Speaking for myself, ONLY for myself, out of many years of experience in both the education and the literary field as well as prayerfully considering this work (as I consider any literary work which either I, or others, have noted to be making an impact on people), I have some concerns in some PARTICULAR scenes or characters which on thorough re-reading and evaluation raise some ‘issues’ with me from the standpoint, not ‘merely’ of a Catholic mother, but as a human being.
That’s completely fair. Nobody is asking you to like the books, or to give them to your kids if you don’t like them. Nobody is saying, “
Harry Potter is great literature, and will be the required reading for Grade 7 English this year.” Not at all. It’s just one of the many books out there that we can choose from - or not - as we like.
Now I could be wrong. (I’ve been wrong before and I’ll be wrong again before I die, no question). But I just did not see, from that ‘lie’ in book 1 through the rest of the series, the kind of ‘moral foundation’ that should be in a work that is purported to be of the magnitude and IMPACT and INFLUENCE on not just children but ‘everybody’, and that IS in similar works.
How are you getting that idea? This is a book series that was written by a woman who was bored and had nothing else to do at the time. She amused herself by finishing it and sending it in to a publisher, and for whatever reason, someone liked it, and it got published, and then someone thought it was “demonic” and published something to that effect, thus providing controversy and free advertising, so everyone had to buy a copy to see what the fuss was about.
That’s all. Nobody,
ever, intended this book to be a “classic of English literature,” or a “model” of anything, or a “morality tale” of any kind, etc. She wrote it to entertain herself, and she published it because she wanted to see what would happen (never expecting anything in particular to happen) and the rest is history.
And so I wonder, is this a ‘new’ development? Is this indicative that a sizeable majority of people have accepted that the moral foundation of humanity has ‘changed’? Is J.K. merely reflecting that change passively, or more actively? What does that mean for any of us?
Let me ask you something else - what are your thoughts about
Anne of Green Gables? (Though portrayed as a Protestant Christian, she worships dryads - tree spirits. This is portrayed as normal teenage girl behaviour in the books.)
What about
The Secret Garden? Mary and Colin lie not only to the governess, but also to Colin’s
doctor about his condition, and not only is this portrayed as normal, it’s even lauded as “healthy” when the doctor finally realizes what’s going on - Mary is
praised for sneaking Colin out into the garden, while pretending to nurse him at his sick-bed. Only the governess (who is portrayed as being the next-best thing to a child-eating witch) points out that if Colin had, in fact, been suffering from the condition for which he had been diagnosed, Mary’s actions would likely have killed him. But the doctor reproves her for being too strict with the children.
And what about
Peter Pan? Where to even begin, with
Peter Pan?
Kidnapping, extortion, lying, running away, murder, and suicide - all portrayed as, if not good, at least as normal.
The Wizard of Oz has similar problems.
All of these books were written approximately 100 years ago, and for similar reasons to why
Harry Potter was written. Somehow, they became classics of children’s literature, but not because they portrayed Christian morality, or taught children the proper way to behave in society.
