Replies

I think C. S. Lewis says something like that in his essay on Fairy Tales. For most people, fairy stories are less dangerous than stories about becoming rich and famous, because they don't feed into the vein of self-absorbed wish-fullfillment (Lewis was writing at a time when Freud's take on literature was dominant). But I agree, if a kid seems to be taking the idea of magic seriously, then he needs to be educated or diverted to something else.

The difference between magic and religion, which some folks on this thread don't seem to get, is that religion is about service to God, and magic is about power over others. It's clear to me that Rowling disapproves of greed for magical power in her stories, and approves of magic used wisely as a trust in the service of others, but perhaps naive readers might not get the distinction.

that religion is about service to God, and magic is about power over others.

Excellent point.

It's clear to me that Rowling disapproves of greed for magical power in her stories, and approves of magic used wisely as a trust in the service of others,

The moral problem with that is, who decides what "wise use" is, and who decides what's good for others? This is, of course, the moral problem with any sort of power. I haven't read the Harry Potter books, so I don't know how Rowling deals with these issues.

It's clear to me that Rowling disapproves of greed for magical power in her stories, and approves of magic used wisely as a trust in the service of others, but perhaps naive readers might not get the distinction.

Absolutely!!

I think C. S. Lewis says something like that in his essay on Fairy Tales. For most people, fairy stories are less dangerous than stories about becoming rich and famous, because they don't feed into the vein of self-absorbed wish-fullfillment (Lewis was writing at a time when Freud's take on literature was dominant). But I agree, if a kid seems to be taking the idea of magic seriously, then he needs to be educated or diverted to something else.

The story -- and it might be an urban legend -- is that Lewis and Tolkein were sitting together, lamenting the fact that the youth of (their) today had no myths. And out of that conversation came the two great epics of the 20th century.

Lewis' epic adhered more closely to the Bible. Tolkein's reached back more into ancient tradition and sheer invention. But they both served the function of ancient myths, to teach moral lessons and illustrate virtue: Courage, wisdom, loyalty, determination, compassion. Those are eternal, no matter what the external trappings of the story. And the Harry Potter books depict all of them well. As well as some others I probably forgot to mention.

(As an aside, I will not be moved from my position that Samwise Ganjee is the real hero of the LotR trilogy. He had no special skill, no great strength, no supernatural powers, no preordained destiny. He Just. Would. Not. Give. Up. We can't decide to have the skill of Legolas or the power of Gandalf. We can decide to be Sam.)