because these books are so famous and so many of them are getting read, we should see an explosion of neo-paganism among youth... but do we?

As for children who say "I want to be a wizard!" are they really saying "I want to embrace a worldview which deifies nature and recognizes a god and goddess as two aspects of deity and glorified manifestations of gender?" I wouldn't think so. More likely they are thinking of the witches and wizards of fantasy that are present in C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, and countless other fantasy books.

[Piebald]

The crowd and the dance round Aslan (for it had become a dance once more) grew so thick and rapid that Lucy was confused. She never saw where certain other people came from who were soon capering about among the trees. One was a youth, dressed only in a fawn-skin, with vine-leaves wreathed in his curly hair. His face would have been almost too pretty for a boy's, if it had not looked, so extremely wild. You felt, as Edmund said when he saw him a few days later, "There's a chap who might do anything absolutely anything." He seemed to have a great many names - Bromios, Bassareus, and the Ram were three of them. There were a lot of girls with him, as wild as he. There was even, unexpectedly, someone on a donkey. And everybody was laughing: and everybody was shouting out, "Euan, euan, eu-oi-oi-oi."

"Is it a Romp, Aslan?" cried the youth. And apparently it was. But nearly everyone seemed to have a different idea as to what they were playing. It may have been Tig, but Lucy never discovered who was It. It was rather like Blind Man's Buff, only everyone behaved as if they were blindfolded. It was not unlike Hunt the Slipper, but the slipper was never found. What made it more complicated was that the man on the donkey, who was old and enormously fat, began calling out at once, "Refreshments! Time for refreshments," and falling off his donkey and being bundled on to it again by the others, while the donkey was under the impression that the whole thing was a circus and tried to give a display of walking on its hind legs. And all the time there were more and more vine leaves everywhere. And soon not only leaves but vines. They were climbing up everything. They were running up the legs of the tree people and circling round their necks. Lucy put up her hands to push back her hair and found she was pushing back vine branches. The donkey was a mass of them. His tail was completely entangled and something dark was nodding between his ears. Lucy looked again and saw it was a bunch of grapes. After that it was mostly grapes overhead and underfoot and all around.

"Refreshments! Refreshments," roared the old man.

Everyone began eating, and whatever hothouses your people may have, you have never tasted such grapes. Really good grapes, firm and tight on the outside, but bursting into cool sweetness when you put them into your mouth, were one of the things the girls had never had quite enough of before. Here, there were more than anyone could possibly want, and rib table-manners at all. One saw sticky and stained fingers everywhere, and, though mouths were full, the laughter never ceased nor the yodelling cries of Euan, euan, eu-oi-oi-oi-oi, till all of a sudden everyone felt at the same moment that the game (whatever it was), and the feast, ought to be over, and everyone flopped down breathless on the ground and turned their faces to Aslan to hear what he would say next.


That is from C.S. Lewis' Prince Caspian -- a wild romp where Jesus fellowships with pagan deities (Bacchus, the Bacchae, Silenus).

Now which is more likely:

1. That C.S. Lewis was naive and careless to use pagan deities, and that our children will be tempted to believe in bacchus

2. That C.S. Lewis took for granted that everyone recognizes these characters from fictional folklore and mythology and that using them in a book alongside fairies, giants, and centaurs would not be problematic.

3. Some other option? (Explain)

[bar Jonah]

Hamster, we have discussed this before... there is a huge difference between fairy tale magic... and witchcraft, which is real and not a fairy tale. I say this as a former real-life witch, myself, someone who was publicly active in the neo-pagan community, interviewed in magazines and on the front page of the Sunday edition of Stars & Stripes newspaper, color photo and all. I'm not just some schlemiel who horsed around with it and now has some goofy opinion. I know from personal knowledge and experience about witchcraft.

If you are going to make the claims you just made about Harry Potter, then I would strongly suggest you check out the researched article I wrote for the GODISNOWHERE ministry, which can be found here (http://godisnowhere.org/Articles/HarryPotter.htm). It addresses three major issues regarding Harry Potter, and was written from the perspective not only of someone personally knowledgeable about real-life witchcraft and paganism, but someone who went into the issue actually expecting to find Harry Potter was okay.

To be honest, there are aspects of real-life paganism in Harry Potter that most people don't even realize are real -- the sorcerer's stone itself and its maker, Nicholas Flamel, who was a real person.... the witchcraft textbooks in the Harry Potter stories which are actually real tomes on evil witchcraft in the real world... techniques in alchemy and fortunetelling which are based on the real thing... Most people read these or see them in the movies and assume it is fictional and don't know any better. But what happens when a 10-year-old reads the book, and then discovers on the Internet that Nicholas Flamel really did exist, really did purportedly create the sorcerer's stone, and he really was born exactly 666 years before the release of "Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone?" What are kids going to think when they surf the 'Net and find out how much of Harry Potter is real?

Please let me know your criticism of the information I provide in the article. I back up my research with attribution and citation. I very much encourage you to refute anything I put forth. I don't enjoy being wrong, and I always welcome correction. If I'm wrong... I want to know.

[Piebald]

hi there, RI

First of all, please don't think that I am being harsh or critical of you -- I think you make good points in that article about Harry Potter, particularly regarding the violence and the impressionable nature of young children.

I have actually already responded to your article earlier in the thread. Please don't get the impression that I am trying to attack your article in hopes that you'll take it down. If anything I would hope that my criticism of your article would cause you to make it better. Christians should never watch or listen to anything uncritically. There is the possibility of harm or corruption in just about every human endeavor, and we should point this out. At the same time we also want to be fair with what we review.

So the way I view our discussion is as a case of iron sharpening iron -- that is, constructive criticism, and I hope I'm not coming off as a bullying fanboy :smile:

Here's where I responded to your article:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5007&perpage=16&pagenumber=3

Peace,
Hamster

[brother vinny]

Today @ 03:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125731#post125731)
RightIdea: What are kids going to think when they surf the 'Net and find out how much of Harry Potter is real?

They'll think much the same thing as I thought of the Force when The Empire Strikes Back came out; which is to say, they'll think it's a neat idea, try it out, find out that Winguardium Leviosa doesn't work, cope with the inevitable disappointment, and move on.

(I tried for weeks to move stuff using "the Force"; never worked.)

[Robyn Banks]

RightIdea:
Hamster, we have discussed this before... there is a huge difference between fairy tale magic... and witchcraft, which is real and not a fairy tale. I say this as a former real-life witch
Hi Right Idea -

I made some pictorial comment here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=127557#post127557

:rofl:

[Epoetker]

After seeing that picture, can't help but notice that RI bears a striking resemblance to Alastor Moody. Great Dark-wizard catcher with experience and scars to prove it, but had a tendency to overreact.