Church Exorcist and Pro Life Priest Warns Against Harry Potter

[masha]

I also wanted to go back a bit and explain that my critique of Rowling’s writing was not at all tangential in my understanding because of the nature of the novel (even the child’s novel) and it’s ability to affect the worldview of readers.

When I referred to Rowling’s writing as poor, I was not specifically referring to mechanics, which while they can ruin a good novel, cannot make a good one. Bluntly, some people can write well, others can’t. Rowling is a decent storyteller, but she is not a good writer. When I use her writing quality to define the spiritually problematic elements in the stories, it is because I’m working from an understanding that “The novel is art” (Flannery O Connor) and “bad so-called art, like polluted air constitutes a grave spiritual threat” (Thomas Merton) because when we consume bad art we pollute and gradually destroy our ability to recognize good art. For example, take a look at the recent best-sellers - Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code was one of them, and I’ve heard many people praise the book as “such a smart, clever book.” In reality it’s one of the worst written books I’ve read, and really, the Church shouldn’t have had to come out with any statement about it, because Brown destroys his own credibility by not checking his facts, and not being able to clearly present his ideas - but we as a culture have lost much of the ability to recognize quality, and this is because we feed ourselves a steady diet of trash.

I want to add that I’ve noticed a tendency online for people to take general statements of culture as personal attacks, and I want to clarify that I’m speaking of people in general and not of any person in particular. Individuals, and what they can process without great harm, are all different.

Blessings,
Masha

 

[styrgwillidar]

masha,

I don’t agree that reading poorly written works/art “… we pollute and gradually destroy our ability to recognize good art.”

If we confine ourselves to just ‘pop art’ or ‘impact art’ you get folks who actually label crucifix’s in urine, photos of deviant behavior etc as art. Really hard to do that if you’ve studied art through history including the great works of the renaissance.

I believe it’s the exact opposite, if we read a variety the good stands out from the bad. I think this also helps to give an appreciation for choices the author/artist may have made because of his intentions for the work. His intended audience, message etc. Not all books are written with the intention to be considered great ‘classic’ works standing the test of time through the ages. I don’t compare/judge them on that standard.

If we confine ourselves to only pop music, we have different standards and appreciation for what is good or bad than if we listen to all genres and time periods. Baroque, classical, romantic, blues, folk, rock, hard rock, etc. As a kid I listened to rock music-- Foghat, Aerosmith, Led Zeppelin (although I took piano lessons and played classical/baroque music, Chopin, Rachmaninoff, (sp?) Grieg, Beethoven, Bach etc.) My deep appreciation for blues came from stumbling across the connection between Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones and Foghat to the blues of the 30s/40s/50s. Most of Foghats numbers are covers of old blues tunes done as rock. I think the original versions come closer to the intention of the original writers than the later versions. I appreciate both, but consider the earlier versions superior as art-- but that’s a personal judgement.

I think Rowlings achieved what she wanted to achieve- wrote a series of books targeted at an audience that would be developing along the same timeline as her characters. I don’t consider them as classics, but I don’t think they were ever intended to be great works of art or social commentary. Commercial art, reasonably well executed for her intended purpose, obviously engaging to the audience for which she was writing (performing?). And acknowledging that doesn’t detract from my ability to appreciate other works for what they are.

 

[Mumbles140]

We also would want to check, for clarification, if Fr. Amorth made his remarks in English, because if he didn’t, a reading of the original might clarify the remarks further. Even in English, though, remember that your understanding of the word Magic is not necessarily the same as his, due to cultural, experiential, and educational differences, and take every effort to clarify with a closer look into Fr. Amorth’s other public statements, books, or information.

So ultimately, you yourself are saying it is impossible to interpret Fr. Amorth’s quotation, but are trying to make excuses for why it applies to this but not that. Speaking on something so grave, and choosing to use the term always speaks pretty clearly, and to those of you it doesn’t, well you can no longer rally behind it and then argue for Narnia and Middle Earth. Either abandon his words until he clarifies them or drop your argument that Narnia and Middle Earth are okay. As things are now, it is impossible to have middle ground, as was shown in a valid logical argument previously.

On a related note, if I can ask - why is it that Fr. Amorth’s concern about the books, coming, as it does from a man who spends his life studying and battling the forces of Satan, is completely disregarded by you who have read the books, but don’t have the understanding of the devil that he has. How is it you can disregard his opinion so completely? I’m not advocating blind obedience in this case, only consideration. It disturbs me to see the advice of someone who is so aware of evil discarded and even somewhat derided… Can you explain it to me?

Just as MDrummer, I can only speak for myself on the matter. If you were a well-known firefighter, and people looked at you to give you advice, you would say something like “Children should never play with matches. It will cause dangerous situations that can lead to fire and even death.” Now, you do this because you’ve seen the dangers when someone welcomes in things unknowingly, so you make blanket statements. However, if a 12-year old, who was properly instructed on lighting a lantern from his parents, was going to use matches to light a lantern, would you worry? Probably not, because the child is educated, using fire for its proper purpose, and aware that improperly used, fire can be very dangerous.

In the same way, Fr. Amorth has seen the dangers, and so he sees the threat of danger almost everywhere to let people know that these things are real and out there. And it is easy to rail against something so widely popular because it draws attention to your cause, which is not a bad thing. However, at times, it can be a little too broad for everyone, and this seems to be the case. Due to the Internet, these people know that speaking out against something so popular will make people aware of spiritual dangers with the Occult. However, in an attempt to make their causes known, they determine criteria on the spot to match their opinions, and this leads to inconsistencies. We have noted O’Brien’s pattern of finding examples to match his conclusions, and this is why there are so many objects taken out of context.

 

[styrgwillidar]

On a related note, if I can ask - why is it that Fr. Amorth’s concern about the books, coming, as it does from a man who spends his life studying and battling the forces of Satan, is completely disregarded by you who have read the books, but don’t have the understanding of the devil that he has. How is it you can disregard his opinion so completely? I’m not advocating blind obedience in this case, only consideration. It disturbs me to see the advice of someone who is so aware of evil discarded and even somewhat derided… Can you explain it to me?

Masha,

Only my personal take. But here goes, I take Fr. Amorth’s concern very seriously. That the appeal of weilding power through magic can lead people, particularly impressionable children, to the occult.

I take it so seriously that I do see LOTR, Narnia and HP together as possible influences along those lines. Because if his concern is that children may be influenced by the depiction of magic in literature, than the particular piece of literature is irrelevant. It’s the appeal of the existence of special source of knowledge or power leading to interest in the occult. As I’ve stated numerous times before-- It’s not the author’s intention in putting magic into their works-- it’s the perception of the audience which contains the risk.

It’s like a kid wanting to examine his Dad’s guns because he saw guns used by a character on a TV show, doesn’t matter whether it’s a ‘good guy’ or ‘bad guy’ that influenced him. It’s the cool factor of the power of the gun that has attracted the kids attention.

As to HP, the solution to Fr. Amorth’s concern than is either never allowing my kids to read or be exposed to literature containing magic, or to educate them an Fr. Amorth’s concern-- there is no real magic, there is a devil, he does look for ways to influence, any attempt at magic/occult is submitting to Satan’s manipulation of us. Again, and reading the books at the same time as them I can, as a parent, guide their analysis and help them pick out various points Rowlings is making, or that I see in the works— like the obvious deridement/danger/fallacy of prophesy.

Again, just my .02. But I think Fr. Amorth’s very valid concern is far better addressed by a direct education of children on the occult.

ETA: Posted this before as well, but, not sure how far back in the thread. The “…special source of knowledge or power…” trap that my contemporaries fell into when I was a teen was the ESP stuff. Just as nasty and masquerading under science.

 

[Mumbles140]

masha,

I don’t agree that reading poorly written works/art “… we pollute and gradually destroy our ability to recognize good art.”

If we confine ourselves to just ‘pop art’ or ‘impact art’ you get folks who actually label crucifix’s in urine, photos of deviant behavior etc as art. Really hard to do that if you’ve studied art through history including the great works of the renaissance.

I believe it’s the exact opposite, if we read a variety the good stands out from the bad. I think this also helps to give an appreciation for choices the author/artist may have made because of his intentions for the work. His intended audience, message etc. Not all books are written with the intention to be considered great ‘classic’ works standing the test of time through the ages. I don’t compare/judge them on that standard.

If we confine ourselves to only pop music, we have different standards and appreciation for what is good or bad than if we listen to all genres and time periods. Baroque, classical, romantic, blues, folk, rock, hard rock, etc. As a kid I listened to rock music-- Foghat, Aerosmith, Led Zeppelin (although I took piano lessons and played classical/baroque music, Chopin, Rachmaninoff, (sp?) Grieg, Beethoven, Bach etc.) My deep appreciation for blues came from stumbling across the connection between Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones and Foghat to the blues of the 30s/40s/50s. Most of Foghats numbers are covers of old blues tunes done as rock. I think the original versions come closer to the intention of the original writers than the later versions. I appreciate both, but consider the earlier versions superior as art-- but that’s a personal judgement.

I think Rowlings achieved what she wanted to achieve- wrote a series of books targeted at an audience that would be developing along the same timeline as her characters. I don’t consider them as classics, but I don’t think they were ever intended to be great works of art or social commentary. Commercial art, reasonably well executed for her intended purpose, obviously engaging to the audience for which she was writing (performing?). And acknowledging that doesn’t detract from my ability to appreciate other works for what they are.

Other examples - any popcorn flick from the past XXX years. Independence Day isn’t meant to be among the ranks of Ben-Hur or Lawrence of Arabia. Although it was enjoyable, it didn’t intend to be a classic. That doesn’t mean we should instantly reject it, correct? The thing is, you need movies that aren’t legendary to recognize the ones that would be classics. If only the purest, best, and brightest works of art would be published, all art would be that way, and there would be no distinction of taste/quality. Carrying along this line, it follows that ultimately there would only be one style, one cookie-cutter setup for it, and this destroys the whole idea of art.

 

[masha]

If we confine ourselves to just ‘pop art’ or ‘impact art’ you get folks who actually label crucifix’s in urine, photos of deviant behavior etc as art. Really hard to do that if you’ve studied art through history including the great works of the renaissance.

But, if you’ve spent most of your time “artistically” exposed to bad art, it isn’t much of a stretch to label these things “art” This is my point - bad art pollutes and goes on to produce more bad art.

I believe it’s the exact opposite, if we read a variety the good stands out from the bad. I think this also helps to give an appreciation for choices the author/artist may have made because of his intentions for the work. His intended audience, message etc. Not all books are written with the intention to be considered great ‘classic’ works standing the test of time through the ages. I don’t compare/judge them on that standard.

But you have to notice that the good is not standing out from the bad in so many areas - painting, sculpture, writing, architecture. We see people praising bad art, defending bad art, and producing bad art. The Urine crucifix is an example, Dan Brown is an example…Pope Benedict asks us how the Church can improve the world if she turns her back on beauty “which is so closely alligned to love” and we, the church, are failing to recognize beauty and failing to reject ugliness (bad art).

I agree that all books aren’t written to be considered great “classic” works. I would go further and argue that any book written with that intention would be failed art. But every book should be written with the intention of being Good, True, and Beautiful - (Not confusing Truth with Fact). Rowling does not demonstrate this intention, especially as the quality of her writing deteriorates as the series progresses.

If we confine ourselves to only pop music, we have different standards and appreciation for what is good or bad than if we listen to all genres and time periods. Baroque, classical, romantic, blues, folk, rock, hard rock, etc. As a kid I listened to rock music-- Foghat, Aerosmith, Led Zeppelin (although I took piano lessons and played classical/baroque music, Chopin, Rachmaninoff, (sp?) Grieg, Beethoven, Bach etc.) My deep appreciation for blues came from stumbling across the connection between Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones and Foghat to the blues of the 30s/40s/50s. Most of Foghats numbers are covers of old blues tunes done as rock. I think the original versions come closer to the intention of the original writers than the later versions. I appreciate both, but consider the earlier versions superior as art-- but that’s a personal judgement.

As far as music goes, I like your taste. But I would consider these to be distinctions of genre, not necessarily quality, and there are definately varieties of quality in each genre.

I think Rowlings achieved what she wanted to achieve- wrote a series of books targeted at an audience that would be developing along the same timeline as her characters. I don’t consider them as classics, but I don’t think they were ever intended to be great works of art or social commentary. Commercial art, reasonably well executed for her intended purpose, obviously engaging to the audience for which she was writing (performing?). And acknowledging that doesn’t detract from my ability to appreciate other works for what they are.

Commerical art…are you using this to mean “art designed primarily to make money off a specific audience?” In that, obviously she was successful, but like Thomas Kinkade’s paintings, the very definition puts her back in the “bad art/pollution” catagory. If you mean something else, I’m sorry for the misunderstanding.

Thanks for your response!
Blessings,
Masha

 

[masha]

Other examples - any popcorn flick from the past XXX years. Independence Day isn’t meant to be among the ranks of Ben-Hur or Lawrence of Arabia. Although it was enjoyable, it didn’t intend to be a classic. That doesn’t mean we should instantly reject it, correct? The thing is, you need movies that aren’t legendary to recognize the ones that would be classics. If only the purest, best, and brightest works of art would be published, all art would be that way, and there would be no distinction of taste/quality. Carrying along this line, it** follows that ultimately there would only be one style, one cookie-cutter setup for it, and this destroys the whole idea of art./**QUOTE]

I’m really sorry that my post came across with this message, that is not my intention at all. Quality is not defined as sameness. For example: Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Tolstoy, Tolkien, and Dostoyevsky are all very good writers. Tolstoy is perhaps technically the best, Dostoyevsky undoubtable the worst (technically), but one of the best in capturing the soul. Tolkien is weakest overall, but like Marquez, captures the imagination more fully than the Russians. Marquez’s stories for children are like vivid dreams, Tolkien’s are like fairy tales. They are none of them the same. Works that capture beauty are all different, but they must be good to capture beauty - failing that they fail overall.

In movies, Pan’s Labrynth (sp) and Serenity are vastly different movies, both a Good, both capture Beauty, nobody could say they are cookie cutter. That also allows for difference of taste. I can say, I don’t really like F. Scott Fitzgerald’s books. They aren’t my style, but they are artistic, and I can appreciate their quality.

In short, those who make art should imitate their Creator - God makes infinate variety, but He doesn’t make trash. Each created being radiates the beauty of God.

I’m sorry my meaning wasn’t clear, I hope this clarifies.

Blessings,
Masha

 

[Portrait]

We also would want to check, for clarification, if Fr. Amorth made his remarks in English, because if he didn’t, a reading of the original might clarify the remarks further. Even in English, though, remember that your understanding of the word Magic is not necessarily the same as his, due to cultural, experiential, and educational differences, and take every effort to clarify with a closer look into Fr. Amorth’s other public statements, books, or information.

On a related note, if I can ask - why is it that Fr. Amorth’s concern about the books, coming, as it does from a man who spends his life studying and battling the forces of Satan, is completely disregarded by you who have read the books, but don’t have the understanding of the devil that he has. How is it you can disregard his opinion so completely? I’m not advocating blind obedience in this case, only consideration. It disturbs me to see the advice of someone who is so aware of evil discarded and even somewhat derided… Can you explain it to me?

Dear masha,

Cordial greetings again and welcome back to the discussion. Hope all is well.

Father Amorth’s concern respecting the Potter books is surely treated with contempt because he gives a very negative evaluation of the series. Since Harry Potter is rapidly becoming a sacred cow, beyond any criticism, Potter devotees are likely to inveigh against any man, even a man of the cloth, who dares to speak in unfavourable terms about these inferior books. Another reason why Father Amorth goes unheard and unheeded is because many fallaciously contend that his expertise as an exorcist does not extend to fantasy literature, such as the Potter books. Superficially plausible but completely wrong nonetheless, because this is a non sequitor since no one in the anti-Potter camp actually argues this. What we maintain is that a man like Father who is fully aquainted with the forces of evil is able to detect anything that is from the realm of darkness wherever it is to be found; fantasy literature is not exempt. In this respect he is a little like a sniffer dog looking for concealed drugs and similarly he seldom makes any mistakes, his training and front line experience ensure that.

So yes it is about time Catholics started listening to his and other exorcists blunt warnings about this series of books, for they have not uttered them without very good reason. Unfortunately, what he says is largely dismissed as a ill-informed worthless opinion because it is not the sort of censure that the Christian pro-Potterites wish to hear about their beloved books. Indeed, I have heard one man on these very boards actually suggest that Father Amorth may be mentally unbalanced - the lengths that some will go to discredit a man! It disturbs and saddens many of us to see his advice discarded and his person derided, but it is hardly surprising given that it is the Potter books here which are being denounced in the strongest terms.

In his book, An Exorcist Tells his Story, (Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1999) Fr. Amorth warns that modern men are loosing their sense of the reality of supernatural evil (perhaps that includes a few Catholics also). As a consequence he states that many have made themselves more vulnerable to the influence of evil spirits who seek to corrupt and destroy souls. Interestingly Father does not hesitate to say that cultural influences such as film, television, music, and books play no small part in the lowering of spiritual vigilance. “I was able personally to verify how great is the influence of these tools of Satan on the young. It is unbelievable how widespread are witchcraft and spiritism, in all their froms, in middle and high school, even in small towns” (pp. 53,54). These sound like the words of a wise prophet, not the ramblings of unhinged man. Yes, he needs to be listened to by the Catholic faithful a great deal more than he is at present, especially those who are parents.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Mumbles140]

I agree that all books aren’t written to be considered great “classic” works. I would go further and argue that any book written with that intention would be failed art. But every book should be written with the intention of being Good, True, and Beautiful - (Not confusing Truth with Fact). Rowling does not demonstrate this intention, especially as the quality of her writing deteriorates as the series progresses.

First, what basis do you use for the claim that every book should be written with those intentions? And, quite frankly, I think many books we view as classics now would not have fit the mold then. The first example that comes to my mind would be Kafka. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you mean by Good, True, and Beautiful, so perhaps defining those and your criteria for applying them to all books would be helpful further.

Honestly, I am of the opinion that some books just have to be good stories, like nursery rhymes or fairy tales. They have some mythical/magical element, they are entertaining, and they typically have a good moral, although sometimes they are morally neutral. Regardless, I believe Harry Potter can fall into this mold very easily, and though I don’t believe it will ever be considered a classic, I think the draw is that its simplicity and language are reachable to everyone while still remaining intelligent enough to be worth reading by many age groups.

 

[estesbob]

I also wanted to go back a bit and explain that my critique of Rowling’s writing was not at all tangential in my understanding because of the nature of the novel (even the child’s novel) and it’s ability to affect the worldview of readers.

When I referred to Rowling’s writing as poor, I was not specifically referring to mechanics, which while they can ruin a good novel, cannot make a good one. Bluntly, some people can write well, others can’t. Rowling is a decent storyteller, but she is not a good writer. When I use her writing quality to define the spiritually problematic elements in the stories, it is because I’m working from an understanding that “The novel is art” (Flannery O Connor) and “bad so-called art, like polluted air constitutes a grave spiritual threat” (Thomas Merton) because when we consume bad art we pollute and gradually destroy our ability to recognize good art. For example, take a look at the recent best-sellers - Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code was one of them, and I’ve heard many people praise the book as “such a smart, clever book.” In reality it’s one of the worst written books I’ve read, and really, the Church shouldn’t have had to come out with any statement about it, because Brown destroys his own credibility by not checking his facts, and not being able to clearly present his ideas - but we as a culture have lost much of the ability to recognize quality, and this is because we feed ourselves a steady diet of trash.

I want to add that I’ve noticed a tendency online for people to take general statements of culture as personal attacks, and I want to clarify that I’m speaking of people in general and not of any person in particular. Individuals, and what they can process without great harm, are all different.

Blessings,
Masha

What constitutes good writing is in the eye the beholder. I would say the Rowling having made $1 billion off of her books must be doing something right.

I’ve often thought that part of the animosity toward Rowlig was based on jealousy. This lady sat down in a coffee shop and wrote a book that was the catalyst for billion dollar empire. I think this cultural elitism is seen a lot in the arts-for instance how often do we see the Academy award for best picture go to a movie that very few people have seen while the blockbuster receives no accolades at all?

 

[mdrummer5]

Perhaps Portrait, you misread her question…

On a related note, if I can ask - why is it that Fr. Amorth’s concern about the books, coming, as it does from a man who spends his life studying and battling the forces of Satan, is completely disregarded** by you who have read the books**

Your opinion on this is completely irrelevant as you’ve not read the books and you are absolutely showing blind obedience by taking his word for it rather than reading the books yourself.

You’ve also still not addressed the obvious contradictions in your own arguments pointed out by myself or other members of this discussion.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Disclaimer: I am not an artist, I can’t write, can’t draw, can’t sing, only passably play music etc. You are reading the opinion of someone who probably should just sit down and be quiet. But since the internet provides everyone a pulpit…

But, if you’ve spent most of your time “artistically” exposed to bad art, it isn’t much of a stretch to label these things “art” This is my point - bad art pollutes and goes on to produce more bad art.

But you have to notice that the good is not standing out from the bad in so many areas - painting, sculpture, writing, architecture. We see people praising bad art, defending bad art, and producing bad art. The Urine crucifix is an example, Dan Brown is an example…Pope Benedict asks us how the Church can improve the world if she turns her back on beauty “which is so closely alligned to love” and we, the church, are failing to recognize beauty and failing to reject ugliness (bad art).

But as a society we have tended towards downplaying exceptionalism, we don’t want to hurt the less talenteds feelings by acknowledging the more talented. Similarly, I don’t see people being educated on art across the ages and I see de-emphasis on western cultlure. So, I tend to see the problem being a diet of all pop culture as the problem. Good can’t stand out from the bad if you only look at bad stuff- and that’s where I personally believe the problem lies. Well, that and most of the art community, especially getting public grants, being a self-licking ice-cream cone producing stuff along an agenda driven more by politics than truth or beauty. And with a disdain for western culture and historical values.

Glad you like my taste in music, and hope you see my point that by listening to a variety of genres you achieve a greater appreciation for art. Yes, they are different genres but I’ve known folks who look down on anything not ‘classical’ (genre not time period). But I see trying to label one as superior to another as comparing apples to oranges. Artists are drawn to different genres for a variety of reasons, but I think mainly because one format is better for expressing their message. Then, as you’ve pointed out in writing, there’s the difficulty of assesing technical ability vice artistic ability and how it contributes to the merit of a work. And we’re in complete agreement that my example is kind of poor by using genre’s as opposed to specific works with a genre.

Reasonable people can disagree, I see art as a transaction between the artist and the audience. Each brings something which affects the transaction. (Well, unless an artist creates something only for themselves- but then is it art? Or by definition, does art have to be shared if it a message about truth or beauty?) I see Rowlings as demonstrating a depiction of truth in considering death, consequences of the choice of how/when to oppose evil. We can certainly disagree about how well she’s done it, whether others have done better, which would include given what I think were her goals which may have been different than Tolkein’s in LOTRs. A lot of which would never be answered unless Rowlings provided the answers.

Yes. We can use “art designed primarily to make money off a specific audience.” as the definition of commercial art. I have a friend who went to the Art Center College of Design- he does commercial art, and art that is just him expressing himself, and art that expresses something but that he would like to sell. He puts himself in each work, but there are different constraints on each, I would argue each does pursue truth or beauty or both but affected by why it was created.

Much renassaince art (all mediums) that is breathtaking was commercial. That is created either directly commissioned by someone, or under someone’s patronage. I think it qualifies as “art designed primarily to make money of a specific audience.” I do believe the artist did have to consider the desires of his market. Dickens work was influenced by how it was marketed. Serialized works designed to appear in newspapers and appeal to their readership, or at least that segment of the public the newspapers wanted as readers. If the newspapers didn’t sell, Dickens may not have created much of his works, or at least as they exist. I would argue that very little art is created simply to exist without a market (audience) in mind. Most artist create their work with the intention of selling it, and I believe that concern influences the ultimate product. But just because something is commercial art doesn’t necessarily preclude it being great. Go to youtube and listen to these tracks. I find the uplifting and beautiful. (Of course I may be deeply flawed in terms of music appreciation). All works created specifically for movie scores. They would not exist if the composer was not in the business of ‘selling works of art to a specific audience’.
youtube.com/watch?v=v8foTMjFqIk
youtube.com/watch?v=4H0JDomv8ac&feature=related
youtube.com/watch?v=9SHPUwgP7aY

It’s one of the constraints of an artist. To be a full time artist you need to be independently wealthy, or find a market for your work. And if you’re targeting a market, I don’t see how it won’t influence your work. But see disclaimer.

 

[Mumbles140]

Mumbles140;7568590:

Other examples - any popcorn flick from the past XXX years. Independence Day isn’t meant to be among the ranks of Ben-Hur or Lawrence of Arabia. Although it was enjoyable, it didn’t intend to be a classic. That doesn’t mean we should instantly reject it, correct? The thing is, you need movies that aren’t legendary to recognize the ones that would be classics. If only the purest, best, and brightest works of art would be published, all art would be that way, and there would be no distinction of taste/quality. Carrying along this line, it** follows that ultimately there would only be one style, one cookie-cutter setup for it, and this destroys the whole idea of art./**

QUOTE]

I’m really sorry that my post came across with this message, that is not my intention at all. Quality is not defined as sameness. For example: Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Tolstoy, Tolkien, and Dostoyevsky are all very good writers. Tolstoy is perhaps technically the best, Dostoyevsky undoubtable the worst (technically), but one of the best in capturing the soul. Tolkien is weakest overall, but like Marquez, captures the imagination more fully than the Russians. Marquez’s stories for children are like vivid dreams, Tolkien’s are like fairy tales. They are none of them the same. Works that capture beauty are all different, but they must be good to capture beauty - failing that they fail overall.

In movies, Pan’s Labrynth (sp) and Serenity are vastly different movies, both a Good, both capture Beauty, nobody could say they are cookie cutter. That also allows for difference of taste. I can say, I don’t really like F. Scott Fitzgerald’s books. They aren’t my style, but they are artistic, and I can appreciate their quality.

In short, those who make art should imitate their Creator - God makes infinate variety, but He doesn’t make trash. Each created being radiates the beauty of God.

I’m sorry my meaning wasn’t clear, I hope this clarifies.

Blessings,
Masha

Your meaning was clear. If you read my complete post, you would see the section you bolded was the logical result of only making movies meant to be classics. This goes hand-in-hand with my argument that we need movies and literature that aren’t. You mentioned all classics that had different styles, as they do now. It is when we strive towards everything being classic when we will reach a point that nothing is now classic. This is the cookie cutter idea.

And, to go back on another point of yours, you talk about commercial art. Remember that it used to be the Church, governments, and individual citizens or groups chartering great works of art to be done. If someone can paint but no one commissions them to paint Chapel ceilings, can you blame them for using their art to provide income? This reflects poorly on society for not supporting artists as we once did with the masters, but it does not bring down the artist because of this.

 

[Portrait]

What constitutes good writing is in the eye the beholder. I would say the Rowling having made $1 billion off of her books must be doing something right.

I’ve often thought that part of the animosity toward Rowlig was based on jealousy. This lady sat down in a coffee shop and wrote a book that was the catalyst for billion dollar empire. I think this cultural elitism is seen a lot in the arts-for instance how often do we see the Academy award for best picture go to a movie that very few people have seen while the blockbuster receives no accolades at all?

Dear estesbob,

Cordial greetinngs and hope all is well.

Not necessarily. It is highly probable that Rowling’s series has been a global success because it is about a fantasy world - a world that so many of the young like to inhabit. They prefer to hide away in an imaginative fictional universe, as that is preferable to engaging with the harsh realities of life.

Moreover, that Rowling has managed to captivate and dupe millions with her morally inferior series only serves to underscore the fact that there is a lowered public opinion, both within and without the Church, that urgently needs to be raised. Former generations would not have touched these books with a barge pole because they would have seen them for what they. Indeed, the literati of that day would have dismissed the Potter novels as utterly unworthy and inferior texts, likely to corrupt good morals and arouse an unhealthy interest in the dark arts, thus leading the young from the path of virtue into error and sin.

The Potter series could only ever mesmerize the masses in a superficial and frivilous age such as the one in which our lot is cast. Talk about mens senses being dulled and blunted!

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Mumbles140]

Dear masha,

Cordial greetings again and welcome back to the discussion. Hope all is well.

Father Amorth’s concern respecting the Potter books is surely treated with contempt because he gives a very negative evaluation of the series. Since Harry Potter is rapidly becoming a sacred cow, beyond any criticism, Potter devotees are likely to inveigh against any man, even a man of the cloth, who dares to speak in unfavourable terms about these inferior books. Another reason why Father Amorth goes unheard and unheeded is because many fallaciously contend that his expertise as an exorcist does not extend to fantasy literature, such as the Potter books. Superficially plausible but completely wrong nonetheless, because this is a non sequitor since no one in the anti-Potter camp actually argues this. What we maintain is that a man like Father who is fully aquainted with the forces of evil is able to detect anything that is from the realm of darkness wherever it is to be found; fantasy literature is not exempt. In this respect he is a little like a sniffer dog looking for concealed drugs and similarly he seldom makes any mistakes, his training and front line experience ensure that.

Compare us to idol worshippers and tell us we go against ‘a man of the cloth’, but you had the nerve to say the Bishop was wrong. Ironic, no?

 

[Mumbles140]

Dear estesbob,

Cordial greetinngs and hope all is well.

Not necessarily. It is highly probable that Rowling’s series has been a global success because it is about a fantasy world - a world that so many of the young like to inhabit. They prefer to hide away in an imaginative fictional universe, as that is preferable to engaging with the harsh realities of life.

Moreover, that Rowling has managed to captivate and dupe millions with her morally inferior series only serves to underscore the fact that there is a lowered public opinion, both within and without the Church, that urgently needs to be raised. Former generations would not have touched these books with a barge pole because they would have seen them for what they. Indeed, the literati of that day would have dismissed the Potter novels as utterly unworthy and inferior texts, likely to corrupt good morals and arouse an unhealthy interest in the dark arts, thus leading the young from the path of virtue into error and sin.

The Potter series could only ever mesmerize the masses in a superficial and frivilous age such as the one in which our lot is cast. Talk about mens senses being dulled and blunted!

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

1. You claim escapist fantasy, but I say the same is in the draw of Narnia and Middle-Earth. In Narnia, children separated from their parents and living with a stranger in war-torn Britain are able to escape through a magical piece of furniture. And who says this is a bad thing? You yourself are claiming that this is a break from the perils and heart-ache of the regular world, not to mention the plethora of immoral entertainment options.
2. You continue claiming Potter is morally inferior, but have yet to give a single example of such. Further, when we provide examples of moral activities, you can provide no refutation for them. By answering our questions and choosing not to comment on our critical points, the appearance is that you have no response, which means you are using emotion rather than logic. God gave us reason to control emotion, so stop with the pundit-like banter and let’s get serious about these issues.
3. You continue to defend Father Amorth, but the only reason you don’t see it as contradictory is precisely because it is damning to your claims. He said ALL magic is evil - either cast Narnia and Middle-Earth down into the fires with Potter or do not hide behind this man, who proves himself to be inconsistent. I can’t say his motives for saying what he did, and perhaps he should have clarified, but because his quote stands as it is, you must decide whether to abandon the works of Tolkien and Lewis or reject the fallible opinion of Fr. Amorth.
4. Are you actually claiming that only today could something ever become that popular? What about Elvis, the Beatles, etc? Maybe it isn’t because our world is ‘superficial’, but that ever-changing forms of media enable works to be spread globally rather than regionally/nationally.

 

[mdrummer5]

I also find it annoying that you refused to deal with the post I put up refuting the claims from the article you copied and pasted. It destroys your credibility slowly but surely which is been eroded continually by such behaviour. Which lacks any intellectual rigour or honesty which means when you talk of absolute moralities you begin to sound very, very foolish and hollow indeed. As you talk of them and accuse Harry and Co. various forms of dishonesty. Yet how are we supposed to respect the contributions of a poster who ignores objections he dislike and does not cite the source of articles he uses?

By answering our questions and choosing not to comment on our critical points, the appearance is that you have no response, which means you are using emotion rather than logic. God gave us reason to control emotion, so stop with the pundit-like banter and let’s get serious about these issues.

Taking bets on whether or not either of these facts is acknowledged.

 

[estesbob]

Dear estesbob,

Cordial greetinngs and hope all is well.

Not necessarily. It is highly probable that Rowling’s series has been a global success because it is about a fantasy world - a world that so many of the young like to inhabit. They prefer to hide away in an imaginative fictional universe, as that is preferable to engaging with the harsh realities of life.

Moreover, that Rowling has managed to captivate and dupe millions with her morally inferior series only serves to underscore the fact that there is a lowered public opinion, both within and without the Church, that urgently needs to be raised. Former generations would not have touched these books with a barge pole because they would have seen them for what they. Indeed, the literati of that day would have dismissed the Potter novels as utterly unworthy and inferior texts, likely to corrupt good morals and arouse an unhealthy interest in the dark arts, thus leading the young from the path of virtue into error and sin.

The Potter series could only ever mesmerize the masses in a superficial and frivilous age such as the one in which our lot is cast. Talk about mens senses being dulled and blunted!

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Ill be happy to discuss the books with you after you have read them.

 

[styrgwillidar]

masha,

By the way, I hope I’m coming off as properly respectful and duly considerate of your views. I’m enjoying our exchange and appreciate the interaction.

A lot of arguments come down to semantics, and as you’ve hit on or alluded to- what makes something art? What is the responsibility of an artist? How does the intended audience influence a work? Does money, whether from private or government sources, corrupt the art itself, or in turn the artist?

Blessings,

 

[Mumbles140]

masha,

By the way, I hope I’m coming off as properly respectful and duly considerate of your views. I’m enjoying our exchange and appreciate the interaction.

A lot of arguments come down to semantics, and as you’ve hit on or alluded to- what makes something art? What is the responsibility of an artist? How does the intended audience influence a work? Does money, whether from private or government sources, corrupt the art itself, or in turn the artist?

Blessings,

This conversation is very interesting, and delves deep into our culture. However, unless Masha is making the point that Potter should be avoided due to it being ‘poor art’, this matter is irrelevant to the point. Which, first, if Masha were, that would again begin eliminating art, restricting artists, etc. Moreover, and more importantly to Harry Potter, the purpose of this revolves around Harry Potter’s connection to the Occult, which has also grown to include morality. Whether or not it is considered ‘good art’ is not even tangental to the point. Not to be a downer by any stretch, but these philosophical questions above could turn the argument away from Potter and into contemporary art.