Harry Potter vs. Gandalf

In the last two months of this year, two of the most eagerly anticipted movies of 2001 will hit theaters. Both are the first in a projected series of films, adapted from the first volumes of two popular series of books written by British authors who go by their initials. Both series, and both films, deal with magic and wizardry. The authors, of course, are J. K. Rowling and J. R. R. Tolkien; and the films are Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone and The Fellowship of the Ring. The former, due in November, is the first of what will surely be a number of films based upon Rowling’s projected series of seven Harry Potter books; and the latter, coming Christmas, is the first of Peter Jackson’s series of three films based on Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, slated for consecutive Christmas releases from 2001 to 2003.

Among many Christians, the coming of these two films is a herald of renewed debate. On the one hand, the works of Tolkien have been almost universally embraced by literate Christians, who have long recognized the richness and beauty of Tolkien’s Middle-earth as well as the profound influence of Tolkien’s Christian and Catholic faith upon the shape of his imaginary world. Christian fans of Tolkien also tend to be fans of C. S. Lewis, whose seven-volume series The Chronicles of Narnia is also a work of Christian imagination that involves magic and wizardry. The Harry Potter books, on the other hand, have met with decidedly mixed reactions among Christian readers. In both Catholic and Protestant circles, some have enthusiastically embraced Rowling’s popular series, at times even explicitly making comparisons to Tolkien and Lewis (at least as regards the use of magic and wizardry). Others, however, have attacked the young hero of Rowling’s series as a veritable poster child for the occult.

The quality of the discussion hit its lowest point with the advent of an ever-spreading email campaign based on facetious statements in a satirical essay in the Onion.com, a humor website. That essay, complete with made-up “quotes” from Rowling and her young readers (advocating the Church of Satan and mocking the death of Christ), has been mistakenly distributed as genuine reportage by innumerable Christians, achieving urban legend status. But even relatively sober arguments on the subject have too often been superficial, relying on guilt — or innocence — by association.

Before plunging into the moral debate over the magic of Harry Potter, it’s worth noting that, in general terms, the Harry Potter stories have real merit as literature and entertainment, and perhaps social and moral merits as well (along with some moral drawbacks). They are well-written, lively, exciting, and quite funny, with vividly imagined creations and engaging characterizations. Moreover, although highly fantastical and imaginative, Rowling’s narratives are packed with knowledgable allusions and references to historical myths, legends, superstitions, and so forth, so seamlessly woven into the fabric of the narratives that even literate adults may not catch them all. Tie-in books with names like The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter offer readers insight into the cultural backgrounds of many elements in Rowling’s stories, potentially turning an exercise in entertainment and diversion into a genuine learning experience.

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 Harry’s repeated failures to avert potential disasters by not seeking help from Dumbledore as soon as possible.) And what of Harry himself? He’s a decent enough and likable fellow, with nothing of the bully or troublemaker in him. He’s 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 it’s 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 they’re caught by one of the nasty authority figures, particularly spiteful Professor Snape. When it’s 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 Harry’s heart is in the right place, or because he is a boy of destiny, or something like that.

Another area of concern for some are the dark, scary, or grotesque elements in these stories: the Dementors, dreadful creatures almost as horrifying as Tolkien’s Nazgûl; a spell gone awry that leaves one of Harry’s 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?”...

I was specifically addressing the foolishness of attributing any kind of power to witchcraft. I notice you were unable to address my points. Why is that?

Lets address a larger issue first - can we attribute any kind of power to Goodness/God the the actions of men - why certainly yes - the Apostles were clearly mortal men with supernatural gifts bestowed upon them by God and Christ. Why then is it then so difficult to beleive the same exists for evil?. Certainly the Apostles acts are not recreatable in your sterile lab.

And your take on the resurrection is ? - surely it is not to be repeated in the lab.

Unless a resurrection occurs in one's heart, the Resurrection is moot.

Am I hearing you right ? - You sound Annabaptist on one hand and scientific on the other -Several million Catholics might disagree.

I think your point should be that your wife's niece shouldn't be pregnant or involved in witchcraft.

Well duh, that was pretty much a given if you'd read my entire post. Trust me, there's a lot of things beyond that that have disturbed us about that neice and how she was raised.

HAVE YOU NO SHAME.

Well apparently I have a little more than you do since you parsed my words in an attempt to change the subject.

I agree to you to the extent of the importance of fiction and fable. But from what I've heard about HP (though I've not read it), the archtypical fable involved is that of the put-upon schoolboy finding his place. The magic is the background and a source of entertainment, but not the meaning of the story. It strikes me as more of a Tom Brown's Schooldays with magic, than anything meant to recruit to the occult.

I would like to see an example from the Bible of any human gaining power and authority through anything resembling the magic in Harry Potter. As an alterntive I would like to hear about any believable instance in which anything like the charms or potions or incantataions featured in Harry Potter actually worked.

Believing that witchcraft actually confers magic powers is beyond idiocy.

Not that peoply don't try, but bad people can twist any ideology into a justification of evil deeds. Bad people continue to do bad things.

Every argument you cite against Harry Potter cuold be used as an argument agains guns, except for the minor detail that no child has ever been harmed by accidently casting a spell.

Because the protagonist doesn't describe himself as a wizard, attend a school for witches and wizards, have witch and wizard friends, and engage in occult practices.

Oh? "Jedi" is, practically speaking, "wizard" in SW vernacular. The protagonist desires to be a wizard (Jedi), attends a school (apprenticeship assigned by Jedi council) for wizards, has wizard friends (Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon), and engages in occult practices (uses supernatural powers to win gambling/races, with much more advanced use to come).

Words, terms & names may be different, as may be some of the trappings, but both involve a boy desiring to learn the ways of supernatural manipulation of his environment by training by masters of arcane arts - really not much difference.

Good questions to RMrattlesnake, but I don't think we will ever get an answer. Why?? Because it was only in his mind. I mean, why would he leave it? If you could conjur up money, or health and happiness. Why would he leave it? What spells did he accomplish that were NOT only in his mind, or a percieved feeling he got?

This is such paranoid bullpoop. I do believe he was into it.. but it WASN'T REAL!!! Only in their minds. Like hypnosis.. they put themselves into an altered state. Nothing more, nothing less.. NOTHING TANGIBLE!!

BTW, BeeKeeper.. we saw it and it was a ton of fun. Saw it with our 6 yr. old grandson and 5 yr. old grand-daughter. They laughed and had fun. The little guy told his dad when asked that it was about "justice and love". Thats an ok message in my book. They are active in our Church, and know the difference between cartoons, fiction and reality. I think that ability helps the kids and us have STRONGER FAITH in God!! We can seperate truth from fiction. Very important in life!!

:o)

Let me know what you thought of the movie after you see it Beekeeper!! Enjoy!

Your post #52

Yet another good analogy!!! There are thousands like it,.. and we loved the movie. The grandkids who are 6 and 5, didn't get fidgety or budge (Grandma had to use the powder room, but not them!!) It was great magical fun. We love fiction in this house. We have extremely successful kids (sigh.. so hard to not keep calling them *kids*... they are grownups now!!) who read fiction with us. We shared books. It was great fun.. and we feel helped their reading comprehension.

It is just so refreshing to see these kinds of movies after all the crappola that Hollywood had been putting out for so many years. I know there were a few fun ones that fiction lovers could see. But NOT ENOUGH, NOT COMPARATIVELY IOHO!!

We are really excited to see this movie doing so well,..and hope the same thing happens to "Lord of The Rings"!!!! Then maybe Hollywood will get it.. will start making more movies like it, where kids and parents/grandparents can go laugh and have a good time together!!! ;o)

Good points. There are some parallels. And to think I used to think it was just pointless "space nonsense."

I read an interview with George Lucas in which he described his philosophy as a syncretic blend of eastern monism and atheism, thus explaining the enigmatic "force."

I believe there is a vast difference in degree between Star Wars and Harry Potter if not in kind.

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.