Secular criticism of Harry Potter

[curlycool89]

An article in the 17th. December 2000 issue of Time magazine reported that a pagan organisation in Germany deals with an increasing number of young people which it credits to the Potter factor.

Which they probably did in order to piggy back on the popularity. Pagan doesn’t necessarily mean occult either.

Librarians in diverse social settings report that children in increasing numbers are requesting material from the occult sections of their stock, including witchcraft and satanic manuals.

It doesn’t even mention HP at all though.

In a survey conducted in the US in the summer of 2001, the Barna Research Group found that 41% of the adolescents polled had either seen the Potter film or read one or more of the books. As a result of watching the film or reading the books, 12% said they were more interested in actual witchcraft. Some 86% regularly watch films or TV programmes with occult themes. In order to determine how many of the survey-group were involved in psychic-occult experimentation, researches listed a variety of activities and asked which ones they had participatedn in. The list included consulting a psychic or medium, fortune telling, palm reading, playing with a Ouija board, playing a game that featured witchcraft and sorcery elements, participating in a seance, attempting to cast a spell and trying to mix a potion. The survey disturbingly revealed that 25% had experimented with three items on the list, 5% had engaged in all the items on the list, and approximately 66% had participated in at least one of these activities. Of the teenagers who had either seen the Harry Potter film or read the books, a staggering 74% told researchers that they had tried at least one item on the list. To sugest that the latter 74%were all unhinged in the first place is really special pleading that would not even be seriously broached unless one had a particular theory to uphold at all costs.

Those results are a bit higher than I expected (what, I completely expected you to find something). I have just a couple comments on the methods.

The portion that I highlighted above could easily encompass a whole whack of games, and it inevitably points out a bias in their report. Such a category would encompass say DnD. Nobody (except for crazy anti-Catholic John Chick) actually believes that DnD involves occult-like practices. Second, even anything based on Tolkien would contain magic elements (wizards, magic rings, seeing stones). Heck, any fantasy game would feature some sort of magic as it’s a pretty standard part of the fantasy genre. Because I don’t see any individual results, I can’t really fully trust a survey that includes such an all inclusive harmless category as “games that feature magic” (I know thats not what it say, but that’s exactly how people would interpret it). It’s pretty much the same thing we’re discussing here, fiction.
In fact, you’ll have to lump me with the 74% because I’ve played games that have sorcery & witchcraft in them (actually several, including Lord of the Rings games that include Gandalf, who is a wizard. Not the same type as HP, but I’m willing to bet that most people would not differentiate between them).

Secondly I want to comment on “regularly watch films or TV programmes with occult themes”. Again, more fiction. I watched the TV show Charmed, which is about witches. Interesting plots.

Thirdly, the only statistic that has any relevance is “As a result of watching the film or reading the books, 12% said they were more interested in actual witchcraft”. As for the other ones, it doesn’t say whether these people were influenced by HP or not, or whether they had even read/watched HP in the first place. According to the numbers, there are more people who watch “occult themed shows” then those who’ve read HP, so obviously not all of them were solely influenced by HP.

If you are trying to say that all these practices fall from HP, then the survey doesn’t back you up. All it says is that some people dabble in the occult (which is bad), and some people read HP, and some people that read HP are interested in the occult (which again is bad). The survey does not say that HP lead to all these people’s occult dabbling though.

 

[shondrea]

Potter is popular as all heck. Everyone and their dog has heard of it. Therefor, it’s gonna get blamed for everything.

I was a Charmed fan too. This show deals with Wicca, covens, ouiji boards, seances, conjuring the dead,. necromancy, pagan mythology and a lot more things that acvtually are derived from honest to goodness witchcraft. Watched it for yeeeears. With my devout Catholic father. And guess what. I still, STILL never wanted to get into witchcraft. Because it’s just a show.

You can’tr condemn something because SOMEONE MIGHT do something bad for it. I could get out of bed tomorrow and blaspheme God. I MIGHT get hit by a bus if I walk outside tomorrow. I MIGHT convert my religion if I have a protestant friend. I MIGHT want to build a giant fighting robot and fight terrorism from watching Code Geass. I MIGHT set fire to my workplace because my boss is a terrible manager. I MIGHT read a book with a lesbian character and decide I want to be gay. But the chances of these things actually happeneing? Next to zero.

Heck, I read The Amber Spyglass when i was 12, and looooved it. And guess what. Still not a God hating atheist who wants to kill our creator. Now, I MIGHT have been, but I’m not.

Because guess what. I knew it wasn’t real.

Also- playing a game? Since when is playing a gae a harmful thing? I roleplay fantasy all the time. And, you guessed it, still have no desire to conjure the dead.

 

[Melissa]

Dear Melissa,

Forgive me, but when you speak of “… the same arguments which have been hashed, rehashed, and proven false multiple times on this forum alone”, you appear to be making and unfounded assertion which really begs the question. That is merely supposition resulting from a one-sided subjective opinion. Indeed many posters who have engaged in the HP debate would most emphatically deny your claim that the arguments against the HP novels/films have been debunked “multiple times”.

I’m sorry I did not feel the need to include the links to the multitude of prior threads on the subject, though a forum search should reveal them. But it remains the case that there is nothing new in the non-secular arguments raised in this thread (which was my primary point). While it remains true that there are some people who will remain unconvinced even though the matter has been beaten until that poor horse is glue, it remains the case that most of the non-secular arguments against the content of Harry Potter are rife with post hoc, appeal to belief, confusion of cause and effect, appeals to authority (when we’re outside the area of expertise of said authorities) and factual errors such as substitution of magic/occult for the fantasy magic (resulting in the ‘it’s condemned in the Bible’ line of argument) or confusion of Wiccan practices with those of the Harry Potter novels.

On the contrary they would contend that they have been vindicated and demonstrated to be valid on numerous occasions both on CAF and elsewhere.

Likewise, this would be a one-sided subjective opinion.

Regarding Marcia Montenegro’s extensive research, can you please discuss these “logical fallacies” with which you allege she is guilty of. How are the arguments she employs against HP fallacious or untenable and therefore undeserving of our attention?

The primary logical fallacy is that of the straw man–the portrait she paints of the novels is, at best, a caricature of the content; as well as post hoc, appeal to belief, and confusion of cause and effect. This just from the small sampling I’ve found on-line, as I have no interest in funding her or her organization through purchasing her book.

 

[shondrea]

To bring this around to secular view for a moment, how about a few non religious points.

I’m no literary critic, so I can’t give an in depth review of her writing style, highlightsd and flaws. One thing I can say, however, is that the little details she included were always a favorite of mine.

I’m very obsessive over details. When I paint of write, it’s the details I love to embellish on. So when we knew exactly what sprt of delicious feast was spread out over the tqable, or what decorations adorned the Christmas trees, or read about the descriptions of the grounds and forest, I feel she did a very good job of explaining to us what she was seeing

 

[Transformer]

Ah yes, kids becoming steeped in the Occult because they read Harry Potter. I imagine it goes something like this.

Er, maybe not.

Perhaps some professional literary criticism of Harry Potter will reveal its occult undertones?

Well, huh…

 

[curlycool89]

Ah yes, kids becoming steeped in the Occult because they read Harry Potter. I imagine it goes something like this.

Er, maybe not.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

An article in the 17th. December 2000 issue of* Time* magazine reported that a pagan organisation in Germany deals with an increasing number of young people which it credits to the Potter factor.

In an interview with Newsweek, a spokesman for the Pagan Federation of England claimed that he receives on average 100 inquiries a month from young people who are desirous of becoming witches - an unprecedented number which he also attributes in part to the HP novels.

R.K. Rowling herself has expressed surprise at the volume of mail she receives from young readers writing to her as if Hogwarts was real and wanting to know how they can enrol at the school in order to become witches and wizards.

Librarians in diverse social settings report that children in increasing numbers are requesting material from the occult sections of their stock, including witchcraft and satanic manuals.

So a bunch of stupid kids make the case that Harry Potter magic and real world magic are the same? I’m with Nan S when I say this is not the fault of the books but bad parenting and information. You’d be surprised at how fantasy gamers like myself instantly woke up to knowing fantasy from reality when we realized there were nuts out there bashing our games on the grounds of witchcraft.

In a survey conducted in the US in the summer of 2001, the Barna Research Group found that 41% of the adolescents polled had either seen the Potter film or read one or more of the books. As a result of watching the film or reading the books, 12% said they were more interested in actual witchcraft. Some 86% regularly watch films or TV programmes with occult themes. In order to determine how many of the survey-group were involved in psychic-occult experimentation, researches listed a variety of activities and asked which ones they had participatedn in. The list included consulting a psychic or medium, fortune telling, palm reading, playing with a Ouija board, playing a game that featured witchcraft and sorcery elements, participating in a seance, attempting to cast a spell and trying to mix a potion. The survey disturbingly revealed that 25% had experimented with three items on the list, 5% had engaged in all the items on the list, and approximately 66% had participated in at least one of these activities. Of the teenagers who had either seen the Harry Potter film or read the books, a staggering 74% told researchers that they had tried at least one item on the list. To sugest that the latter 74%were all unhinged in the first place is really special pleading that would not even be seriously broached unless one had a particular theory to uphold at all costs.

Here’s a 2005 article in response to your 2001 statistics.

Also, the list is confusing. For instance, playing a game with “occult” elements or watching fiction with “occult” themes does not equal occult activity. Otherwise, I’d be in trouble for playing Yu-Gi-Oh! and watching Fate/Stay Night. What’s stopping me from saying that a majority of those 66% were just doing those? Also, define “casting a spell”. What exactly do they mean by mixing a potion?

Statistically speaking it is exceedingly difficult to prove precisely the number of young persons who have entered occultic subcultures as a direct result of reading the HP novels or watching the films However, given the myriads of young HP readers world-wide it must be conceded that a good many have; by the law of probabilities it is difficult to see how that conclusion can be avoided. Thus the case is virtually proved for all intents and purposes and any denial would appear to futile. So once again I must ask, would you not agree that even a single lost child to the occult, as a consequence of reading or watching HP, is a tragedy that we cannot afford to ignore as professing Christians?

Like what John said, we might as well be worried about every person who kills himself/herself trying to copy Superman.

Just to put the matter beyond any doubt, I am not, and indeed never have argued, that the HP books/films will inevitably lead their readers into satanic cults or witchcraft covens. However, I would concur with Father Gabriele Amorth, exorcist of the diocese of Rome, when he said quite bluntly, “Behind Harry Potter hides the signature of the king of darkness, the Devil”. As such these books have the potential at least to draw susceptible children into the occult and we cannot remain unconcerned with that disturbing fact.

I’ve read Amorth a bit and I definitely can say he’d have the same words regarding Lord of the Rings, Inkheart, Eragon, and The Wizard of Oz.

 

[Portrait]

I’m sorry I did not feel the need to include the links to the multitude of prior threads on the subject, though a forum search should reveal them. But it remains the case that there is nothing new in the non-secular arguments raised in this thread (which was my primary point). While it remains true that there are some people who will remain unconvinced even though the matter has been beaten until that poor horse is glue, it remains the case that most of the non-secular arguments against the content of Harry Potter are rife with post hoc, appeal to belief, confusion of cause and effect, appeals to authority (when we’re outside the area of expertise of said authorities) and factual errors such as substitution of magic/occult for the fantasy magic (resulting in the ‘it’s condemned in the Bible’ line of argument) or confusion of Wiccan practices with those of the Harry Potter novels.

Likewise, this would be a one-sided subjective opinion.

The primary logical fallacy is that of the straw man–the portrait she paints of the novels is, at best, a caricature of the content; as well as post hoc, appeal to belief, and confusion of cause and effect. This just from the small sampling I’ve found on-line, as I have no interest in funding her or her organization through purchasing her book.

Dear Melissa,

Are we not at cross purposes with one another? I was not disputing that there were an abundance of earlier threads on the HP controversy (indeed I’ve read some of them myself by way of research). Rather I was challenging your biased assertion that within in these threads the arguments against HP had been “proven false multiple times on this forum alone”, to use your own words. That is mere subjective opinion with which the anti-Potterites would beg to differ.

With reference to Marcia Montenegro, I am bound to say that again you are just expressing your own partisan opinion; if she has grossly overstated her case and is muddled in her thinking about “cause and effect”, then you have not demonstrated this as an incontrovertible and irrefutable fact. Moreover, you are making these unsupported claims not only without any solid evidence, but also on the basis of a “small sampling…found on line”. When you disdainfully add (sorry but that is the impression you give) that you have no interest funding her or her oganisation by purchasing her book, that manner of writing has a distinct whiff of prejudice about it, even if that was not your intention.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Melissa]

Are we not at cross purposes with one another? I was not disputing that there were an abundance of earlier threads on the HP controversy (indeed I’ve read some of them myself by way of research). Rather I was challenging your biased assertion that within in these threads the arguments against HP had been “proven false multiple times on this forum alone”, to use your own words. That is mere subjective opinion with which the anti-Potterites would beg to differ.

As I said, I do not expect to convince “anti-Potterites”, as it seems they, as a group, prefer the “don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is already made up” approach. But the evidence simply is not on their side (although I support individual parents’ rights to restrict their children’s reading lists). Arguments against the Harry Potter novels on non-secular grounds have included misrepresentation (for example, the claim that Pope Benedict XVI condemned the novels and attribution to Harry dialogue which actually was Voldemort’s), appeals to authority (for example, Fr. Amorth, whose expertise in the occult does not extend to expertise in fantasy literature), post hoc errors (attributing a rise in interest in the occult to this particular series of fantasy literature), quoting satire as though fact (while the Onion has apparently withdrawn the posting of the article in question, I have since seen that article verbatim attributed to a San Francisco publication), erroneous substitutions (thus the misuse of scripture condemning witchcraft to “prove” condemnation of the Harry Potter novels). I have yet to see a single religious argument against the novels which does not contain one or more of the above errors; it is for this reason that I say that the “anti-Potterite” arguments have been soundly refuted.

With reference to Marcia Montenegro, I am bound to say that again you are just expressing your own partisan opinion; if she has grossly overstated her case and is muddled in her thinking about “cause and effect”, then you have not demonstrated this as an incontrovertible and irrefutable fact. Moreover, you are making these unsupported claims not only without any solid evidence, but also on the basis of a “small sampling…found on line”. When you disdainfully add (sorry but that is the impression you give) that you have no interest funding her or her oganisation by purchasing her book, that manner of writing has a distinct whiff of prejudice about it, even if that was not your intention.

I would say, rather, that it is your bias which is showing here. Ms. Montenegro’s opinions are merely those–opinions by a self-credentialed individual (other than being a credentialed astrologist, which does not extend to any further expertise regarding fantasy literature) who plays fast and loose with the facts (facts here referring to the actual content of the novels). Certainly the articles seem, prima facie, to make sense–unless one starts from the unconvinced position to see that the article leaps from an unsupported statement to definitions and quotes which support her conclusion, not her premise.

 

[Portrait]

Dear Fellow Posters,

Cordial greetings to you all.

Unfortunately I will be away from CAF for a short while, but I shall, God willing, be back soon and look forward to continuing our debate.

Blessings be upon you and may the peace of God be yours.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

This debate always puzzles and saddens me. I always enjoyed the Harry Potter series and found it morally edifying as well in the way it glorifies self-sacrificial love, true friendship, and steadfast courage.

But John Granger opened my eyes to just how specific - and even downright allegorical at times - these books are in the context of the English and very Christian literary tradition in which they fit.

The book’s first chapter previews Granger’s rich, detailed analyses with the following paragraph:

“I am convinced that the fundamental reason for the astonishing popularity of the Harry Potter novels is their ability to meet a spiritual longing for some experience of the truths of life, love, and death that are denied by our secular culture . . . modern entertainments, especially books and movies, serve a mythological or religious function in a desacralized world. That the Harry Potter stories ‘sing along’ with the Great Story of Christ in the tradition of English literature is a significant key to understanding their compelling richness and unprecedented popularity.”

The use of “magic” in these books is not the only objection that (rightfully) cautious parents raise, but it is by far the most nonsensical, the one that falls apart most easily.

For that reason, I am astonished that it still comes up in discussions. This is not an open debate with intelligent and astute observations on both sides as has been implied by some in this thread; rather, it is a debate that should have died long ago.

John Granger and many others have consistently and conclusively refuted the charge that Harry Potter promotes or can even lead children to investigate witchcraft. For example, look at this observation researched by Portrait:

In an interview with Newsweek, a spokesman for the Pagan Federation of England claimed that he receives on average 100 inquiries a month from young people who are desirous of becoming witches - an unprecedented number which he also attributes in part to the HP novels.

Not likely. In the Harry Potter novels, you’re either born with innate magical ability, or you’re not. Those without it are known as “Muggles” and are in no way capable of any magic whatsoever.

So even if children were too dumb to tell the difference between fantasy and reality (a conclusion of which I’m suspicious in the first place), they would not be led to believe that they could do magic by the Harry Potter books.

All the ways of presenting this objection to Harry Potter fall into such inanity.

And by the way, someone in this thread - was it Portrait? I forget - insisted that another poster’s question, “Can you do magic by waving a stick around and spouting fake Latin words?” was an oversimplification.

It is not. The “magic” in the Harry Potter series really is that obviously fantastical and unreal.

And by the way, I checked out Marcia Montenegro’s website and was thoroughly unimpressed by her treatment of Harry Potter. Unfortunately, her real-life experience with the occult has apparently not prevented her from consistently falling into blatant equivocation when it comes to the Potter series. (If you’re curious, this is the article I read)

 

[curlycool89]

Not likely. In the Harry Potter novels, you’re either born with innate magical ability, or you’re not. Those without it are known as “Muggles” and are in no way capable of any magic whatsoever.

So even if children were too dumb to tell the difference between fantasy and reality (a conclusion of which I’m suspicious in the first place), they would not be led to believe that they could do magic by the Harry Potter books.

All the ways of presenting this objection to Harry Potter fall into such inanity.

And by the way, someone in this thread - was it Portrait? I forget - insisted that another poster’s question, “Can you do magic by waving a stick around and spouting fake Latin words?” was an oversimplification.

It is not. The “magic” in the Harry Potter series really is that obviously fantastical and unreal.

Hi, that was me who asked the question (maybe not exactly like that, but close enough anyways).

That’s a good point though. There’s a very specific differentiation between people who are magical and people who are not. It’s also very explicit that if you are a non-magical person you cannot become a magical person. Of course Voldermort or some other “mudblood” hating person tries to blue this line in the last book with the “mudblood trials”, but then again they are also presented as being a personification of pure evil.

It’s never actually explained where the magic in HP comes from. There’s plenty of insinuating about getting passed by blood (like genetics), but even in the book those people look like idiots when you have cases of “squibs” (kids of 2 magical parents who are non-magical), “half-bloods” (I think Seamus, so 1 magical parent and magical kid), and those without any magical parents at all who are magical (who are called “mudbloods” by the Nazis, I mean Death Eaters). There’s no midi-chlorians in the HP universe to salvage a more “logical” or “scientific” explanation from either.

So it’s pretty much implied that there must be some higher power (I don’t know, maybe God?) who (in the HP universe at least) is bestowing this magical ability on people. Of course it’s all fiction so it doesn’t actually matter in the end anyways (Rowling could always say that a wizard did it ).

 

[tantumquantum]

Hi, that was me who asked the question (maybe not exactly like that, but close enough anyways).

That’s a good point though. There’s a very specific differentiation between people who are magical and people who are not. It’s also very explicit that if you are a non-magical person you cannot become a magical person. Of course Voldermort or some other “mudblood” hating person tries to blue this line in the last book with the “mudblood trials”, but then again they are also presented as being a personification of pure evil.

It’s never actually explained where the magic in HP comes from. There’s plenty of insinuating about getting passed by blood (like genetics), but even in the book those people look like idiots when you have cases of “squibs” (kids of 2 magical parents who are non-magical), “half-bloods” (I think Seamus, so 1 magical parent and magical kid), and those without any magical parents at all who are magical (who are called “mudbloods” by the Nazis, I mean Death Eaters). There’s no midi-chlorians in the HP universe to salvage a more “logical” or “scientific” explanation from either.

So it’s pretty much implied that there must be some higher power (I don’t know, maybe God?) who (in the HP universe at least) is bestowing this magical ability on people. Of course it’s all fiction so it doesn’t actually matter in the end anyways (Rowling could always say that a wizard did it ).

And this is exactly the reason why I see Harry Potter as a novel that is pretentiously trying to be Christian. There is no (clear) reference to a higher power. What is the source of magic? Who is the source of magic? Neither Dumbledore nor Voldemort refers to someone of a higher power to them. In fact, it is implied in the books that they are the ones who had the highest power. Also, since no source of magic was ever made clear it could be said that magic is a neutral force. There is no distinction between black magic or white magic as they are derived from the same thing. An act of doing magic has no moral grounding whatsoever, it is only down to the whims of the user. This type of magic promotes an “end justifying it’s means” situation which Harry was guilty of in more than a few occasions. That is completely different from Tolkien magic or Lewis magic in their fiction. There has always been a difference between good magic and bad magic. Even the bible has a distinction between “good miracles” and “bad miracles”. There was no real moral consequences with Harry using the forbidden spells; he certainly did not feel any remorse in bludgeoning his enemies and he certainly did not face any consequence in doing what he did. These are some examples which show the the series of books have a confused approach to morality.

As Tolkien said: “Fables can depart from the physical world and the universe created, but not from the moral order: we can imagine a universe illuminated by a green sun, but we cannot bulk to the temptation of presenting as positive a reality in which the moral and spiritual structure are inverted or confused, a world in which evil is good.”

That is why in spite of its Christian images and references, Harry Potter in my opinion is not a Christian book as it is not even sure of its morals. Apart from the smokescreens of good defeating evil, love saving the world and conquering all, can you honestly say that you are satisfied with the story. A lot of moral loose-ends were not tied up. Harry never forgave Malfoy, and still to the day (even after having kids) treats him like ****. There was never any real resolution between Harry and the Durseley’s; quoting from Rowling herself, “they remained only on Christmas Card terms.” The House Elves were never set free. People remained typcasted to the very end, Slytherins remained bad guys just because they selected by the hat. No one ever transcended their “Houses” not even Snape. (that notion about sorting is very-unChristian like)… etc etc…

Harry Potter is/was an enjoyable read for me (although Books 5 and 7 was a chore to read, especially 7), but it is not a Christian book by any means IMHO.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Harry Potter is/was an enjoyable read for me (although Books 5 and 7 was a chore to read, especially 7), but it is not a Christian book by any means IMHO.

I have to say any fiction novel can be as Christian as it can be Wiccan, Muslim, or Jewish. It’s all about how readers take it really. Authors can intend meanings for sure but they’re not always interpreted in the way they intended. That’s the beauty I find in writing secular fiction. It’s easier to be unique, your work can come across as anything, and nobody will ever really pin a label on you completely.

 

[Transformer]

tantumquantum–

A book does not have to be a plain allegory to be Christian. No explicit reference to a higher power is made in the Lord of the Rings–the vague notion of a supermely good God in Tolkien’s mythology is barely even alluded to. It doesn’t stop the work from being essentially Christian.

There’s no distinction between black magic and white magic in Harry Potter because the magic in Harry Potter has nothing whatsoever to do with real world magic. All real world magic is invocational–it all essentially revolves around contacting supernatural powers somehow. The magic in Harry Potter never involves anything of the sort. So JK Rowling is perfectly free to decide that there is no black magic in Harry Potter, as the magic in Harry Potter is entirely different in kind from real world magic anyway. Even the unforgivable curses are not intrinsically evil. If there were invocational magic in Harry Potter, then certainly it would be incumbent upon Rowling to make it intrinsically evil, as Lewis does in Prince Caspian. But there is none.

Nowhere are the Harry Potter books consequentialist. Laws should be broken when following the spirit of the law necessitates the breaking of the letter. Furthermore, in the Harry Potter books it’s rarely even laws that are broken; it’s usually school rules, which should certainly be broken when necessary. The end does not justify the means in Harry Potter. In fact, the books clearly proclaim the opposite. Dumbledore and Grindelwald’s slogan from their youth, “for the greater good” (i.e. the end justifies the means) is portrayed by Rowling as obviously wrong.

A lot of moral loose-ends were not tied up. Harry never forgave Malfoy, and still to the day (even after having kids) treats him like ****. There was never any real resolution between Harry and the Durseley’s; quoting from Rowling herself, “they remained only on Christmas Card terms.” The House Elves were never set free. People remained typcasted to the very end, Slytherins remained bad guys just because they selected by the hat. No one ever transcended their “Houses” not even Snape.

This is, I think, an extremely disturbing notion. all the moral loose ends do not have to be tied up for a work to be Christian. Harry is not immaculate. None of the characters are, with the possible exception of Lily Potter. Of course everything is not perfectly hunky dory at the end; we’re dealing with human beings here. The story would be didactic and less satisfying if everyone came around and became a saint. And Snape does transcend and redeem his house’s stereotype.

The Christian elements in Harry Potter are very many and absolutely essential. The books’ notion of good and evil are quite clear and correct, with good and evil really existing, good triumphing over evil in love, and the end not justifying the means. Only a very strained reading of the books could conclude any different.

I have to say any fiction novel can be as Christian as it can be Wiccan, Muslim, or Jewish. It’s all about how readers take it really. Authors can intend meanings for sure but they’re not always interpreted in the way they intended. That’s the beauty I find in writing secular fiction. It’s easier to be unique, your work can come across as anything, and nobody will ever really pin a label on you completely.

This is also a disturbing notion. There is certainly a sense in which meaning in a book does not exist apart from the interaction between the text and the reader. Surely the narrow notion that the only thing a book “means” is what was explicitly intended by the author is to be rejected. But you’ve carried the problem to the opposite extreme, where meaning is utterly relative and anything someone takes away from (or reads into) a book is just as valid an interpretation as anything else.

Some readings of a book are more appropriate to the book’s real contents than others. If I were to read the Divine Comedy as an exercise in homoerotic symbology, I would be simply wrong; my interpretation would be totally incongruous with the reality of the text. The same is true of a Wiccan reading of Harry Potter. The Harry Potter books are implicitly and explicitly Christian; the Christian elements are there and they are essential whether a given reader recognizes them or not. Any reading of them that does not acknowledge them as essentially Christian is flawed and less valid for that reason.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

This is also a disturbing notion. There is certainly a sense in which meaning in a book does not exist apart from the interaction between the text and the reader. Surely the narrow notion that the only thing a book “means” is what was explicitly intended by the author is to be rejected. But you’ve carried the problem to the opposite extreme, where meaning is utterly relative and anything someone takes away from (or reads into) a book is just as valid an interpretation as anything else.

My point is that Harry Potter is not like the Bible where an interpretation contrary to how we Christians interpret is perilous. Remember, this is fiction we’re talking here. Thus, does something that is 100% made up really need to have a definite meaning? And in any case, even if you were to reach a conclusion that can be said as definitely true (as with your example with Dante) that still doesn’t rule out the possibility of a work being interpreted otherwise and still be logically sound.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

As Tolkien said: “Fables can depart from the physical world and the universe created, but not from the moral order: we can imagine a universe illuminated by a green sun, but we cannot bulk to the temptation of presenting as positive a reality in which the moral and spiritual structure are inverted or confused, a world in which evil is good.”

That is why in spite of its Christian images and references, Harry Potter in my opinion is not a Christian book as it is not even sure of its morals. Apart from the smokescreens of good defeating evil, love saving the world and conquering all, can you honestly say that you are satisfied with the story. A lot of moral loose-ends were not tied up.

I think transformer did an effective job of answering your arguments, but I just wanted to add a thought by commenting specifically on your Tolkien quote. I love that quote and that author, and I couldn’t agree more (actually, one of my philosophy professors said a similar thing about literature just the other day - that it is free to reinvent physical laws but not invert the moral order).

But I honestly don’t understand why you bring that up to criticize Harry Potter, when its morality is quite clear. Your examples of “moral loose-ends” not being tied up were all due to imperfections in characters, but the morality consistently presented and glorified is very accurate, good, and healthy - and not just the general themes, like that love is stronger than death and good triumphs over evil. No, as transformer pointed out with his example of the evil Grindelwald’s slogan (“For the greater good”), the books actually teach the opposite of what you assert - namely, that the ends do not justify the means.

So I honestly fail to understand how any of the examples you cited create a black-and-white morality. When Harry and his friends break a rule, two things always happen: (a) that rule is unjust and they are justified in doing so anyway, or (b) if the rule is just, Harry is ultimately rebuked by Dumbledore or another authority figure for his disobedience.

 

[curlycool89]

No explicit reference to a higher power is made in the Lord of the Rings

I think you can take that even further: There are no references whatsoever to a higher power in the Lord of the Rings books (just in case anyone doesn’t know, the higher power of the Tolkienverse is Eru Ilúvatar. Eru pretty much is God). There are interactions with minor angels (Gandalf, Sauron, Saruman) but unless people read other Tolkien works they probably even don’t know that. You could probably read through LOTR and not see any of the Christian themes.

 

[John21652]

This debate always puzzles and saddens me. I always enjoyed the Harry Potter series and found it morally edifying as well in the way it glorifies self-sacrificial love, true friendship, and steadfast courage.

But John Granger opened my eyes to just how specific - and even downright allegorical at times - these books are in the context of the English and very Christian literary tradition in which they fit.

The book’s first chapter previews Granger’s rich, detailed analyses with the following paragraph:

“I am convinced that the fundamental reason for the astonishing popularity of the Harry Potter novels is their ability to meet a spiritual longing for some experience of the truths of life, love, and death that are denied by our secular culture . . . modern entertainments, especially books and movies, serve a mythological or religious function in a desacralized world. That the Harry Potter stories ‘sing along’ with the Great Story of Christ in the tradition of English literature is a significant key to understanding their compelling richness and unprecedented popularity.”

The use of “magic” in these books is not the only objection that (rightfully) cautious parents raise, but it is by far the most nonsensical, the one that falls apart most easily.

For that reason, I am astonished that it still comes up in discussions. This is not an open debate with intelligent and astute observations on both sides as has been implied by some in this thread; rather, it is a debate that should have died long ago.

John Granger and many others have consistently and conclusively refuted the charge that Harry Potter promotes or can even lead children to investigate witchcraft. For example, look at this observation researched by Portrait:

Not likely. In the Harry Potter novels, you’re either born with innate magical ability, or you’re not. Those without it are known as “Muggles” and are in no way capable of any magic whatsoever.

So even if children were too dumb to tell the difference between fantasy and reality (a conclusion of which I’m suspicious in the first place), they would not be led to believe that they could do magic by the Harry Potter books.

All the ways of presenting this objection to Harry Potter fall into such inanity.

And by the way, someone in this thread - was it Portrait? I forget - insisted that another poster’s question, “Can you do magic by waving a stick around and spouting fake Latin words?” was an oversimplification.

It is not. The “magic” in the Harry Potter series really is that obviously fantastical and unreal.

And by the way, I checked out Marcia Montenegro’s website and was thoroughly unimpressed by her treatment of Harry Potter. Unfortunately, her real-life experience with the occult has apparently not prevented her from consistently falling into blatant equivocation when it comes to the Potter series. (If you’re curious, this is the article I read)

Really good post Fone Bone. The arguments against the Harry Potter series are inane and for the most part, nonsensical. I have read all the books in the series, right alongside my kids and I must admit I enjoyed Rowlings style and her attention to detail. My kids were fairly young when they first began the series and those books worked wonders with their reading. They all progressed on to Tolkein and that author’s writing troubles a lot of adults. Rowlings novels, in simple terms, were all about good versus evil and in that sense no different from any of us who watched the early Superman series on TV, or the westerns where the goody did battle with the baddy.

Rowling’s genius has brought a lot of kids and dare I say it, a lot of adults, to reading and taught them to use their imaginations. This debate should have died a long time ago.

 

[Portrait]

Which they probably did in order to piggy back on the popularity. Pagan doesn’t necessarily mean occult either.
**

It doesn’t even mention HP at all though.

Those results are a bit higher than I expected (what, I completely expected you to find something). I have just a couple comments on the methods.

The portion that I highlighted above could easily encompass a whole whack of games, and it inevitably points out a bias in their report. Such a category would encompass say DnD. Nobody (except for crazy anti-Catholic John Chick) actually believes that DnD involves occult-like practices. Second, even anything based on Tolkien would contain magic elements (wizards, magic rings, seeing stones). Heck, any fantasy game would feature some sort of magic as it’s a pretty standard part of the fantasy genre. Because I don’t see any individual results, I can’t really fully trust a survey that includes such an all inclusive harmless category as “games that feature magic” (I know thats not what it say, but that’s exactly how people would interpret it). It’s pretty much the same thing we’re discussing here, fiction.
In fact, you’ll have to lump me with the 74% because I’ve played games that have sorcery & witchcraft in them (actually several, including Lord of the Rings games that include Gandalf, who is a wizard. Not the same type as HP, but I’m willing to bet that most people would not differentiate between them).

Secondly I want to comment on “regularly watch films or TV programmes with occult themes”. Again, more fiction. I watched the TV show Charmed, which is about witches. Interesting plots.

Thirdly, the only statistic that has any relevance is “As a result of watching the film or reading the books, 12% said they were more interested in actual witchcraft”. As for the other ones, it doesn’t say whether these people were influenced by HP or not, or whether they had even read/watched HP in the first place. According to the numbers, there are more people who watch “occult themed shows” then those who’ve read HP, so obviously not all of them were solely influenced by HP.

If you are trying to say that all these practices fall from HP, then the survey doesn’t back you up. All it says is that some people dabble in the occult (which is bad), and some people read HP, and some people that read HP are interested in the occult (which again is bad). The survey does not say that HP lead to all these people’s occult dabbling though.

Dear curlycool89,

First, it is the cumulative force of the Barna survey taken as a composite whole which I think is quite significant, rather than isolated strands or aspects of it. However, it is incontrovertible that the HP books/films have fostered an unhealthy curiosity in occutic subcultures by a considerable number of children. An article that appeared some while ago on the *Onion News *website would seem to put that beyond dispute. The deeply disturbing declarations of young children contained in the article could surely be replicated many times over, indeed the odds against them being so replicated are extraordinarily slim.

theonion.com/content/news/harry_potter_books_spark_rise_in

Second, the survey does actually validate what I initially was endeavouring show, vis-a-vis that a small minority of children are hooked into the occultic subcultures. This is surely an inescapable conclusion of which it is futile to deny. Of that 12% who said they were more interested in actual witchcraft after reading a HP novel or watching a film, it simply beggars belief to assert that none out of this number would be enticed into the occult. This, I would contend, is grave cause for concern and cannot be shrugged-off with blithe indifference. We are talking of young precious souls for whom our Lord died. Moreover, that they might be a small number should in no wise cause us any less disquietude; was not our Lord very concerned with just “one” lost sheep (see St. Lk. 15 3-7)? This clearly demonstrates God’s care for the individual sinner and the great value that He places upon a single soul. That requires no further comment from me. Yes a single lost child to the occult is one single child too many.

Any book or film that would even arouse the curiosity of the young and susceptible in the occult should be mercilessly denounced in the strongest terms. Such a book/film is culturally unhealthy and potentially dangerous and should therefore be given a wide birth by all devout Catholics. Regrettably HP falls into this category, hence my unfavourable and negative appraisal - “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them” (Eph. 4: 11).

Finally, do you dismiss Marcia Montenegro’s extensive and painstaking research simply because you consider her a fundamentalist? Personally I think she has persuasively argued her case and I have yet to read of anyone in the Pro-Potter camp who has exposed her actual arguments as spurious by giving solid examples.

None of the thoughtful critiques of the Potter series that I have read, including Marcia Montenegro’s, are advocating bombing Hollywood or burning Potter books in the streets of London or New York as we goose-step around the pile. Thus I think we need to exercise some prudence before branding an orthodox Christian, Catholic or Protestant, a fundamentalist for polemical purposes, otherwise we could lay ourselves open to the charge of intentionally seeking to discredit someone by ad hominem attacks, simply because we do not like what they are saying.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait