Posted on 06/03/2004 9:38:49 AM PDT by BobbyBeeper
FIRST-PERSON: Is Harry Potter merely entertainment? Jun 2, 2004 By Phil Boatwright
"Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" Photo courtesy of harrypotter.com
THOUSAND OAKS, Calif. (BP)--"I love Harry Potter. I think it would be so cool to be a witch," Sharon, age 11, says.
That's my answer to anyone who says J.K. Rowling's adventure series is harmless fantasy.
While the Harry Potter book and film series has held a hypnotic fascination for youngsters, its thematic foundation is troubling. Arguably, perceptive children can view such material without succumbing to the snare of the occult, but it would be naive to think that movies and TV programs containing witchcraft are not aiding the rise of Wicca in our culture.
In a television special titled "Hollywood Spirituality" which aired several years back on E! Entertainment, Raven Mounauni, a professing witch and owner of an occult paraphernalia store, credited the 1996 movie "The Craft" with inspiring young women to explore the world of witches. "I get a lot of teenage girls in here. You can always tell when 'The Craft' has been on TV, 'cause we get a big influx of girls looking for supplies."
Occult practices shouldn't be considered just diverting amusement. Ouija boards, psychic readers and other forms of misleading supernatural entertainment should not be taken lightly. In Leviticus 19:26 we are instructed, "Do not practice divination or sorcery." There are several warnings in the Scriptures, both Old and New Testament, making it clear that we are to avoid witchcraft or anything associated with the occult. So if God is instructing us to avoid occult practices, how can we justify using it to entertain ourselves?
This may not be a popular view right now. The first Harry Potter film installment earned $969 million worldwide. J.K. Rowlings' five books on the young wizard have become a phenomenon, allowing the author to become the richest woman in England, with assets beyond $1 billion. That would indicate that many parents find nothing wrong with these children's adventures.
There are even a couple of books out right now exclaiming parallels between the Potter books and the Gospel. One author suggests the books help relate Christian themes and truths, opening the door for talking about things such as right and wrong, the nature of faith, loyalty, bravery and trust. Honestly, I think that's a bit thin. Yes, Rowlings’ themes deal with honor, friendship and self-sacrifice, but the kids in Harry Potter gravitate to sorcery in order to accomplish these attributes. And even if there are positive elements associated with the series, you simply can't ignore the witchcraft equation.
Members of Wicca teach a philosophy that embraces no absolute truth or sin and replaces the patriarchal male creator God of the Bible with a belief in both male and female gods. Its credo instructs members to embrace spirits and conjure spells in order to control their lives and the lives of others. There are millions of practicing witches worldwide. Indeed, Wicca has become one of the fastest-growing religions in the world today.
OK, it's good that children are reading. But what is it they're reading? Shouldn't that be considered? When an author makes $1 billion on five books that have sorcery as a main theme, and renowned secular critics hail the films as incredible filmmaking without examining their occult roots, I question what's really behind this phenom.
Is it merely entertainment? Or is there a dark spiritual source feeding and supporting it? I realize that may sound like a stretch, but often Satan is most deceiving with a glossed-over package. Wouldn't it be a shame if kids got pulled into witchcraft, while their folks thought of the books and films as merely children's fantasy? --30-- Phil Boatwright is a film reviewer and editor of The Movie Reporter, on the Web at www.moviereporter.com. (BP) photo posted in the BP Photo Library at http://www.bpnews.net. Photo title: HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKAB
Two reasons. First, I majored in medieval English lit. Second, I work at the Texas Renaissance Festival when it's in season.
Yes
Heh, so someone resurected this thread.
Wonder if the critics think "escapism" is a bad word.
In medieval iconography, the eagle was primarily the symbol of St. John the Evangelist (the author of the fourth Gospel) who was the most soaring and visionary of the four evangelists, but was also associated with the prophet Elijah and the resurrected Christ. The bird also came to be linked with the virtue of justice.
Interesting....
I thought that one passage of LOTR stated (or at least implied) that the Dwarves were holding and defending the northern flanks of the Alliance (up around Lonely Mountain and Mirkwood) with the Wood Elves and the Beornings, as well as the Men of Dale.
They're not -- it's going to crash and burn as bad a Harry/Cho. Look for Ron/Luna and Harry/Hermione (or possibly Harry/Ginny -- especially if the rumor is true and it's Hermione that dies) as the romantic pairings.
Ok.. not that I actually think hermione will be killed off, but... Ginny is being groomed in the stories to be a fallback for Fred, George, and Hermione (very clever and just a bit sneaky and rebellious).
Also, one of the most interesting theories I've heard has to do with Harry's ultimate victory coming from the power of love, and how the various characters represent the four classical (Greek) facets of love. Hermione represents the highest ("agape") form as her love/friendship for Harry is absolute and unconditional -- a perfect way for that to play out in the narrative would be for her to sacrifice herself for Harry's sake.
Not that I beleive this, of course... but interesting.
But that's completely counter to your previous argument that claims that LOTR and Narnia are OK because the source of power of the magical characters come from different sources (which I pointed out was wrong, but it was the argument you posted) -- in essense, "good" magic and "bad" magic -- but that Harry Potter was bad because all of the power used by both "good" and "evil" charcaters were the same.
So which argument are you trying to make?
Isn't that "quote"from an article in The Onion? Our superintendent of schools was passing it around as justification for Harry Potter hysteria. She didn't find it amusing when I showed her some other satirical articles from The Onion, including one where Clintoon was curled under his desk in a fetal position.
Yup... as they point out when the grey company meets the companions in Rohan, the elves and dwarves had no need to march to war because war already was marching on their own lands. The main brunt of the war was in Gondor and Rohan, but Lorien was assualted from Moria and Dale/Lonely Mountain were attacked from the Misty Mountains. It is likely, though I don't recall anything specifically stated, that Rivendell and Tharanduil's kingom in Mirkwood were likewise under attck.
The Dems have Reich and Daschle, although I don't think they constitute an army.
Nah, I think it's going to be Ron/Hermione. JK Rowling has said that "you should know who will end up with whom" in reference to Harry/Hermione versus Ron/Hermione. And Ron/Luna is just too weird for words.
I think it's adult characters who are going to die. Lupin's doomed. He's been doomed ever since Pettigrew got his shiny silver hand. Dumbledore might die, though at this point I'm kind of rooting for that, stupid manipulative git. Snape's likely to die heroically, redeeming all his past sins. Hagrid might make it.
Oh, and either Neville or Ginny will die. Probably Neville, since he's become v. cool in OotP. If not, they end up together.
I would hardly call this modern, since it goes back over a hundred years (unless you are looking at a few thousand years, in which case I guess the past two hundred years could be considered "modern").
Is it really a problem, though, if you raise your children right?
I allowed my daughters to see StarWars, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Peter Pan, The Wizard of Oz, the LOTR cartoons, and the list goes on. Both of them dressed up like some of the characters, acted like they were in character, etc. and yet neither one of them was innured to the occult. They are both still good Christians.
I doubt a Harry/Hermione scenario. I have heard that J.K. Rowling even considers that a brother/sister type of relationship.
I sort of got conned into watching some show the other night about the series, and she (Rowling) mentioned off-hand that it would awkward between the two H's. They had some third parties (one was a psychologist/whatever) there talking about it would be Ron/Hermione, because she was just like his mother, and the whole "men marry women who remind them of their mothers and women marry men who remind them of their fathers" thing. Felt like I was watching Oprah or Phil Donnahue or whatever.
I was a bit flabbergasted that people would be having such serious psychological discussions over young characters (especially when the last two or three books aren't even out yet). It is a sign though, that it'll have staying power since LOTR and other series have generated just as serious speculation/discussion.
It's went the opposite way of StarWars in regards to well-crafted characters, when it was revealed the whole brother/sister/father triangle in Empire/Jedi, there were all these discussions about the father/son thing. They go and do the sequels, and you end up with a whiny brat who deserved to be killed by his son.
I've been expecting Harry/Ginny eventually... that would cement his relationship with the Weasley family, wouldn't it? :-)
Back from the movie, toying with posting a review thread. I saw the midnight showing at a multiplex. Three large screens were sold out. I'd estimate at least 400 people per screen.
Hogwarts has been moved to Scotland and is far more detailed and beautiful than before.
Everything not essential to the central whodunit has been stripped out. Mountains of dialog have been trashcanned. No one in the audience looks at their watch and wonders how much longer this will last.
There's lots more effective humor in this one. Everything moves faster, and the school feels more like a school. The kids have grown about six inches and lost a lot of baby fat. This is kind of jarring at first, but that impression goes away.
I'm pretty sure that people unfamiliar with the story will leave confused. There's simply too much plot to follow.
Ron's not dumb, he just doesn't like school work. Remember Ron is an excellent chess player.
He's good in strategy, yes. And it's not that he's dumb, he's just laszier than Hermione with school work, which is why I don't see them as a couple.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.