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 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.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 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?”...
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.
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.
Sounds like a sensible person to me. For instance, Osama & Co. have learned to their dismay that Dubya (unlike clintoon) fits this description.