Harry Potter: Evil Plot to Destroy Souls?

[Margarite]

YAY! Finally some people who have read the books and dislike them. This is the first place that I have been able to find you! I am so glad, because it is the discussion between those of us who do like them and those of us who do not that makes this thread worth writing into.

OK, now Tantum ergo, you say that you do not like Hermione’s lie. I have always thought it was useless. But, I would not say that the friendship was based on it. Even Rowlings says that the friendship was based on surviving the troll together, not the lie. It was the experience that bound them to eachother. Hermione realised that she wasn’t so great, and that the boys weren’t so bad. And the boys realised the use of their talent, and they realised that Hermione was human after all.

You say that they break the rules. Well, I would say that often it is their duty to. Let us take the first book.
(I hope I am remembering the book correctly it has been a couple years since I have read it, so I am mostly remembering the movie).
Harry, Ron and Hermione run into the forbidden room by accident because they want to get away from the scary moving stairs and they end up in the room with the three headed dog. (So they didn’t mean to do anything wrong.) Then, they tell Hagrid about it and he spills the Nicholas Flamell secret. So of course they are curious, so they look it up, and they know that someone attacked Harry, and so they follow a chain of thought and think that someone is trying to steal something important, but they know they don’t have enough info to tell a teacher. So they search on their own. Finally, at the end, they realise what is happening, but Dumbledore is gone and no one else would believe them, so they realise that they have to do it themselves. They don’t set out to break rules, they don’t break rules to do something bad, they only do it by accident, or when no one will listen to them, so they have to take action on their own.
I mean why would a teacher listen to a couple of kids who thought that one of the teachers was trying to steal something from the beloved principal especially when there were dangerous traps defending the object and most especially when the kids had nothing to prove their suspicions?

In the second book, Harry can’t help but hear the voice of something saying “Kill. Kill. Kill.” a voice that no one else can hear. Of course he wants to find out what it is. Then, there are the petrifications, who wouldn’t be curious, and with a combo like Harry (who has already faced death twice and who is stupidly brave) and Hermione (who has the brains to make a difference) they of course want to find out what is going on, especially when Harry is being blamed. Who wouldn’t want to prove their innocence? The polyjuice potion is lame to me, I don’t see the point of that either.

Basically, they only brake the rules to do good, most of the time.

Got to go.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Ooooh, I had not read [user]Tantum ergo[/user]'s post previously. Much to agree with there.

Hmmm, time to dig up a [post=9903]blast post from the past[/post]:

Now: Does anything about the Harry Potter series bother me? Yes, and it has nothing to do with witchcraft.

I am bothered by the morality in the books. And I almost gave up on the series out of boredom, since the first 3 books were almost the same story told three times. I was just about ready to throttle little Harry Potter by the end of that 3rd book.

What do I mean about the morality? Let’s look at some made-up, but representative dialog:

Dumbledore: “Harry, you scar is throbbing. Is anything wrong?”

tee

 

[Archerette74]

I have read and reread and reread again all the HP books. I enjoy them every time I read them.

The only people I know who hate the series have never read them.

 

[TylerM]

Well, being a witch is evil, hence going to witch school would be
evil. I wouldn’t read 7 books worth of something that would be evil,
I wouldn’t even read one. Some people don’t think being a witch
is evil. They think you can be a nice witch. I think they should
look up “witch” in the dictionary…

However, don’t the Potter books’ place in the fiction genre give the author license to construct a different moral paradigm for the sake of fantasy? C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia portray a world in which magic and astrology are permissible. Nevertheless, Lewis uses this fantasy universe to convey many Catholic moral values. Thus, whether good values appear in the Potter books seems a more important question than what literary vehicle the author uses to convey them.

 

[Larowyn]

Joke topic.

 

[Joe_5859]

Most thought the scene in book 1 where Harry and Ron rescue Hermione from the troll to be a wonderful example of friendship.

I, OTOH, found this friendship problematic in that it was based on a lie. . .Hermione’s lie to Prof. McGonigill that she (Hermione) had gone after the troll and the boys had come to help her. . .

You know, I have to say that this really bothered me as well (both in the book and in the movie). I fail to see what benefit the lie was at all. If anything, it would seem that they should have gotten into more trouble if the situation was as Hermione described rather than what actually happened.

Ok, I am sorry that I posted a statement that was inaccurate. That being that “Pope Benedict opposes the books.” to paraphrase what I said.

That said, I still think I’ll trust what Cardinal Ratzinger had to say about the books before I’ll trust what some random person on a forum has to say about them.

Also, the books glorify the Occult and therefore should be avoided. Personally, my (future) children will never read Harry Potter as long as they are living under my roof.

I understand your sensitivities to the novels and totally respect your decision not to allow your future children to read them, but I think it is inaccurate to say even that Cardinal Ratzinger opposed them. Jimmy Akin has a good article on why we cannot make that claim: Pre-16 on Harry Potter.

 

[Larowyn]

I’d keep my kids away from Harry Potter just on the basis that Rowling is a lousy writer and her writing in the later books reflected her having secured lucrative movie rights.

 

[Joe_5859]

I’d keep my kids away from Harry Potter just on the basis that Rowling is a lousy writer and her writing in the later books reflected her having secured lucrative movie rights.

It’s funny to see all the different points of view regarding those books that are highly popular, but controversial in certain Christian circles (like Harry Potter or The DaVinci Code). There seems to be four major camps.

First, you get some people that say they are incredible books, and incredibly well-written.

Second, you get those that say they are tools of the devil, and full of hackneyed writing to boot!

Third, you get the people that will admit that the books are supremely well-written, but they are still inimical to the faith.

Finally, there are the people who will say that although the books aren’t “evil”, who would want to waste their time reading such poorly-written fiction.

Frankly, I find more to agree with among those people who criticize Harry Potter on the level of literature rather than accusations that it is a how-to occult book for children.

 

[Larowyn]

It’s funny to see all the different points of view regarding those books that are highly popular, but controversial in certain Christian circles (like Harry Potter or The DaVinci Code). There seems to be four major camps.

First, you get some people that say they are incredible books, and incredibly well-written.

Second, you get those that say they are tools of the devil, and full of hackneyed writing to boot!

Third, you get the people that will admit that the books are supremely well-written, but they are still inimical to the faith.

Finally, there are the people who will say that although the books aren’t “evil”, who would want to waste their time reading such poorly-written fiction.

Frankly, I find more to agree with among those people who criticize Harry Potter on the level of literature rather than accusations that it is a how-to occult book for children.

“The Da Vinci Code” was poorly written too. People should be complaining about how poor of a novelist Dan Brown is. Da Vinci means “Of Venice,” so if you read the title you would have “The of Venice Code.” It only goes downhill from there.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Two thumbs up.

Frankly, I find more to agree with among those people who criticize Harry Potter on the level of literature rather than accusations that it is a how-to occult book for children.

“The Da Vinci Code” was poorly written too. People should be complaining about how poor of a novelist Dan Brown is. Da Vinci means “Of Venice,” so if you read the title you would have “The of Venice Code.” It only goes downhill from there.

tee

 

[surfinpure]

“The Da Vinci Code” was poorly written too. People should be complaining about how poor of a novelist Dan Brown is. Da Vinci means “Of Venice,” so if you read the title you would have “The of Venice Code.” It only goes downhill from there.

Actually, Vinci is a town outside Florence. Venice is “Venezia” in Italian. But yes, Leonardo da Vinci’s name was “Leonardo of Vinci,” and he is commonly referred to by his last name, “Da Vinci.”

Sorry for the tangent.

 

[Gertabelle]

Are you kidding?!

If Harry Potter teaches people to believe in witches and wizards, then so does Snow White and Seven Dwarfs, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Aladdin, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Alice in Wonderland, and just about every fairy tale ever told to children as bedtime stories!

And what about Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Sandman, wishing on stars, and all those other wonderful, magical, imaginary things in early childhood?

I was raised with a rich and wonderful fantasy life in my early childhood. When I was a kid I wanted to be a witch like Sabrina, and the bionic woman, and one of Charlie’s Angels, or a magical creature who could fly. My friends and I centered our make-believe play on such things, and I still managed to center my life around Christ – go figure

Gertie

 

[adstrinity]

Let us all take note that nobody has voted, “Harry Potter Books are evil!”

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And the books are not evil.

I personally find problematic issues in them because of the ambiguity of much of the writing (as is demonstrated in how many people can take a passage and find Christian themes of self-sacrifice, love, daring to do the right thing etc. while as many others can look at the same passages and find hubris, love --acceptable if it’s the right character, i…e. Harry or people who accept Harry; not noted or accepted if the character is perceived as 'against Harry-- and disobedience to authority presented as ‘all right if the situation worked out well’, even if the disobedience was not required (or only required in the mind of some of the characters), etc.

JK admitted herself on her website that she personally disliked certain characters, specifically Severus Snape, and expressed astonishment that he had garned the kind of admiration that he did. IOW, she was astonished that a character whom SHE disliked could be ‘liked’ by others. In her books, characters she likes will have any bad or problematic behavior ‘excused’ because she DOES like them. Arthur, for example, physically assaults Lucius Malfoy in book 2. No matter how much Lucius ‘asked for it’ (and he was very insulting), a physical altercation is no way to solve things, and if Arthur had pulled this in a Muggle world he could have been jailed. Furthermore, Lucius goes on to put Riddle’s book in with Ginny’s things as a direct result of this assault. . .so Arthur’s actions were certainly a major factor in his daughter getting exposed to the book in the first place. Certainly Lucius was the main instigator. . .but Arthur is by no means blameless though JK puts no blame on him at all. Even in book 7, after Draco and his mother had both acted to save Harry on separate occasions, Harry barely nods to Draco when sending the offspring off to Hogwarts. . .Gryfindor still HATES anybody ‘Slytherin’, all the old prejudices are still there as if there had never been a battle against Voldemort where all fought against him–yes, even Slytherin despite a snit fit by Prof. McGonigal which severely dampened my previous admiration of her as a character.

It could have been 17 years ago. . .There is still one BAD house, Ron still ‘gets by’ on magic and being “Harry’s friend”, Arthur still has a prejudice FOR Muggles, apparently the children don’t even know WHY people are looking at Harry, etc.

 

[estesbob]

It could have been 17 years ago. . .There is still one BAD house, Ron still ‘gets by’ on magic and being “Harry’s friend”, Arthur still has a prejudice FOR Muggles, apparently the children don’t even know WHY people are looking at Harry, etc.

And people still overanalyze the Harry Potter books. I can not believe there is actually ANOTHER Harry Potter Thread.

For the record i loved the books. i have read them all at least three times and my fondest dream i to teach transfiguration at Hogwarts. Maybe my love of these books will fade when I “grow up”
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/12/12_1_126.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_131.gif

 

[estesbob]

As long as we are overananlyzing books and movies:

Today we will tackle one of the most insidious children’s books of all time. It was also made in a movie that helped propel the star of World War II.

I am speaking of the Wizard of Oz. It’s plot revolves around a young girl who ,having consistently flouted County leash laws, runs away keep from having her vicious dog put in the pound. She soon finds herself in a magical land where she proceeds to kill two loving sisters, one to steal her shoes and the other to keep her from burning infected straw that causes those exposed to it to dance like marionettes on a string & sing silly songs.

Having dispatched the two sisters she proceeds to help the Wizard of Oz defraud her “friends” - giving a fake diploma to a scarecrow, engages in medical malpractice by giving the tin man a nonfunctioning heart and sets a Lion up for sure death next time he is in a battle when he finds out a fake medal bestows no courage on him.

The movie also demeans short people, contain gross cruelty to animals in scenes were fake wings were glued on monkeys and the monkeys and thrown off the parapets of a castle and, promotes pollution when “Surrender Dorothy” is written in the sky in toxic smoke .

To top it all off after putting her companions through pure hell ,convincing than she needed their help to get home , it turns out she could’ve gotten home any time she wanted with help from no one.

Germany ,seing the great harm this movie could cause its children invaded Poland to keep the movie from opening there bringing about World War II.

 

[estesbob]

More crack analysis from estesbob:

Let us look at the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe usng Harry Potter is evil standards:

The book starts with gruesome scenes of the blitz in London.Fou children are caught up in this and are abandoned by their parents, that’s right their parents ship them off to strangers in the country. One can only imagine the terror this causes and children who are led to believe when the going gets rough your parents abandon you.

So the children end up in the country with a mean governess and the standoffish professor. The author fills us with stories about it is OK be disobedient . During one of their illicit games in the part of the house they are forbidden to go into they find a portal into a world of fantasy.

This world is harsh beyond belief. Magic rules. Brother betray their siblings for candy. One little girl is even kidnapped by a half man half horse and given a drug to knock her unconscious. Children can only imagine what happened to this poor child during the time she was unconscious.

In this world the author expresses his hatred of women. Women are either portrayed as young children to be abused or coldhearted witches. The role models in this world are animals. One can only imagine how many children have been killed and maimed approaching what they thought would be friendly animals.

The whole book is based on the premise that the end justifies the means. Accordingly the fact that children ultimately end up hacking characters to death with broadswords and/or beating them to them death with rocks is presented as something good. The lead Character in this bizarre land of magic rips the only adult women in this book to shreds-with his teeth! And as in Harry Potter there are undertones of homosexuality. Just why does the author have the children coming out of the closet at books end?

 

[Holly3278]

I just think it is a mistake to assume that Cardinal Ratzinger had even read the books before making the comment. We don’t know exactly to what “subtle deceptions” he was even referring, and he only wrote two lines on the subject.

BUT … I think it is perfectly fine for you to object to Harry Potter on your own grounds. I don’t doubt that the ideas of practical magic introduced in Harry Potter could be tempting to a certain type of child who wishes to gain more control over his environment. Frank Peretti addressed this quite well in his short book (and audiotape) The Wounded Spirit.

I absolutely support your decision not to permit your children to read Harry Potter, if that is what you believe is best for them. Every parent ought to take a look at the books before deciding whether or not to allow their children to read them. I don’t have a problem with them personally, because I plan to read along with my children and discuss the negative and positive aspects. There is great self-sacrifice and redemption at the end, and it sends a powerful message. But again, this is for everyone to decide individually after having read the material.

Thank you for your support. It is appreciated.

 

[Gertabelle]

More crack analysis from estesbob:

Let us look at the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe usng Harry Potter is evil standards:

:bigyikes: :clapping: :bigyikes:

Dang, you a funny, funny man. Thanks for the laugh!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I know. . .there are so many different ‘camps’.

As you know, I am certainly not one of the "these books are evil and satanic’. They aren’t. Some of the imagery is, well, magical. Though there are problems all through (and one could argue that there are problems in any 'epic literature) IMO, there are also passages, and characters, of great depth, beauty, and distinction…

Just to show I am not the compleat crab. . .I will mention Neville Longbottom. Neville is presented with great ingenuity and his story, unlike many others’, ‘rings true’ all the way through the books. . .a noteworthy feat.

From Neville’s introduction as the pitiful ‘klutz’, to his last appearance as the Hogwarts teacher, respected and indeed loved, his transformation is done wisely, credibly, and cleverly. The twist of his and Harry’s being born the same day such that Neville “could have been” the One of the prophecy was frankly one of the best done twists I’ve seen in recent literature. Neville’s growth was handled with consummate skill.

And while I have had the difficulties mentioned above over Hermione’s changes, which I found much more problematic, forced, and unsympathetic, her character was indeed an interesting one. I found myself rooting more for her to “go back” to what she used to be though --while still sympathizing with her as, the way JK was writing her, her transition was inevitable. . .Hermione, after the first ‘lie’ incident, really does not have the ‘tests’ other characters can face. Once she has ‘fallen’, so to speak, she pretty much repeats the same fall in subsequent books. . .subordinating her will first to help Harry, then Ron. . .until finally she doesn’t even think of a possible option of going ‘against’ deception and removes all memory of having a daughter from her parents (in a passage which is notable for showing JK’s slackening of the reins, as she later tells the others she has never done a ‘mind altering’ spell. . .um. . . and is an example not only of not consulting her OWN PARENTS but taking over the ‘authority’ and just wiping her ‘existence’ from their minds without even consulting them. Most of us who are parents would find such tactics from our 18 year old children objectionable.

But I promised to stick to some of the things I liked. OK, the Hogwarts Express (the whole idea of a ‘alternate’ platform was well thought). Hogwarts itself and the whole atmosphere. Descriptions (at least at first) of Quidditch. . .such a different concept. Much of Hagrid’s character. . .my daughter and I were hoping HE was the 'half blood prince" --I mean, hey, giant and wizard, with the giant part the half and with the giants pretty much despised, much cooler than the very tame “Mudblood” antipathy of some wizards against muggles. . .

And one thing that I would personally have changed: Come on, if Lupin was a werewolf, why on earth couldn’t Severus have been part wizard, part VAMPIRE? I mean, the pallor, the night walking, the POTIONS. . .much cooler.