Pro-Potter or Anti-Potter?

[Melissa]

That’s kind of interesting, because quite a number of people here have claimed that it’s story of good vs. evil.

I presume that you disagree with them as well.

The Harry Potter novels are a story in which the good vs. evil conflict is a major theme–that does not turn them into a Christian morality tale for children. It’s not like a light switch that is either on or off.

Next question, since it is not a morality tale, would it have been acceptable for Harry to, for example, rape Herminoe?

Would it have been just as acceptable for teens to read? What it he did it using magical means, such as via the Imperious Curse?

And what, pray tell, is the point of asking such ridiculous questions?

 

[Brendan]

I must say, that in the course of these threads, I have seen two main themes in defense of Harry’s behavior

1. That it’s just fiction\fantasy. The logical flaw there is that ANYTHIING could then be shown, as long as it’s done in a fantasy setting, rape, murder, slavery, torture are all fine, as long as the genre of the novel is labeled as ‘fiction’ or ‘fantasy’
2. That Harry’s INTENT was good. This is never a justification for using evil means. For example, could a person enslave others to build a hosptial for the poor? No, that would still be immoral. Ends do not justify the means.

 

[Brendan]

The Harry Potter novels are a story in which the good vs. evil conflict is a major theme–that does not turn them into a Christian morality tale for children. It’s not like a light switch that is either on or off.

Why should we then give materials to children that show the use of what any Christian would define as an evil act presented in a positive light? Simply because it is entertaining?

And what, pray tell, is the point of asking such ridiculous questions?

If it’s simply fiction or fantasy, then rape should be just as allowable in a main character as torture, correct?

 

[TraditionalCath]

anti potter. totally.

 

[brittrossiter]

I am on the fence between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and I am on the fence on this as well.

I have read every word of every HP book. They are very well written and very well plotted, and they get kids reading, which is good. (But the same could be said about Philip Pullman’s “His Dark Materials” trilogy, and those books are straight from the pits of hell, so being well written is hardly a trustworthy gauge of the books’ value.)

Rowling deals with subject of witchcraft far too casually for me, and there is something of a moral relativist tone that permeates the books in ways that is difficult to describe, but that bothers me greatly. The total absence of God is also a big minus.

 

[Brendan]

Rowling deals with subject of witchcraft far too casually for me, and there is something of a moral relativist tone that permeates the books in ways that is difficult to describe, but that bothers me greatly. The total absence of God is also a big minus.

The ‘witchcraft’ is something I can give or take, I certainly don’t have any objection to Gilinda from the Wizard of Oz.

But you are certainly correct, Moral Relativism is the main thread of the book, and the absence of any reference to God is also interesting.

Other than a hospital named after St. Mungo (a true saint from the 7th century) and a ghost monk, there is no reference to God or clergy. We are never introduced to Hogwart’s Chaplain, for example.

That would normally not be usual in a Fantasy novel, but when the 'Wizarding World" is supposedly so intertwined with the “Muggle World”, it’s a noticeable lack.

 

[jmcrae]

Actually, he does quite the opposite. He regularly resorts to evil means to accomplish his ends.

If by “evil” you mean “magic,” yes, he does. But the “magic” he uses is purely imaginary. He talks backwards and waves a stick around. Nobody in the real world will ever be turned into a pumpkin - or anything else - if children imitate this.

No, you are quite incorrect, Harry’s character is that the ends justify the means. Why should children be shown that as a supposed model of heroic behavior?

Peter Pan’s behaviour is also reprehensible (he uses treachery to get the Lost Boys into trouble with the pirates, and then lies to get himself out of trouble, and takes advantage of weakness to destroy Captain Hook instead of fighting him face to face) - why no hue and cry over this?

Merlin the Magician in the King Arthur stories does a lot of immoral things, too - no hue and cry there, either.

 

[jmcrae]

The ‘witchcraft’ is something I can give or take, I certainly don’t have any objection to Gilinda from the Wizard of Oz.

But you are certainly correct, Moral Relativism is the main thread of the book, and the absence of any reference to God is also interesting.

Other than a hospital named after St. Mungo (a true saint from the 7th century) and a ghost monk, there is no reference to God or clergy. We are never introduced to Hogwart’s Chaplain, for example.

It’s a public school - public schools don’t have chaplains.

That would normally not be usual in a Fantasy novel, but when the 'Wizarding World" is supposedly so intertwined with the “Muggle World”, it’s a noticeable lack.

Why are you assuming that Hogwarts should be a Catholic school?

 

[Brendan]

It’s a public school - public schools don’t have chaplains.

Actually, Hogwarts is NOT a public school. Tom Riddle expressed concern that he would not be able to pay the tuition. In addition, the Mrs. Weasley lamented the cost of tuition, robes and books.

On the other hand, in Order of the Phoenix, it was mentioned that the Ministry also provides funds.

Why are you assuming that Hogwarts should be a Catholic school?

First of all, ALL schools should be Catholic schools, but that’s another discussion

Though I didn’t say ‘Catholic’, but English boarding schools generally have chaplains, usually Anglicans though.

 

[TomPiltoff]

If it’s simply fiction or fantasy, then rape should be just as allowable in a main character as torture, correct?

Not in a childrens book, no.

But the same logic applies.

Is an adult who reads a book involving rape and torture going to in turn commit those acts or be influenced by them? No.

 

[jmcrae]

Actually, Hogwarts is NOT a public school. Tom Riddle expressed concern that he would not be able to pay the tuition. In addition, the Mrs. Weasley lamented the cost of tuition, robes and books.

On the other hand, in Order of the Phoenix, it was mentioned that the Ministry also provides funds.

I meant “public” in the sense of an English public boarding school - a school that charges fees (like a University or a college) but that doesn’t discriminate with regard to religion or race.

 

[HannahLisa]

My parents weren’t sure about Harry Potter for a while. I believe my mother thought I just wasn’t ready for them, and I wasn’t particularly interested in them. Then my father saw a trailer for the first movie, thought it looked interesting, and my parents said I could watch it. I was about thirteen at the time. I read the first four books, loved them, went to the book release parties for books five and six with my dad and siblings, and was only prevented from going to the party for book seven because I was on a mission trip at the time.

 

[Elmtree]

I am Catholic and Pro-Potter (sounds like a 12 step intro, no?)
.

LOL, it does! I’m also Catholic and basically pro-Potter (but I think each parent has to look at the books and see if they are appropriate for their children, as they probably ought to do with most books).

I pre-read most of the early books due to the flap about them. I found no problem as far as the use of “magic” (which was total storybook. My family has no aversion to fantasy or fantasy “magic” in literature. We avoid evil that is evil, be it in fantasy or any other genre).

My initial problem was Harry’s lying and generally awful behavior. But my kids saw quickly that Harry put his friends in danger with that behavior. The kids were smarter than I gave them credit for. They didn’t need the books “explained” (though we had many a discussion about moral issues due to the books). They could see bad behavior led to problems.

I think the concern over the books is a bit out of proportion. The books are NOT Holy Writ. They are not evil either. They are modern books, and will have some problems almost every modern book has, but they have far LESS than most I’ve seen for kids. Good is for the most part GOOD, and evil is EVIL and should be battled. And while the war against good and evil is going on outside Harry, it’s also going on INSIDE harry.

I do NOT think the books are for young children. There is too much depth and complexity. They are grown up books that some children can read.

Overall they’ve been a blessing to our family. But they (like the brouhaha around them) need to be taken in perspective.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The total absence of God is also a big minus.

Why does God have to be present in a story ?​

The true God is certainly not present in the Greek & Latin classics - a literary position which excludes all of them from the list of great books for that reason, has something wrong with it. It means in effect that all pre-Christian non-Jewish literature has to be ignored or rejected.

 

[Elmtree]

God is present where there is Truth and Beauty, and I’d say he is present in much literature that doesn’t specifically name him.

 

[Baptista]

Coming back later to read the rest of this thread, but posting my reply now.

I’m Catholic, a mother, aunt and grandmother, and I am pro-Potter. I may not have even picked up one of the books if it hadn’t been for a nephew who was reading them. He brought the first three books to me and asked if I’d read them so he’d have someone to discuss them with. Ok, I’m a good sport.

I got hooked! There was no controversy at the time that I was aware of, no arguing going on around me about how ‘evil’ the books were. They were just books. And very well written in my opinion. They are entertaining, and they do teach a lesson here and there. Lessons about loyalty, bravery, learning from our mistakes, etc.

Are there ‘magic spells’ in the books? Sure, it’s about a kid who is a wizard, for crying out loud. There are ‘magic spells’ in the majority of children’s stories I read as a child myself.

None of the children I know who have read the books, including my nephew, who is now 19, have thought that they could perform magic by chanting any of the ‘spells’ they read. Any more than I thought I could turn a pumpkin into a carriage by singing, “Bibbity-bobbity-boo” when I was little.

I love the books, I love the movies. And I’m also a fan of the LOTR series of books and movies, and the Narnia tales. I am not comparing the works, as others have done that extensively. I just fail to see the “fairness” in saying it’s okay to have magic in some stories but not others. Not just the Harry Potter books come under ‘attack’ by many Christians. I’ve heard horrible criticisms of “Cinderella”, “Beauty and the Beast”, “Snow White”, on and on. But for some reason, the HP series has engendered the loudest critics and supporters. At least in the pesent time. I wonder how some of the other children’s tales were received in their own time? It would be interesting to find out, no?

 

[Keikiolu]

…{snip}…

I just fail to see the “fairness” in saying it’s okay to have magic in some stories but not others.

…{snip}…

But for some reason, the HP series has engendered the loudest critics and supporters. At least in the pesent time. I wonder how some of the other children’s tales were received in their own time? It would be interesting to find out, no?

I was fully PRO-HP before JK interjected a “non-answered” sexual-behavior question into A FINISHED WORK, simply (apparently) to stir up controversy.

Until she answers the ambiguity she gratuitously BOMBED the readers, or more importantly the PARENTS of the readers, of her work with, she should be boycotted entirely as a literary terrorist, bent on anti-Catholic (anti-Christian) indoctrination by very clever subterfuge.

The “magic” is not the issue. That’s a protestant hang-up.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Miserissima]

I do not find a book where the ‘hero’ uses torture with impunity ( and simply for revenge purposes, as if torture could be justified at all). And compound that with the use of State sponsored torture, I can’t see how it would be appropriate for children to read these books.

Rawlings should have stuck to the premise of the first two books, where ‘love’ and ‘good’ had their traditional meanings.

This is why I like Harry Potter.

Good literature doesn’t sway you to one side or another. Good literature isn’t something you always agree with. Good literature makes you sit down and think, and can challenge where your heart lies.

In the case of Harry Potter, we have to ask ourselves the questions that Brendan just asked. We have the opportunity to examine ourselves through the looking glass of characters in a book.

What, in this relative fantasy world, do we see? When I recognize a profound passage, what does that say about me as a person, and collectively about us as a culture? Do I agree with it? Why or why not?

So, Harry Potter can raise the level of discourse both technically, with vocabulary words, and by addressing broad, sweeping ideas. It makes people re-evaluate what they have held to be true and either they come out with having learned something or defending what they believe in even more strongly. Or, even if they don’t agree with a character’s choice, they may be able to understand the character’s motive. That is the Magic of Harry Potter.

Conversely, I don’t like Harry Potter because of Rawling’s writing style can be…ham-handed at times. Additionally, I prefer the Earthsea Series…but that’s another topic.

 

[Baptista]

I was fully PRO-HP before JK interjected a “non-answered” sexual-behavior question into A FINISHED WORK, simply (apparently) to stir up controversy.

I thought we were discussing the books, not what the author has “revealed” in a recent interview? There was no hint of Dumbledore having had any sexual encounters - straight OR gay - in any of the books.

Until she answers the ambiguity she gratuitously BOMBED the readers, or more importantly the PARENTS of the readers, of her work with, she should be boycotted entirely as a literary terrorist, bent on anti-Catholic (anti-Christian) indoctrination by very clever subterfuge.

Again, I was answering a question about the books. About the story contained therein. Not about the author, nor about the recent brouhaha over the supposed sexual bent of a fictional character who in said books never acted upon this inclination. And if she wants this character to actually BE gay in the minds of the readers, then they must also see that he was chaste, which would follow Catholic and non-Catholic Christian teachings. (hate the sin, not the sinner)

The “magic” is not the issue. That’s a protestant hang-up

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

Well, I’m glad to see something isn’t the issue. (as she tries to inject a lighter note… )

And I apologize for the mess of the middle quote up there. I can’t seem to ‘fix’ it.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif *I was fully PRO-HP before JK interjected a “non-answered” sexual-behavior question into A FINISHED WORK, simply (apparently) to stir up controversy.*I thought we were discussing the books, not what the author has “revealed” in a recent interview? There was no hint of Dumbledore having had any sexual encounters - straight OR gay - in any of the books.

The context, as I see it, was the “Dumbledore Controversy”, and not a general “What do you think of the writin?”

Are you unaware of the “Dumbledore has [at least] SSA!!” post-writing announcement?

Quote:Until she answers the ambiguity she gratuitously BOMBED the readers, or more importantly the PARENTS of the readers, of her work with, she should be boycotted entirely as a literary terrorist, bent on anti-Catholic (anti-Christian) indoctrination by very clever subterfuge.
Again, I was answering a question about the books. About the story contained therein. Not about the author, nor about the recent brouhaha over the supposed sexual bent of a fictional character who in said books never acted upon this inclination. And if she wants this character to actually BE gay in the minds of the readers,** then they must also see that he was chaste, which would follow Catholic and non-Catholic Christian teachings**. (hate the sin, not the sinner)

Has she stated that Dumbledore is and always has been chaste, in the Catholic sense of the word?

If she has, then I’m once again a huge fan of HP…!

If she hasn’t, then she’s left us in an “odd state” as to being able to support a potential anti-Catholic work of literature.

Quote:
The “magic” is not the issue. That’s a protestant hang-upWell, I’m glad to see something isn’t the issue. (as she tries to inject a lighter note… )

And I apologize for the mess of the middle quote up there. I can’t seem to ‘fix’ it.

I think I’ve fixed the wacky formatting, which is ALWAYS a bane to correct once it’s gotten mucked up.

…And LotR (any one of them) always makes me cry when I watch it.

I’m such a sentimental sappy fellow.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.