Posted on 11/29/2001 4:10:16 AM PST by Aquinasfan
Worth repeating.
From the section Séances vs. flying broomsticks
And, on this fundamental point, it should be noted that Rowlings Harry Potter books are unambiguously on the right side, the same side as Tolkien and Lewis. If anything, the magic in Rowlings world is even more emphatically imaginary, even further removed from real-world practices, than that of Tolkien or Lewis; and, like theirs, presents no appreciable risk of direct imitiative behavior.
Further in the same section
Even on those occasions when Rowlings magic converges toward real-world practices, it hardly seems pernicious. For example, in the third book, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry has a class in Divination that includes lessons in reading tea leaves and astrology. Yet Rowling roundly spoofs the class and the teacher, who is almost infallibly wrong about everything she says (a fact confirmed by Dumbledore in spite of which, however, he does permit the class to continue). Anyway, even Lewiss Narnia has an example of astrology (Dr. Cornelius in The Horse and His Boy).
From the conclussion
I also object to the portrait of Harry Potter as a poster child for the occult, and the claim that parents who permit reading Harry Potter are necessarily exposing their children to harmful influences. The absence in Rowling of the hedges Ive been discussing doesnt make her books automatically harmful or even dangerous for all children, though it may make them harmful for some.
For whether a book or movie or any other form of narrative is harmful to its audience depends as much upon the audience as upon the narrative. 150 years ago, The Three Musketeers was a potentially dangerous and immoral influence in a world in which duels to the death were real-life occurrences. Today, duels are no longer a viable social threat, and consequently we can read and enjoy the swashbuckling exploits of DArtagnan and his companions without fear that anyone will be influenced to draw swords to kill another.
Almost the end of the article
Yet reading Harry Potter by itself or rather, reading Harry Potter as part of a well-rounded reading program including well-chosen books that might include the works of Tolkien and Lewis, the adventure stories of Howard Pyle, the fantasy of Lloyd Alexander, the frontier stories of Laura Ingalls Wilder, the apocalyptic fiction of Michael OBrien, the fairy-stories of George MacDonald, or the detective tales of Encyclopedia Brown (and, later, Sherlock Holmes) a child whose reading has this kind of breadth and depth is unlikely to be negatively influenced by having read the Harry Potter books.
Now I've included whole paragraph to demonstrate goodwill and show that I'm not cherry picking, taking things out of context or skewing for my own purposes. It's pretty clear throughout the article that the author at most takes issue with the fact that Rowling is not a practicing fundamentalist Christian and she doesn't believe in even the possibility of magic and therefore doesn't go out of her way (as Tolkien and Lewis did) to make sure the reader is fully informed on how imaginary this world is and unrealistic the magic is. But he does, among other things, directly assault the concept that HP contains real spells and therefore teaches real magic.
Basically, in short, I feel this author is saying all the same stuff I've been saying on these threads lo these many weeks. Except he does a much better job of it.
I am well aware of the hype surrounding Harry Potter.
But if you think "one poster" is criticizing Harry Potter then you're just not paying attention. There are thousands of Potter posts in the last week alone.
Aquinasfan has posted two original Potter threads this week and is all over the boards. That's not a slam against Aquinasfan. But I do find some people's obsession with the evil of Harry Potter interesting and a little unhealthy.
The point is that the more you, or anyone say's - especially to kids - "don't go there" the more they're going to be curious enough to check it out. That is, after all, one point of advertising. Jump over to an Abercrombie and Fitch thread and see that you'll probably find many of the same posters complaining that the A&F advertising which supposedly is aimed at young adults is reaching children.
But saying "Potter is evil" or "Potter promotes witchcraft" or "Potter is of the devil" will never "stop" Harry Potter. All of us with political experience know there is no bad PR as long as they spell your name correctly.
In the audio interview (and in the quote below), you'll see that he is very sympathetic to those who think the books can enkindle within children an interest in the occult, which is my main concern.
He believes that the decision to read the books is a parent's prudential decision, based on a child's sensitivity to various things like violence and occult practices, among others. Personally, I think the decision for parents is on the border line between a prudential decision and rejection based on first principles.
Personally, I think the series warrants rejection simply because of the fact that all of the protagonists practice witchcaft and because the practice of witchcraft is so central to the book.
On a moral level, the Harry Potter books offer villains who are utterly odious and despicable, and protagonists who are, if not quite charitable or forbearing, at least brave and loyal. Courage and loyalty are, in fact, significant themes in the books, along with the evils of prejudice and oppression. Best of all, there are wise and competent adult authority-figures, especially brilliant and commanding Albus Dumbledore, Headmaster of Hogwarts School of Wizardry and Witchcraft, who inspires boundless confidence as being always in control of the situation, who virtually never makes a mistake, and whom no one can for long have at a disadvantage. (On the other hand, the series takes too long for my taste to get around to pointing out the problem of Harrys repeated failures to avert potential disasters by not seeking help from Dumbledore as soon as possible.) And what of Harry himself? Hes a decent enough and likable fellow, with nothing of the bully or troublemaker in him. Hes not one to make an enemy though, should someone make an enemy of him, Harry will make war on that person with every weapon at his disposal. The notion of turning the other cheek or using a soft answer to turn away wrath is completely foreign here; and even the more sober voices, such as that of his friend Hermione (whom Rowling has said of all her characters most resembles herself), generally caution Harry on purely prudential grounds, not moral ones. One aspect of the Harry Potter books that has raised some moral concern is the recurring theme of rule-breaking. Like many young children, Harry and his friends break a lot of rules (about fifty, Hermione figures at one point, and Dumbledore elsewhere reckons their transgressions at twice that number). Sometimes Harry is legitimately driven by necessity to break a rule; other times its only because he feels like it. Sometimes he is caught, sometimes not; sometimes he is punished, sometimes not. At first glance, this may seem like mere honest storytelling, depicting a typically imperfect young boy whose behavior sometimes leaves a bit to be desired. Yet closer examination reveals that Harry and his friends are only ever really punished for breaking rules when theyre caught by one of the nasty authority figures, particularly spiteful Professor Snape. When its one of the benevolent authority figures, such as genial Dumbledore, or even stern Professor McGonagall, there are no real consequences for breaking any number of rules, because Harrys heart is in the right place, or because he is a boy of destiny, or something like that.It is precisely the fact that "taken altogether, it seems fair to say the Harry Potter stories are something of a mixed bag, with some genuinely worthwhile elements and some legitimate points of concern," that most concerns me.Another area of concern for some are the dark, scary, or grotesque elements in these stories: the Dementors, dreadful creatures almost as horrifying as Tolkiens Nazgûl; a spell gone awry that leaves one of Harrys friends coughing and choking on slugs issuing from his throat; a school washroom toilet apparently haunted by the ghost of a dead student; disembodied voices breathing murderous threats; anthropomorphic mandrake roots that look and scream like living human babies but may be transplanted or destroyed at will by teachers and students; and many others.
Taken altogether, it seems fair to say the Harry Potter stories are something of a mixed bag, with some genuinely worthwhile elements and some legitimate points of concern. Of course, for many parents who have children that love the books or who want to read them, the question may be not so much Is this the best possible book my child could ever read? as Is this all right for my child to read? Or must I forbid it?...
The books present witchcraft with a sugar-coating. This may shock you, but I'd prefer that a 14+ year old watch the Exorcist rather than read Harry Potter. They would see the true (albeit most extreme) dangers of toying with the occult.
No a few years ago it was cigarettes and liquor and dancing that would send you to hell. Today it's Harry Potter.
Check out the books again. Gandalf does cast spells. In Moria he casts a spell on a locked door, causing it to burst into pieces. I'm currently rereading the series, and I know that there are several instances like this. Mot to mention the divination element of Galadriel's mirror and Saruman's palantir.
How many years are we talking about? It was this way when I was a kid in the '60s and '70s.
In fact what scares me is to go onto the local college campus and see the kids dressing like Sonny and Cher. I had thought that was dead--who resurrected the demon of hip-huggers and platform shoes?
In my 45 years on this earth, I have never read of, heard about, or witnessed anyone ACTUALLY able to control another human via "witchcraft".
So, in my opinion, TRUE witchcraft is impossible.
>>...There are also more children practicing witchcraft than at any other time in history. ...<<
If they practice but don't succeed, does that make them witches?
HP vs the Excorcist. Intersting question. I actually did read the Excorcist when I was 13 or so, saw the movie shortly after. Frankly I was a little young for it and would probably make any child of mine wait until 16 or better. But I also don't read things the way you do. Which could be the basic source of contention. I made it all the way through the Excorcist and didn't see or care if there was any message about playing with ouji board. To me it was just a really intense horror novel, made more so by how innocent the girl (Regan, Megan? It's been a long time) was. I still say the movie is probably the single most frightening movie ever made by someone not named Hitchcock.
To me people see what they want to see. I see you (probably the most reasonable person in FR's anti-HP crowd) generally looking for occultist stuff in books and movies then looking to see if it comes with sufficient warnings and if it doesn't that means it's bad. Me I see occultist stuff in a book or movie if I look for anything (which I usually don't) I look for believability, my question is does it follow the basic principles that have been outlined in both fiction and "non-fiction" (remember I don't believe in this stuff, and I don't believe because I have first hand experience with it not doing anything). Mostly I look for points to make fun of, if I see the characters using crappy birthday candles in the power points of the cirle when doing a summoning I know what's next in the script.
It comes down to perspective. As the author points out (and I really am glad you posted this article, it's excellent) one of the source issues seems to be that Rowling (like myself) comes from a point of disbelief. To her, and to me, there's no reason to warn people of the dangers of the occult because the most common danger is that people will waste a lot of time. So there's no form of warning within her books, and that doesn't bother me. To you the occult is a real and tangible danger so you see anything that portrays magic in even a neutral light as dangerous.
My only problem with the anti-HP group is when it starts becoming lies. You're pretty good about sticking to truthful verifiable and ofen irrefutable charges against the book (though I often don't find them important, that's for each of us to decide individually) there are others in this group that spread out right lies (the "real spells" crowd). These people have been hounding my forms of entertainment for decades, they're always full of crap and they always make me mad. And I will fight them everywhere they rear their ugly heads forever (since they tend to follow me through the book store it makes it easy). And this article does a very good job of confronting them, debunking them then moving on to deal very much with your objections, and it really helped me to understand them, until today I didn't see two distrinct groups in the anti-HP movement and now I do and I think back on the posts and I can see who's in what crowd. I still don't agree with your objections, and I think you're way over the top on it even if your objections were correct, but I understand them and can see why you would think that way.
Yeah, Gandalf beat a Balrog too!
I knew Balrogs.
I worked with Balrogs.
I can tell you that Harry Potter is no Balrog.
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.