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 predict The Lord of the Rings will be a box-office bust because the plot is so complex and there are so, so many characters. The plot of the Harry Potter books (the first 3 books, at least) is relatively simple and, therefore, much easier to portray on film. Dune busted because it was just too complex for a film. So will The Lord of the Rings.

Hence I don't afford them any credibility.

Consequently you are exposed for what you are.

You are asking for proof of an intangible. Clearly in that case, you win - For those that hold faith however, it is widely accepted demons inhabit some men. As there are Preists and pastors in God, there are others in Satan, invoking its name and affording it a vehicle to perform evil. From the arena of my denomination, the laying of hands is a holy work of the spirit. Is the holy spirit tangible - plainly no. Is it non existent - clearly not. If we cant progress past this premise we have little to speak of.

Witchcraft is deeply entwined with sexual things and throughout history men and women have turned to witchcraft for spells to try to lure others into falling in love with them. Regarding the other, go visit the land of Haiti and delve into the practice of voodoo -- then you will not need doumentary proof. You will be the proof. Was not the Exorcist based upon a true story documented by both the Catholic Church and investigative reporters?

Check out the story of Saul and the witch of Endor.

OK, I have. Now tell me where in Harry Potter anyone conjurs up a dead person who makes a useful prediction about the future.

There are whole chapters in Potter making fun of fortune tellers.

Dune was actually more complex, with more "palace intrigue" than LOTR. Plus, the theatrical Dune movie was cut too much to be any good (and having David Lynch direct it was a big mistake). Every indication that has come out on LOTR indicates that the makers have come very close to realizing on film the excitement and atmosphere of the books. Some characters have been cut (Tom Bombadil, Glorfindel). But overall, the movie appears to be what it needs to be: visually spectacular and exciting. If the movie is only 80% as good as the books (considering that virtually no movie is ever as good as the book), then it will be incredible.

One element in favor of LOTR already: most of the actors are very, very excited about how it's turning out. Plus, the LOTR movie trilogy is going to run 8-9 hours when it's all done. There's a lot of room for complexity in that amount of movie. Dune can't be told in two hours (the Sci-Fi TV version, while lacking in special effects, was much better than the theatrical version).

It may not make a lot of money (it won't be a "Blair Witch Project"), but it won't be a flop.

I don't watch the financial channels. I do watch Fox's saturday morning stuff, especially the one that's on at 9:30 here (11:30 eastern) but that's largely because of the smart hot babe ratio of that show (man, if economics department was that good looking when I went to school there's no way I'd have gone into CSC, bravo to Fox for listening to their name and finally making economics interesting... and they're smart too).

Of course, I didn't ask you about Wall Street, nor about economic forecasters. I asked you about Madison Avenue, advertising executive land. You know, people that make a living manipulating other people. According to the text I quoted from you in 117 you indicated that anyone that was good at manipulation (convincing other to believe what you want them to) was practicing witchcraft. While I certainly have no love in my heart for the manipulative, and will even give you that they're evil, I think proclaiming that they have supernatural powers is at best paranoid and at worst giving those that are easily manipulated a ready made excuse to fall back on when they should be learning to think for themselves.

"Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. " -Matthew 18: 19,20

I place the veracity of such powers in their results.

Back up a sentence or two my heathen Carmel brother. Verse 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church, then treat him as you would a gentile or tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Clearly, your pagan demand in the veracity of the fruit of prayer in verses 19 & 20, let alone your disbeleif of the Apostles miracles leads me to conclude you are merely rattling my cage, so to speak. In denying the Apostles God given miracles, you deny they were in fact gifts from Jesus.

Now I would love to exegete text with you all night, but with you as a gentile, well you know...

You deny the fact God hears and reacts to our prayers, you deny that evil roams the earth for hosts, you deny the Apostles miracles AND the resurrection of Christ himself. YOU ARE ENTITLED to that - however, if it causes no harm -just give me your first name so we can pray for YOU.

Have you ever wondered why voodoo only seems to work in the most poverty-stricken, illiterate, third-world country in this hemisphere? I've never seen or heard of it working in, say, Des Moines. Have you? I really don't know if the Exorcist was based on a real story or not, but I really don't believe everything the Catholic church says, besides, what better way to make people do what you want them to do than to threaten to twist their heads around.

OK, I have. Now tell me where in Harry Potter anyone conjurs up a dead person who makes a useful prediction about the future.

You said that the "sorcerers" mentioned in the Bible are not the same as what we consider "sorcerers" to be today. I provided you with an example.

For the record, wizard's don't do magic, don't fly around or do anything supernatural.

Wizards are such because of their ability to use what's here...

I never wear my hat on Halloween

I just realized the other day, that for the record, I am one of the only real wizards alive today. I have a lifetime history and suggest that I am the only source of "live" information on Wizards around today.....

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.