Some Thoughts on the Harry Potter Series

Lifecenter ^ | Michael O'Brien author of "A Landscape with Dragons" and "Father Elijah"

[Aquinasfan]

You're a voice in the wilderness.

[ET(end tyranny)]

You're a voice in the wilderness.

As opposed to the 'be all things, to all men', go along with the crowd bunch, even if they are pagan?

[Dan Day]

The only interesting question regarding the Potty series is whether Rowling was involved with channeling spirits before she wrote these books. I suspect she was.

Why don't you describe the parts of the Harry Potter books that you feel support your suspicion.

Wait... You *have* actually read the books before denouncing them, haven't you?

As far as I'm concerned, this series of books can go to hell.

Based on... what? Have you read them? Answer truthfully, now. And why don't you do something that very few "POTTER IS THE DEVIL!" hysterics do -- actually quote *ANYTHING* from the books that support your panic. But hey, in order to actually be able to point to the parts of the books that you find allegedly abhorent, you'd have to actually *read* the things first, wouldn't you? Easier to just vilify them as borderline satanic out of ignorance and call it a day, eh? Or rely on the rantings of someone *else* who hasn't read it, which is just as bad.

Lord of the Rings is probably a better bet.

"Probably"? So you haven't read *that* either, eh?

[Caleb1411]

Harry Potter is a heroic, honest character that captures children's imagination. My son also has read the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings and the Tales of Narnia. There is magic and fantasy, good and evil in all of them. I think you need to relax about the influence this will have on children's interest in the occult.

Although I've read quite a few of C.S. Lewis's works, I'm not personally familiar with any of the Harry Potter books, so I'll simply proffer this excerpt from an article by John Andrew Murray for discussion among those who've read both Lewis and Rowling.

. . .What about Narnia?

Christian fans of Harry Potter insist that the series is no different than C.S. Lewis' The Chronicles of Narnia, a series that many Christian parents accept.

It is true that both authors create fantasy parallel worlds involving young British children who encounter magical creatures. Both develop admirable characters and evil villains. But this is where the comparison ends.

The difference between the two hinges on the concept of authority. From a Christian perspective, authority and supernatural power are linked.

Take a look at Mark 2, where Jesus heals a paralytic. When Jesus first sees the paralytic, He says, "Son, your sins are forgiven." This sets up the following scene:

Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, "Why does this fellow teach like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" Immediately Jesus knew . . . that this was what they were thinking . . . and He said to them, "Why are you thinking such things? Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins. . . ." He said to the paralytic, "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. (Mark 2:6-12)

Christ's power flows from His authority. That's the nature of all legitimate power — it is granted and guided by authority.

When we read Rowling's series, we find that she effectively divorces power from authority. There is no sovereign person or principle governing the use of the supernatural.

Magical power is gained through inheritance and learning. It is not granted by a higher authority, because there is no higher authority — at least none higher than Harry's mentor, Albus Dumbledore, and the evil Lord Voldemort. The two are equal, antagonistic and unaccountable to a higher authority.

In Narnia, power and authority are welded together. That authority is Jesus, in the character of the great lion Aslan — creator and sovereign ruler of Narnia, son of the Emperor Beyond the Sea. Good power is power that is bestowed by Aslan and exercised in accordance with his will. This good power is at work when the children Peter, Susan and Lucy use gifts bestowed on them by an agent of Aslan.

Evil power, on the other hand, is power that is seized or conjured — rather than bestowed — and exercised for selfish ends. Those who resist the temptation to use such power are commended, as was Digory, in The Magician's Nephew. But those who wield it (such as Jadis, also in The Magician's Nephew) and the White Witch (in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe) are eventually vanquished by Aslan.

Despite superficial similarities, Rowling's and Lewis' worlds are as far apart as east is from west. Rowling's work invites children to a world where witchcraft is "neutral" and where authority is determined solely by one's cleverness. Lewis invites readers to a world where God's authority is not only recognized, but celebrated — a world that resounds with His goodness and care.

It's a difference no Christian should ignore.

[Humidston]

Interesting how these books radically polarize people.

I've been taught radically polarizing people is one of satan's many weapons.

Let's see:
1. Mommy turns responsibility to daycare.
2. Kiddies reading Harry Potter
3. Publik skools
4. High school - Dungeons and Dragons for sport
5. Ample lessons in safe sex
6. Moral relativism

Pretty well leaves kids empty and brainwashed, IMHO. Recipe for disaster.

[conservative cat]

Anne Rice lives about two blocks from me. She's a nut. She has a life-size nude painting of herself in her foyer, and the painter made no effort to make her look good.

That doesn't surprise me at all. Her books are like junk food to me. They are a really quick and easy read and then I feel ashamed of myself when I'm done! I hadn't read her for a few years and then ran across a couple of her books on sale, recently. She seems to be taming down more than in the past.

[Most_Ridiculous_Blonde]

OY VAY.

Sometimes, I don't know what's worse... the lefties who wanna control my freedom... or the religious zealots that wanna damn everything, burn all my books, and thus control my freedom.

[Spyder]

Amen.

Of course I was corrupted as a child by The Wizard of Oz so the Devil made me say that. Or was it the good witch Glenda?

[tuesday afternoon]

I read the first two books in the series. THE SEcond was much darker than the first. One of the things I found most objectionable was the mandrakes. They are introduced as babies planted in dirt. When they get past adolescence they are to be cut up into little pieces to break the petrification spell.

At the bookstore I saw a bunch of magic, ritual and wiccs books in a display aimed at teenagers. I opened one book at random, and read that prior practitioners used human fat in the making of ritual candles.

[Aquinasfan]

I skimmed the first book and have read sections of the others. It seems like the same joke to me. I don't see the attraction, even from a literary perspective.

How do you feel about the section in the most recent book where one of the baddies cuts off his arm and throws it into the pot to complete his spell? It's about 3/4 of the way through the book.

[Aquinasfan]

It's a difference no Christian should ignore.

Unfortunately, they will. I don't know if it's because they're tone deaf, don't take the occult seriously, or are afraid to take the books away from junior.

[Aquinasfan]

They are introduced as babies planted in dirt. When they get past adolescence they are to be cut up into little pieces to break the petrification spell.

Any Potter fans care to defend this?

At the bookstore I saw a bunch of magic, ritual and wicca books in a display aimed at teenagers. I opened one book at random, and read that prior practitioners used human fat in the making of ritual candles.

Everyone should take a walk through the "teenage" sci-fi/fantasy aisle at any major-chain bookstore. Almost every book is suffused with occultic practices. Harry Potter is the tip of the iceberg.

[Dan Day]

They are introduced as babies planted in dirt. When they get past adolescence they are to be cut up into little pieces to break the petrification spell.

Any Potter fans care to defend this?

Sure -- now would you care to defend your repeated denunciations of books that you admit you've NOT EVEN READ? "Skimming" doesn't count. You have to actually read a book to understand its value, and grasp the context of random passages. Let me know when you have your book burnings, I'll bring a camera.

On pages 91-94 of "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets", the students are taking an "herbology" class, learning about the care of magical plants. The Mandrakes are PLANTS.

Even in the real world, there's a plant called mandrake with a reputation for curative or "mystical" powers, probably because the root contains scopalomine (so does belladonna), which has powerful effects when ingested, including (depending on dosage) vomiting, anesthesia, unconsciousness, hallucinations, seizures, or death.

Another reason for the age-old belief that there might be something "magical" about mandrake is the fact that the root is often shaped vaguely like a human body in chubby stick-figure form:

Medieval sketches of mandrake often show it drawn in actual human form. This is the feature that is being playfully presented in the second Harry Potter book. The root is depicted as being not only humanoid-shaped, but actually animated. But no more seriously than is the talking man-eating plant in the film, "Little Shop of Horrors", who sings, "Feed me, Seymour!"

The young mandrake plants are not presented as "cute and cuddly" little human babies, they're presented as something similar to the dangerous gremlins from the movie of the same name. Their voices can kill (the students repot them while wearing impenetrable earmuffs), they have pointed teeth they use to try to bite the students, and they "flail their sharp little fists".

The only passage to liken them to a baby (because the students are working with seedlings) is:

Harry snapped the earmuffs over his ears. They shut out sound completely. Professor Sprout put the pink, fluffy pair over her own ears, rolled up the sleeves of her robes, grasped one of the tufty plants firmly, and pulled hard.

Harry let out a gasp of surprise that no one could hear.

Instead of roots, a small, muddy, and extremely ugly baby popped out of the earth. The leaves were growing right out of his head. He had pale green, mottled skin, and was clearly bawling at the top of his lungs.

Professor Sprout took a large pot from under the table and plunged the Mandrake into it, burying him in dark, damp compost until only the tufted leaves were visible. Professor Sprout dusted off her hands, gave them all the thumbs-up, and removed her own earmuffs.

This is an animated PLANT, just like the one mentioned in the same scene:

"Four to a tray -- there is a large supply of pots here -- compost in the sacks over there -- and be careful of the Venemous Tentacula, it's teething."

She gave a sharp slap to a spiky, dark red plant as she spoke, making it draw in the long feelers that had been inching sneakily over her shoulder.

This plant, like the Mandrakes and so much else in the Harry Potter book, are played for both an eerie overtone (in the fun Holloween sense) and for humor.

And I don't know where the complainer got anything about them being "cut up into little pieces". I don't recall any such passage (which would be too graphic for a children's book). The nearest I've found is:

[Page 144:] "We will be able to cure her, Argus," said Dumbledore patiently. "Professor Sprout recently managed to procure some Mandrakes. As soon as they have reached their full size, I will have a potion made that will revive Mrs. Norris."

"I'll make it," Lockhart butted in. "I must have done it a hundred tiems. I could whip up a Mandrake Restorative Draught in my sleep --"

"Excuse me," said Snape icily. "But I believe I am the Potion master of this school."

There was a very awkward pause.

And then:

[Page 330:] "Bed rest and perhaps a large, steaming mug of hot chocolate. I always find that cheers me up," he added, twinkling kindly down at her. "You will find that Madam Pomfrey is still awake. She's just been giving out Mandrake juice -- I daresay the basilisk's victims will be waking up any moment."

"So Hermione's okay!" said Ron brightly.

"There has been no lasting harm done, Ginny," said Dumbledore.

In both cases the method of making the potion is left up to the reader's imagination. More sensitive readers are free to presume that they just squeeze them for some juice, or even use the leaves. Or not bother considering the method of preparation at all.

[Dan Day]

Unfortunately, they will. I don't know if it's because they're tone deaf, don't take the occult seriously, or are afraid to take the books away from junior.

Maybe they're just not as hysterical as you are.

There's an old saying, "Those who see sex everywhere they look have dirtier minds than those whom they accuse". The same goes for those who see almost everything as "occult"

You know like someone who could seriously claim, "Almost every book is suffused with occultic practices." Know anyone like that?

[Slyfox]

Thanks for posting this. I remember reading a lot as a kid. I liked reading stuff that taught good moral lessons. When I was in the fifth grade I bumped into a book about a group of boys who liked to kill cats. It went into detail as to how the boys felt about swinging those cats around in the air by their tails until they died. And how they laughed. Maybe I am overly sensitive but that book really disturbed me. One may say also say that it was a good thing to see me reading. But it took me a while to get over how those boys really didn't care that they had killed those cats.

When an adult asks my boys about reading Harry Potter, they'd rather comment on how much they liked Robinson Crusoe and Swiss Family Robinson.

[Aquinasfan]

What do you think about the passage in the fourth book where one of the bad guys cuts off his own arm and tosses it into a cauldron to complete his spell?

[Aquinasfan]

You know like someone who could seriously claim, "Almost every book is suffused with occultic practices." Know anyone like that?

Just walk through the sci-fi/fantasy aisle at Barnes and Noble the next time you're in there and take a look around. Or bury your head in the sand, if you prefer.

[Aquinasfan]

I'm like you. In fact, I was given so much crap to read in high school that I began to associate reading with psychic pain. Upon graduation I vowed that I would never read a book again. When I was in my twenties, I used to brag to my friends, "if it's a book, I haven't read it." I didn't pick up a book to read for pleasure again until I was almost thirty.

In retrospect, it was a healthy decision. Most kids today would be better off not reading anything than reading whatever garbage is being fed to them in school.

[tuesday afternoon]

...Madame Pomfrey was pleased to report that the mandrakes were becoming moody and secretive, meaning they were fast leaving childhood.
"The moment their acne clears up, they'll be ready for repotting again," Harry heard her telling Filch kindly one afternnon. "And after that, it won't be long until we're cutting them up and stewing them." (pg 234)

Pg 86, drawing of a baby mandrake (a screaming baby held up by the green stalks growing from its scalp).

[Mercat]

I'm a practicing Catholic, mass 3x week, etc. and I love Harry Potter and Buffy the Vampire Slayer.