Catholicism and Harry Potter?

[Skadi]

Actualy the thing I find hysterical, at least regarding comparing Potter to Tolken’s books, is that Tolkens works are more pagan than any interpretation of Potter.

One common claim is that children cant see past the obvious when they read Potter, that they are just seeing whats right in front of them and taking it.

But what is right in front of you when you watch/read LoTR and The Hobbit? Germanic paganism! Specifically the Anglo/Saxon branch. Tolken did not simply invent Elves or Dwarves as he did Hobbits and Orcs, stories of these have existed for thousands of years. The Elves are angelic beings whom serve the gods of the Northern pantheon, and the Dwarfs (Swartalfs, Black Elves) are thick, hardy miners who are the greatest of craftsmen and have an insatiable lust for gold. Even the Rohirrim are Tolkens idealized version of the Anglo-Saxons, re imagined as the sort of horse culture Tolken believed could have withstood the Norman invasion of William in 1066. They arnt even monotheists in the book, despite being portrayed so heroically. And of course then there is Gandalf, a literal clone of Odin in his wanderer form.

LoTR contains more pagan elements in about 10 pages than all 7 HP books combined. And in order to truly grasp the underlying Christian tones of the LoTR universe one must read Tolkens additional works. Looking at it alone and on the surface LoTR appears as a pagan rather than christian mythos.

If kids are so easily swayed by Potter to practice magic, then by the gods children must just be flocking to their nearest Asatru kindred right?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Tolkein’s magic is also referred to as “magic”, although I’m not sure he ever uses the word “spell”. He definitely talks about the elves and even the hobbits having and using “magic”. To be fair, though, there is little to no distinction in Tolkien between magic and natural ability… Because magic itself is often natural, and no distinction is necessary.

Agreed.

It seems to work the same way in Rowling’s universe, since there is no supernatural or preternatural source for magical persons’ powers.

I think that’s why there’s no such distinction in the world of Harry Potter, either - since all magic in Rowling’s series is natural/inborn, and strictly limited to those born with such abilities. Unlike with real-world invocational magic, Rowling’s non-magical population - Muggles - can’t under any circumstances perform any kind of magic.

Which is totally in line with the idea that fantasy magic is not and need not be inherently evil.

Exactly. If a fictional character is communing with otherworldly spirits of some kind in order to take advantage of magical powers, then that character is doing something that’s immoral in the real world. (Of course, that still doesn’t make such a story wrong to read; it would be imprudent if you’re tempted toward the sin of witchcraft, but if you’re not, just reading a story that has witchcraft is no problem)

If a fictional character uses “magic” in the literary, fantastical sense, then the series is depicting something that has no real-world analogue, either literally or morally.

And the two kinds are aesthetically distinct as well. As that one Wiccan on this very thread said, any kid messed up enough to attempt real magic will quickly discover that it’s absolutely nothing like Harry Potter - neither in practice nor in effects.

There’s simply no comparison.

I liked the books at first - devoured the first 4 in a matter of a short time, though I read them out of order 1,3, 2, 4. But after I lost my place in book 5 and read the MAJOR SPOILER in a discussion thread (it was blacked out, but I couldn’t help it) I lost interest.

Yikes! That’s a heck of a thing to spoil for yourself!

Book 6 - I made it to the last maybe 3 chapters…but chickened out finishing it.

Haha… as you surely know by now, you dodged a traumatic ending.

I read at least half of book 7 on a trip back to Nebraska from South Dakota (Where I had purchased the book at a Target store at 8 AM) but decided just to read the Epilogue and call it good after the first half and saw the MAJOR DEATHS that occurred.

So, did you start skipping around like this because you didn’t want to endure reading the deaths of a lot of the main characters? Just wondering.

Greek Mythology is a lot more interesting than an author that declared that Dumbledore was GAY, and I don’t mean “happy”!

Meh, that doesn’t really matter one iota.

Nothing in the series contains any commentary, references, or implications about Dumbledore’s sexuality. Homosexuality doesn’t factor into the series at all - whether concerning Dumbledore or at any other time.

Besides, if Dumbledore is gay, aren’t his celibacy and his dedicated, selfless service toward his school great examples?

In fact…I wouldn’t have much of a problem disclosing to my children that Dumbledore is gay, according to the author, based on the clear picture of him painted in the books. He is a single, chaste individual. Nothing sinful about that.

Well said.

Guys, the first Harry Potter book is amazing. Haven’t read anything this enjoyable since Hunger Games. Actually, scratch that. This is better.

Glad you’re enjoying it so far!

If you’re experiencing this much enthusiasm even as you read Philosopher’s Stone, then you’re going to really love the rest of the series.

It only gets better. Most people agree that the first novel is the weakest.

 

[Kamaduck]

This book is… Wow. I guess this is what normal nerds read as kids, while I was reading Ender’s Game and 1984.

I have roughly zero idea where this is going, other than a lot of people will die later and RonxHermione becomes a thing, but you know what? This first book is a good book. It focuses on wonder and excitement and simple lessons about friendship and bravery and sacrifice. That’s probably a lot healthier for kids than the non-magical dystopian stuff I fell in love with. And as for all of this about getting dragged into a fantasy world, or not distinguishing between real life and fantasy:

“It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live.” -Albus Dumbledore

I really do not see this book as being harmful to normal, healthy children, and I think it is much, much better for them than about 90% of the other books they could be reading. Harry and Ron start out no more (and not much less) mischievous than Merry and Pippin did, and are no less heroic than Frodo and Sam were on their way to Rivendell. The argument that the latter are “good” and the former are evil appears rather absurd to me, especially if Harry and co. get any sort of meaningful character development after this.

Really, I’m not at all sure why people decided to target this book. It’s not simply harmless, it’s well-written, entertaining, and packed to the brim with rather heroic students, trustworthy adult mentors, and positive life lessons. If anything, I wish I’d read it sooner.

EDIT: Poor Snape, though, getting set on fire in the middle of his countercurse! I don’t care if he hates Harry- calling it right now, I bet Snape becomes my favorite character outside the main three.

 

[BrethrenBoy]

EDIT: Poor Snape, though, getting set on fire in the middle of his countercurse! I don’t care if he hates Harry- calling it right now, I bet Snape becomes my favorite character outside the main three.

You don’t know the half of it! There’s more to him than you think.