Harry Potter vs. Gandalf

The Decent Films Guide ^ | 11/01 | Steven Greydanus

[Aquinasfan]

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.

There’s something about Harry

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?”...

Click here for the entire article.

[FairWitness]

Moreover, if the reader is at all attuned to the real magic of Tolkien’s work, his imagination will be less preoccupied with such things as the wizardry of Gandalf than with, for example, the elusive grace and poetry of the Elves; the earthy austerity and hardiness of the Dwarves; the ineffable stateliness, the sheer antiquity of the Ents; the battle-hardened majesty of Aragorn; the playful, fathomless mystery of Tom Bombadil; and, perhaps most of all, the Hobbits themselves, with their quiet and humble ways, their unassuming, humorous, gregarious, homebody, pipe-smoking, meal-loving, comfort-seeking, Shire-dwelling hearts, and, hidden just beneath the surface, their unguessed depths and disreputable capacity for heroism. Here is the true center of gravity in Tolkien’s Middle-earth: not the world of magic, but the magic of the world.

Worth repeating.

[discostu]

Very nice article Aquinasfan, though I'm not sure why you posted it. As always while I respect you opinion, logic and writing and disagree with your premise. What I find interesting with this post is that this guy is pretty much in agreement with me (ie HP is not inherrently evil, some touble kids can use it as a stepping stone to ruining their lives, but some troubled kids find a way to use just about anything as stepping stones to ruination), and in pretty strong disagreement with yourself (ie HP is occult 101). Admittedly I only skimmed the sections about the "Hedges" (this is a VERY long article, but a good read and I intend to read the whole thing later) I did thuroughly read most of it. Here are some paragraphs I though were choice:

From the section Séances vs. flying broomsticks
And, on this fundamental point, it should be noted that Rowling’s Harry Potter books are unambiguously on the “right” side, the same side as Tolkien and Lewis. If anything, the magic in Rowling’s 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 Rowling’s 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 Lewis’s 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 I’ve been discussing doesn’t 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 D’Artagnan 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 O’Brien, 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.

[discostu]

Hey ladies. Aquinasfan actually found a really good article (long but good) here that I feel says a lot of the things we've been all along. Not sure why he posted it but so what, good article and if you're up for another HP fight this will be todays hot thread. Also it's got some really great quotes to throw out in future HP fights.

[discostu]

But what's that have to do with Potter? You say you were turned onto that stuff before HP by self help books. Nobody on these threads is denying that there are some books/ TV/ movies that in various ways are recruiting for that lifestyle (some of us don't care but nobody is in denial). We're saying HP isn't on that list. And so is the author of this article.

[Avatar_Arising]

Oh come on. Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings are pure escapism. Harmless. Although Lord of the Rings has quite a few excellent things to say about honor. Also it has a lot of cold war echos. I wonder if that was intentional. Oh Gandalf hand Harry's arse to him.

[discostu]

Preaching to the choir hos. If there's one thing I've learned in 32 years on this rock it's that some people are just messed and waiting for that "one last thing" to push them over the edge. Now that one thing could be HP, or it could be some girl, or a joint, or an episode of Star Trek. The wise course in life is to understand that the person is messed up not the "stressor". My problem with the anti-HP crowd, much like my problems wit the anti-D&D crowd and the anti-heavy metal crowd is that they don't look at sheer numbers. 4 million copies of the 4th HP book were done on the first pressing (not much of a collectible that), of the folks that bought it apparently a couple of dozen decided to go check out Wicca and other occult stuff. Now, according to the anti-HP crowd that's all the proof you need that HP is evil and recruiting for satan. According to me if I printed out 4 million pieces of paper that said "hi how are you?" and mailed them out to random addresses all over the country a couple dozen of the recipients would decide to go check out Wicca and other occult stuff. It's a law of averages thing, if you randomly select 4 million people some of them are going to be morons, can't be helped, don't blame the "selection process", blame the idiots.

[Darth Reagan]

Harry Potter vs Anakin Skywalker

[Ward Smythe]

Virtually the entire media, teachers unions, and bookstore establishment lockstep endorse Harry Potter, and you tell us that because one poster that is critizing Harry Potter he's giving it a lot of publicity?

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.

[Aquinasfan]

I posted the article because I respect Stephen Greydanus' opinion and because I thought he gave the issue a pretty even-handed treatment, although I think he bent over a little too far backward to try to render HP acceptable.

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.

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?”...

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.

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.

[alpowolf]

So now it's self-help books. Just to save some time, can we get a list of books you guys don't consider evil? I suspect it will be a very short list.

[stuartcr]

Why do people continue to talk about these characters as if they were real?

[Ward Smythe]

It wasn't this way a few years ago.

No a few years ago it was cigarettes and liquor and dancing that would send you to hell. Today it's Harry Potter.

[jrherreid]

In Tolkien, I'd almost have to ask if Gandalf *is* a wizard in the usual sense. I challenge you to find parts where he casts a spell.

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.

[alpowolf]

It wasn't this way a few years ago

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?

[FReepaholic]

>>...Essentially witchcraft is about our being able to control people or things by what we say or the rituals we do. ...<<

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?

[discostu]

Yeah I saw those paras, some good points. I've always said that HP might be too dark for a lot of kids (and certainly too dark for any kid younger than HP in the books).

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.

[Cogadh na Sith]

Gandalf'd take the brat. No contest.

Yeah, Gandalf beat a Balrog too!

I knew Balrogs.

I worked with Balrogs.

I can tell you that Harry Potter is no Balrog.

[Loopy]

Take Gandalf and the points.