Harry Potter

[Rand_Al_Thor]

He is not Christ. Narnia does not exist. Aslan does not exist. He is never called Christ, he is called Aslan. I cannot look up “Aslan” in the Bible. Narnia is allegorical, not descriptive in the actual sense.

That’s not the definition of allegory. It is a work of fiction, obviously, and I never claimed you could find Aslan in the Bible or that Narnia exists in real life. You are confusing the terms “allegory” and “fiction”. In Lewis’s fictional story, Aslan IS Christ. If, in Lewis’s fictional story, Aslan were to only represent Christ, that would be allegory. Just because something is fictional, that does not mean it is also allegorical.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

It’s not whether spells are cast or not by the good guys. My point is about desensitization. The point is that the christian values make it more susceptible for desensitization.

This is based on the obviously flawed premise that real life occult resemble the fantastical phenomenon that magic in fantasy really is.

 

[Portrait]

That’s not the definition of allegory. It is a work of fiction, obviously, and I never claimed you could find Aslan in the Bible or that Narnia exists in real life. You are confusing the terms “allegory” and “fiction”. In Lewis’s fictional story, Aslan IS Christ. If, in Lewis’s fictional story, Aslan were to only represent Christ, that would be allegory. Just because something is fictional, that does not mean it is also allegorical.

Dear Rand AI’Thor,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hear, hear, jolly well said. If only young people would consign Potter to the wastepaper basket and drink deeply from the wells of Mr. Lewis. His works are unapologetically Christian, which is why they stand in stark contrast to Rowling’s inferior Potter series.

Aslan is in Mr. Lewis’ Chronicles based unmistakably upon Christ and in all seven books he steers the children away from evil and encourages them to take the path of virtue. As a matter of fact, dear friend, Aslan is clearly established from the very outset of the entire canon as being a Christ figure. In fact, Mr. Lewis himself said that the books are replete with Christian symbolism, covering such subjects as Heaven and the consumation of all things. All this is as far away from Potter as the east is from the west.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Pheonix]

If it be said by way of reply that she did not say that Dumbledore was a practicing homosexual and that his sexual proclivity is never revealed in the books themselves,

Rowling has stated that Dumbledore led a “celibate, bookish lifestyle.” The only person he ever harbored romantic feelings for was his former best friend, Gellert Grindelwald. Grindelwald, however, did not return those feelings. And, once Dumbledore realized the monster that Grindelwald was, he rejected those feelings of attraction.

then I would say first, that Rowling is evidently defering to politically correct ideology and declaring that she espouses ‘inclusivist’ opinions and is not opposed to homosexual deviant acts;

This is an unsubstantiated claim, Portrait. We have no reason to assume that Rowling is, in fact, espousing what you claim here. Occam’s Razor, remember?

 

[jimmy]

This is based on the obviously flawed premise that real life occult resemble the fantastical phenomenon that magic in fantasy really is.

No it isn’t. It is simply that Lotr can be a gateway drug just like weed (or drinking) can. Many people are introduced to the fantasy world through Lotr and narnia.

I am not arguing against fantasy novels. I am making a point that HP isn’t any worse than Lotr or narnia when it comes to desensitization. Your point only affirms my point. Fantasy isn’t anything like the real world. The occult isn’t a bunch of kids running around screaming ‘lumos’. If it is then they are no different than the larpers, other than that maybe they believe that what they are doing is actually effective.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Your point only affirms my point. Fantasy isn’t anything like the real world. The occult isn’t a bunch of kids running around screaming ‘lumos’. If it is then they are no different than the larpers, other than that maybe they believe that what they are doing is actually effective.

And what loopy-logic universe does having one different reality (fictional ones no less) become a gateway to exploring a different one?

 

[jimmy]

And what loopy-logic universe does having one different reality (fictional ones no less) become a gateway to exploring a different one?

What is your point? And how does that have to do with what I said? I am not arguing against Lotr or Harry potter or any fantasy book. As I said, I am making a point about HP being no different than Lotr.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

What is your point? And how does that have to do with what I said? I am not arguing against Lotr or Harry potter or any fantasy book. As I said, I am making a point about HP being no different than Lotr.

Yeah, as a gateway to the occult, which, as I stated in my point, is ridiculous because the occult is actually a far different thing.

Now you actually agree with that but in no way do I see you give a logical explanation how what is essentially an apple opens the gateway to an orange.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I’m re-reading Deathly Hallows right now. Great book.

I believe it also contains the biblical quote, “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Of course it can work as a sort of “gateway drug”, if the parents don’t make a point to distinguish fiction from reality. In the same way Oliver Twist could be a gateway drug to living on the streets and stealing to live, or Hamlet could be a gateway drug to believing that the supernatural can ask you to murder. It’s silly. If you distinguish fiction from reality this shouldn’t be a problem.

 

[Actaeon]

Of course it can work as a sort of “gateway drug”, if the parents don’t make a point to distinguish fiction from reality. In the same way Oliver Twist could be a gateway drug to living on the streets and stealing to live, or Hamlet could be a gateway drug to believing that the supernatural can ask you to murder. It’s silly. If you distinguish fiction from reality this shouldn’t be a problem.

I think the point is that SOME young children don’t. I have two wonderful nieces who took a disconcerting interest in magic after watching the Harry Potter films… and wouldn’t you know they wanted to visit several shops in our hometown that are run by wiccans and sell new age “magic” type implements.

The problem is more pronounced with the production of movies about the books, whereby younger target audiences who have NOT yet learned to distinguish between the harmlessness of fantasy and the danger of real world witchcraft are exposed to such materials.

That’s not an argument to block children from Harry Potter films (or the books, when they are old enough to read them)… but there certainly IS a need to discuss the subject matter with young children (as I did with my nieces at the time). Fun fact: I have a scar on my forehead (not a lightning bolt, but in the same place as “Harry’s” scar), and we related the discussion with them asking me if I had the scar because I was “friends” with Harry Potter. There you have it, the :twocents: from a guy that kids thought was friends with the Potter himself.

 

[Baelor]

That’s not the definition of allegory.

I never actually defined allegory, so nothing I said could be an incorrect definition of it.

Allegory is as follows:
OED:

1. The use of symbols in a story, picture, etc., to convey a hidden or ulterior meaning, typically a moral or political one; symbolic representation. Also: the interpretation of this.
2. A story, picture, etc. which uses symbols to convey a hidden or ulterior meaning, typically a moral or political one; a symbolic representation; an extended or continued metaphor.
3. A character or figure that symbolically represents someone or something else; an emblem, a symbol.

Note that allegory is literally “other-speaking” from its Greek roots.

One may also draw the correct conclusion that Aslan is an allegory.

You are confusing the terms “allegory” and “fiction”.

I am not. I know perfectly well what they mean.

In Lewis’s fictional story, Aslan IS Christ.

That is not what you said before. You simply stated that Aslan IS Christ. How can I ever hope to identify your position when you change it so swiftly?

Your first statement was broad. Your second is narrow, confined to the perspectives of the characters in Narnia.

If, in Lewis’s fictional story, Aslan were to only represent Christ, that would be allegory. Just because something is fictional, that does not mean it is also allegorical.

The second sentence is obviously true.

From the author himself:
CS Lewis:

If Aslan represented the immaterial Deity, he would be an allegorical figure. In reality however, he is an invention giving an imaginary answer to the question, 'What might Christ become like if there really were a world like Narnia and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?' This is not allegory at all.

So although Aslan is not allegorical to the Narnians, he is fundamentally allegorical to us. This is because he is not actually Christ; CS Lewis does not claim that Narnia exists in real life; Aslan is not another term for Christ; Christ did not transform into a lion and visit the Narnians.

Here the fictional nature of the text is certainly relevant to its allegorical nature.

 

[Jala]

If something isn’t leading you to God it’s leading you away from Him.

So I suppose I should stop doing housework, for the sake of my eternal soul?

If something isn’t leading you* to *God, and it isn’t leading you *away from *God, then it’s NEUTRAL.

Jala

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I think the point is that SOME young children don’t. I have two wonderful nieces who took a disconcerting interest in magic after watching the Harry Potter films… and wouldn’t you know they wanted to visit several shops in our hometown that are run by wiccans and sell new age “magic” type implements.

The problem is more pronounced with the production of movies about the books, whereby younger target audiences who have NOT yet learned to distinguish between the harmlessness of fantasy and the danger of real world witchcraft are exposed to such materials.

That’s not an argument to block children from Harry Potter films (or the books, when they are old enough to read them)… but there certainly IS a need to discuss the subject matter with young children (as I did with my nieces at the time). Fun fact: I have a scar on my forehead (not a lightning bolt, but in the same place as “Harry’s” scar), and we related the discussion with them asking me if I had the scar because I was “friends” with Harry Potter. There you have it, the :twocents: from a guy that kids thought was friends with the Potter himself.

You just agreed with my said. The parents need to teach the children to distinguish fiction from reality. If not, it’ll cause problems whatever you read. This is such common sense though that I think the whole debate is silly. The books are no more harmful than any other book. Of course you need to tell your kids that they’re fictional. If you don’t, yeah, there MAY be problems-but who’s fault is that? Not the books.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

It IS strongly implied in “Voyage of the Dawn Treader” that Lewis intended Aslan to be Christ but incarnate in the form of a lion as opposed to a man in Narnia. For whatever that’s worth.

 

[YoungIreland]

Looking at this thread, tbh, I think there are far more serious and aggressive threats to the faith of children than this. It is after all a fictional children’s story. It’s like trying to pick at ants when there is a bull charging straight at you. :twocents:

 

[Actaeon]

You just agreed with my said. The parents need to teach the children to distinguish fiction from reality. If not, it’ll cause problems whatever you read. This is such common sense though that I think the whole debate is silly. The books are no more harmful than any other book. Of course you need to tell your kids that they’re fictional. If you don’t, yeah, there MAY be problems-but who’s fault is that? Not the books.

Ah, I see… these potter-threads are so charged with sarcasm that I misread your reference to Hamlet and Oliver Twist as sarcasm negating what you’d said about Harry Potter.

Glad we’re on the same page

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Ah, I see… these potter-threads are so charged with sarcasm that I misread your reference to Hamlet and Oliver Twist as sarcasm negating what you’d said about Harry Potter.

Glad we’re on the same page

Alas, you will also likely be approached by those who insist there’s really something evil about the books… after which they will bombard with you personal exorcism accounts, talks of voodoo in Haiti, draw sympathy by playing the spiritual/religious card, and then keep pointing you to consult the likes of Fr. Amorth as if exorcists were living saints.

 

[Actaeon]

Alas, you will also likely be approached by those who insist there’s really something evil about the books… after which they will bombard with you personal exorcism accounts, talks of voodoo in Haiti, draw sympathy by playing the spiritual/religious card, and then keep pointing you to consult the likes of Fr. Amorth as if exorcists were living saints.

chuckle oh no, I’m not getting involved in the actual debate here. My only point is that, like ALL things that we subject our children to, Potter, CoN, and LotR all need to be administered in age-appropriate context to ensure that children stay on the right path. That’s my ONLY point and I’m sticking to it! I have no interest in sarcasm, occult baiting, exorcist bashing, or book burning!

PS - you and I have had a discussion on the actual merits of HP before, where we delved into merits of particular symbolism and themes. Phoenix and you are both interesting to discuss that with. I honestly think that these threads would be more productive if instead of approaching HP from the “should it be totally disallowed” perspective, they were to ask HOW the books should be presented to children of various ages and what talking points should they be aware of to discuss with their children.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

That is not what you said before. You simply stated that Aslan IS Christ. How can I ever hope to identify your position when you change it so swiftly?

Well I apologize most profusely. I was under the impression you would be able to figure out that I don’t actually believe Narnia or a lion named Aslan exists in reality and was talking about the books themselves. Also, clarifying an earlier statement does not in any way amount to changing ones position.

Your first statement was broad. Your second is narrow, confined to the perspectives of the characters in Narnia.

Again, the second was a clarification I had to make because you obviously did not understand what I meant in my first post.

So although Aslan is not allegorical to the Narnians, he is fundamentally allegorical to us. This is because he is not actually Christ; CS Lewis does not claim that Narnia exists in real life; Aslan is not another term for Christ; Christ did not transform into a lion and visit the Narnians.

Here the fictional nature of the text is certainly relevant to its allegorical nature.

Well, I guess I don’t know how to explain it any clearer. I also don’t claim Narnia exists in real life. You quote CS Lewis himself saying that it is not allegory and use that to argue that it is. Again, just because something is fictional does not make it allegorical. According to that line of thinking, every work of fiction would be an allegory, or at least every work of fiction set in a fictional world other than ours. Narnia is fiction but not allegory.