Harry Potter books

[Lost_Wanderer]

I don’t see an ‘anit-HP’ or ‘anti-fantasy league’ per se. Sorry, Lost Wanderer but I can’t label Portrait, for example, as part of a league when he advocates for Narnia.

However, where people lose me is when they deviate from that principled position and say, well, it’s ok in some works but not others. ??? By what standard? Folks cite O’brien but he’s incredibly inconsistent. And I do mean incredibly as in lacks credibility since he changes, modifies, morphs the standard applying it differently to different works.

Actually, my understanding of how the likes of Portrait view Narnia is in fact with a very anti-Fantasy perspective, particularly, the opposition to the use of magic.

Magic is a staple in fantasy, not an evil. People like Portrait (and to an extent O’Brien) on the other hand, relish in the idea of Christians relying on nothing but pitchforks and swords whilst those with extraordinary powers of flight, elemental manipulation, and telekinesis are treated like devil-worshiping villains. Frankly, their depiction of oh so holy knights/priests vanquishing teh evil wizards and sorcerers is far more sickening than even the stereotypical depictions of such conflicts (at least in the latter’s case, both sides are shown to be equally lacking in moral integrity).

 

[EasterJoy]

That’s kinda my point. Unfortunately, the latter is often (if not always) the angle approached by the Harry Potter ‘critics’ on these threads (OP included).

Hard to say as I’m familiar with two versions of that Rule. One is the Wiccan version of Karma which I don’t care for since Wiccans fall under the technical definition of druids. I am not a druid. I am simply a sophisticated-]insane/-] and brilliant,-]out-of-his-mind/-] dragon mage who is skilled in the art of the retributive replication of spells-]sending three flame javelins your way if you tick him off/-].

(BTW, I hope I just adequately demonstrated the second version of the Rule up there, the writing one )

I hope you understand that I’m wary of people who characterize themselves as sophisticated or brilliant, let alone people who think that those who threaten others with flame javelins ought to be above criticism.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I hope you understand that I’m wary of people who characterize themselves as sophisticated or brilliant, let alone people who think that those who threaten others with flame javelins ought to be above criticism.

Oh no! I am quite friendly-]safe/-] just so long as you don’t charge me with heresy and devil worship… oh wait, I remember that’s why the self-proclaimed crusaders of fundamentalist literature have a wanted poster of me.

 

[Dan_Daly]

It is simply a fact that since the publication of Deathly Hallows in 2007, fears that Potter encourages or desensitizes the young to sorcery have continually fallen further and further outside the mainstream.

You will get no argument from me on this point. However, it is a point without a point. What is good or bad or correct or incorrect about being “in the mainstream”.

It is simply a matter of fact that since 2007, orthodox Catholicism has fallen further and further outside the mainstream of post-Christian Europe and America.

So what?

The faith is the faith. Whether one person believes it or one billion.

Pax

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

You will get no argument from me on this point. However, it is a point without a point. What is good or bad or correct or incorrect about being “in the mainstream”.

It is simply a matter of fact that since 2007, orthodox Catholicism has fallen further and further outside the mainstream of post-Christian Europe and America.

So what?

The faith is the faith. Whether one person believes it or one billion.

Misconstruing the overrated (and overly misunderstood) counter-mainstream attitude in Christianity is not going to save you. The fact remains that fears regarding Harry Potter (along with the rest of fantasy fiction) is not only without the support of reason but also accepted Christian thought.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Accepted by who?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Accepted by who?

Not by who. By many.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Not by who. By many.

I’m sorry you lost me. You said criticizing Potter on theological grounds was outside of accepted Christian thought. My question is who decides what is accepted Christian thought? Is there a Church document that states “thou shall not be concerned with the influence of books”? Was Cardinal Ratzinger outside of the realm of accepted thought?

Pax

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I’m sorry you lost me. You said criticizing Potter on theological grounds was outside of accepted Christian thought. My question is who decides what is accepted Christian thought? Is there a Church document that states “thou shall not be concerned with the influence of books”? Was Cardinal Ratzinger outside of the realm of accepted thought?

One, you’re basing your response on a dead horse that has been clearly misinterpreted by the anti-fantasy fear-mongers.

Two, you can’t then say that Cardinal Ratzinger was outside Christian thought because what he said doesn’t even qualify.

Thirdly, I said that BOTH accepted Christian thought and sound reason do not support the fear which you so desperately seek to spread.

And finally, by ‘accepted Christian thought’, it is indeed a fringe opinion that has actually no theological basis (blind, assertive insistence does not count). Hence, you’ll find that when paired with the lack of reason, positions that criticize Harry Potter on grounds of witchcraft and the like do indeed deserve their lack of sound support. Lack of said support should also, in fact, taken into good consideration.

 

[Dan_Daly]

One, you’re basing your response on a dead horse that has been clearly misinterpreted by the anti-fantasy fear-mongers.

Two, you can’t then say that Cardinal Ratzinger was outside Christian thought because what he said doesn’t even qualify.

Thirdly, I said that BOTH accepted Christian thought and sound reason do not support the fear which you so desperately seek to spread.

And finally, by ‘accepted Christian thought’, it is indeed a fringe opinion that has actually no theological basis (blind, assertive insistence does not count). Hence, you’ll find that when paired with the lack of reason, positions that criticize Harry Potter on grounds of witchcraft and the like do indeed deserve their lack of sound support. Lack of said support should also, in fact, taken into good consideration.

Please answer my question. Who decides what is or isn’t acceptable Christian thought? In the case of Cardinal Ratzinger you said his comments don’t “qualify”. Who decides whose comments qualify to be considered in discussions such as this?

Pax

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Please answer my question. Who decides what is or isn’t acceptable Christian thought? In the case of Cardinal Ratzinger you said his comments don’t “qualify”. Who decides whose comments qualify to be considered in discussions such as this?

You’re asking for the obvious. Seeing as this entire thread has already cited a number of theologians who dismiss your brand of ‘theological’ criticism of Harry Potter, I’m not about to waste my time giving in to your laziness.

Furthermore, his comments don’t qualify just as much as instructions on how to open a can of spam doesn’t qualify as a master chef recipe or a generic thank you message from an ATM machine does not qualify as a finance report.

Also, keep in mind that I’m pairing both sound reason and accepted Christian thought together as proof that the fear-mongering is both fringe and foolish.

 

[Dan_Daly]

You’re asking for the obvious. Seeing as this entire thread has already cited a number of theologians who dismiss your brand of ‘theological’ criticism of Harry Potter, I’m not about to waste my time giving in to your laziness.

Furthermore, his comments don’t qualify just as much as instructions on how to open a can of spam doesn’t qualify as a master chef recipe or a generic thank you message from an ATM machine does not qualify as a finance report.

Also, keep in mind that I’m pairing both sound reason and accepted Christian thought together as proof that the fear-mongering is both fringe and foolish.

Thank you. Theologians do not constitute the teaching authority of the Church. A survery of all Christian theologians might find beliefe in the True Presence outside of the mainstream. Oh well. If I wasn’t willing to be fringe, I wouldn’t be a an American Catholic in 2012, and as far as foolish goes, I’ll happily be Christ’s fool any day.

Being concerned about the influence of what one reads (and what one’s children read) is not fear mongering. It’s simply prudence. Books influence people. Even those arguing for the Potter books admit as much when they tell us how wonderful the books are. If a book can influence for good, then it stands to reason that a book can influence for ill.

I have already gone over the Cardinal (now Pope’s comments) earlier in the thread, and responed to the line of argument that his comments don’t matter because he is not a professional book critic. To repeat:

1. Someone does not need to be an official expert or professional to have an opinion worth listening to on a topic.
2. The Cardinal wasn’t criticising the quality of the writing in the books. He was commenting on the potential spiritual impact, on their theology, which would be precisely his area of professional expertise.

Pax Christi and God Bless

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Thank you. Theologians do not constitute the teaching authority of the Church. A survery of all Christian theologians might find beliefe in the True Presence outside of the mainstream. Oh well. If I wasn’t willing to be fringe, I wouldn’t be a an American Catholic in 2012, and as far as foolish goes, I’ll happily be Christ’s fool any day.

I had a feeling you were going to say this. Hence, it leaves me to accuse you of not reading.

I repeat: BOTH accepted Christian thought AND sound reasoning.

And for your information? Jack Chick is Christ’s fool too. Look what he’s done for Christianity. That’s right. Smeared it. Needlessly. Fools for Christ only serve to mock the religion in which they belong. They serve no other good besides… actually they don’t serve any good. Period.

1. Someone does not need to be an official expert or professional to have an opinion worth listening to on a topic.
2. The Cardinal wasn’t criticising the quality of the writing in the books. He was commenting on the potential spiritual impact, on their theology, which would be precisely his area of professional expertise.

1. Worth Listening =/= Acceptance. I have nothing to stop people from giving their opinion. I have everything to say whether or not they’re worthy of acceptance. I also have every right to call it stupid. Also, opinion is not fact. I’m sure you know that much.
2. You might as well say that the Pull sign on a door gives you a substantial opinion on door-making.

P.S.

Being concerned about the influence of what one reads (and what one’s children read) is not fear mongering. It’s simply prudence. Books influence people. Even those arguing for the Potter books admit as much when they tell us how wonderful the books are. If a book can influence for good, then it stands to reason that a book can influence for ill.

Such ‘influence’ is the responsibility of the reader, not the book nor the author. Plenty of schools on literary criticism are in agreement that author intent can be kicked out. Plenty of them are also about dispelling whatever anyone else perceives as ‘structure’ in a given story.

Put that all together and it’s clear that authors are not as responsible for how people read their fictional works as you would like.

 

[Dan_Daly]

I had a feeling you were going to say this. Hence, it leaves me to accuse you of not reading.

I repeat: BOTH accepted Christian thought AND sound reasoning.

And for your information? Jack Chick is Christ’s fool too. Look what he’s done for Christianity. That’s right. Smeared it. Needlessly. Fools for Christ only serve to mock the religion in which they belong. They serve no other good besides… actually they don’t serve any good. Period.

1. Worth Listening =/= Acceptance. I have nothing to stop people from giving their opinion. I have everything to say whether or not they’re worthy of acceptance. I also have every right to call it stupid. Also, opinion is not fact. I’m sure you know that much.
2. You might as well say that the Pull sign on a door gives you a substantial opinion on door-making.

I fully agree that not all opinions are equally valid. Some are more grounded in faith, reason, and facts than others. Dismissing the opinions of then Cardinal Ratzinger as being the equivalent as a sign on a door does not appear to be based in reason, faith or fact. He said what he said. If you want to disagree with his opinion, then argue why you disagree with him. Don’t ridicule or dismiss it without any consideration.

Jack Chick is not a Catholic. He is actually right about Dungeons and Dragons though, a fact which took me a many years to figure out. Actually, at one point I found his comic strip on the topic to be quite…comical. He does get some of his facts wrong, but his fundamental point on that topic, that D&D is a negative influence is correct. Do most people who play the game become Satanists dancing around a bonfire in the dark woods at night? No. But anyone who plays is encouraged to see greed and wanton violence as fundamentally fun things to play around with. They are also exposed to what would qualify as at least soft core pornography in many D&D gaming materials, and introduced to the idea that obedience to authority and “goodness/evilness” are two seperate elements of what constitutes someone’s “alignment” or spiritual worldview. Will rolling up a character introduce immediate changes in someone? Most likely not. The dangers are more…subtle, just as Cardinal Ratzinger described Harry Potter. Because someone is wrong about somethings, does not mean they are wrong about every thing.

Would you agree that the author of the Potter books holds views that are not compatible with the Christian faith? Holding sodomy to be an acceptable lifestyle choice for example.

Pax

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I fully agree that not all opinions are equally valid. Some are more grounded in faith, reason, and facts than others. Dismissing the opinions of then Cardinal Ratzinger as being the equivalent as a sign on a door does not appear to be based in reason, faith or fact. He said what he said. If you want to disagree with his opinion, then argue why you disagree with him. Don’t ridicule or dismiss it without any consideration.

I’ve read the letter more times than I can count. It IS equivalent to a door sign. You want another equivalent? Reading it is like reading the inbound call center script for customer service.

But anyone who plays is encouraged to see greed and wanton violence as fundamentally fun things to play around with. They are also exposed to what would qualify as at least soft core pornography in many D&D gaming materials, and introduced to the idea that obedience to authority and “goodness/evilness” are two seperate elements of what constitutes someone’s “alignment” or spiritual worldview. Will rolling up a character introduce immediate changes in someone? Most likely not. The dangers are more…subtle, just as Cardinal Ratzinger described Harry Potter. Because someone is wrong about somethings, does not mean they are wrong about every thing.

First and foremost, you are off-topic. I would just love to overwhelm your ridiculous position right now on the subject of D&D but I’d rather you reserve your next response on this subject on a new thread of your own.

In fact, here’s an appetizer. The game is first and foremost, a storytelling game. A story that is just chock full of static, goody-two-shoes characters gets boring and sick really fast.

Secondly, the alignment system actually reflects real life in a way. Life isn’t just black and white. There’s a spectrum in between. And like it or not, even Christians defied the order of the day (hint: Nero ring any bells?). Hence, you get characters that are law-abiding yet ultimately evil and you get good characters who find the law an impediment to the greater good. In fact, Jesus Himself exhibited this attitude when he healed the sick man on the Sabbath.

And finally, violence is actually FUN! I for one take great pleasure in melting down an entire steel golem with my hellfire blast. I’d like to see Mr. Potter do THAT! In fantasy, force (both magical and physical) has so many wonderful applications.

Would you agree that the author of the Potter books holds views that are not compatible with the Christian faith? Holding sodomy to be an acceptable lifestyle choice for example.

I don’t remember reading about sodomy in the books. You must be confusing it with the yaoi of FFN’s Harry Potter section.

 

[Dan_Daly]

You misread my post. I did not say sodomy was approved of in the books. I said the author approved of it. She has made it clear in her public comments, “outing” one of the main characters. Whether or not it is canon for the series, it is what she thinks. So would you agree that the author holds views that are decidely anti-Catholic?

You continue to misrepresent the Ratzinger-Kuby letters. If he has simply wished to say thank you, have a good day…he could have said “thank you. Have a good day.” He chose to say more than that.

Pax

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

You misread my post. I did not say sodomy was approved of in the books. I said the author approved of it. She has made it clear in her public comments, “outing” one of the main characters. Whether or not it is canon for the series, it is what she thinks. So would you agree that the author holds views that are decidely anti-Catholic?

We are discussing the books. Not the author. Stop throwing red-herrings.

You continue to misrepresent the Ratzinger-Kuby letters. If he has simply wished to say thank you, have a good day…he could have said “thank you. Have a good day.” He chose to say more than that.

I work in a marketing department now mmkay? Personalized thank you’s are in fact quite commonplace. People like to make their correspondents feel special even when they’re not. If you’re going to make a personalized thank you, you might as well mention the book that was sent to you. It doesn’t make it any more than an unimportant thank you note.

I can’t see how a Cardinal’s office is any different.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Esteemed and dear Ms. Kuby!

Many thanks for your kind letter of February 20th and the
informative book which you sent me in the same mail. It is good, that
you enlighten people about Harry Potter, because those are subtle
seductions, which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort Christianity
in the soul, before it can grow properly.

I would like to suggest that you write to Mr. Peter Fleedwood,
(Pontifical Council of Culture, Piazza S. Calisto 16, I00153 Rome)
directly and to send him your book.

Sincere Greetings and Blessings,

• Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

One could have sent a “peronalized” thank you in any number of other ways. Commenting on subtle seductions that can deeply distort the Christian soul, seems to be a rather odd thing to do, if one simply wanted to say thank you and make Miss Kuby smile.

You have stated you wish to ground your position in the Christian faith and reason. I don’t believe there is any reasonable way to read the above letter and not believe the person who sent it expressed an opinion critical of the Harry Potter books from a spiritual perspective.

Also, it seems odd to believe there is a complete seperation between an author and the author’s work. Who else wrote it? Where do the ideas that go into the work come from? Books don’t just “poof” appear on the publisher’s desk. Examining the view’s held by an author is not a “red herring”, it’s actually a rather reasonable thing to do when considering their writings.

Pax

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

One could have sent a “peronalized” thank you in any number of other ways. Commenting on subtle seductions that can deeply distort the Christian soul, seems to be a rather odd thing to do, if one simply wanted to say thank you and make Miss Kuby smile.

Oho trust me. I read marketing blogs as a requirement. That sort of flattery is actually encouraged. And in case you need more proof, there’s an obvious attempt at redirection.

Guess what Msgr. Fleetwood had to say?

Also, it seems odd to believe there is a complete seperation between an author and the author’s work. Who else wrote it? Where do the ideas that go into the work come from? Books don’t just “poof” appear on the publisher’s desk. Examining the view’s held by an author is not a “red herring”, it’s actually a rather reasonable thing to do when considering their writings.

Apparently you need a crash course in post-modern literary analysis.

Since I feel so sorry for your ignorant statement, I’ll enlighten you. An author is simply one who creates the text. However, once it is out there and in the hands of the freely-interpreting public, his/her authority on it is no more. Anyone can read anything into anything.

That’s how fanfiction came to be for one thing.

Case-in-point. I write a story about two sisters who are very close. Someone reads that story and interprets the closeness is in fact representing an incestuous and homosexual relationship. When reading the text by itself, who is to say I’m right and he/she is wrong? The fact that I’m the author does not make my take on my own story any less of an opinionated interpretation.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Oho trust me. I read marketing blogs as a requirement. That sort of flattery is actually encouraged. And in case you need more proof, there’s an obvious attempt at redirection.

Guess what Msgr. Fleetwood had to say?

Apparently you need a crash course in post-modern literary analysis.

Since I feel so sorry for your ignorant statement, I’ll enlighten you. An author is simply one who creates the text. However, once it is out there and in the hands of the freely-interpreting public, his/her authority on it is no more. Anyone can read anything into anything.

That’s how fanfiction came to be for one thing.

So are you accusing Cardinal Ratzinger of lying to Miss Kuby? If so, please provide some evidence for the charge. If not, please explain why his words don’t mean what they say.

I find post-modern literary analysis to be about as grounded in faith and reason, as post-modern pretty much anything, which is to say not very grounded at all. When a person writes a book, or paints a painting, or gives a speech, or builds a building, they are influenced by their beliefs. Modernism is a condemned heresy. Post-modernism is the further development of that heresy.

Pax