Not Another Harry Potter Debate

[EmilyAnn]

It is a very long article, but I have read it. The author does make some interesting points, in particular about the difference between portraying realistic or semi-realistic occult practices and portraying imaginary phenomenon and fantasy.

 

I find the "hedge" idea slightly odd because he looks specifically at Tolkein and Lewis, both of whom were devout, practicing Christians. Rowling is not (although she says she is a Christian, she admits ambivalence towards her faith), so her approach to the subject was never going to have the same obvious "hedge" effect as Tolkein and Lewis.

 

I also find that by the authors reasoning, any book in which a protagonist or other main character is rewarded rather than punished for misbehaviour (the author makes a point of Harry Potter protagonists breaking school rules without consequence and often reward instead) could be placed in the same category as Harry Potter and be claimed to be morally corrupting, which eschews almost all children's literature. 

[CrossCuT]

And what of Harry himself? He’s a decent enough and likable fellow, with nothing of the bully or troublemaker in him. He’s not one to make an enemy — though, should someone make an enemy of him, Harry will make war on that person with every weapon at his disposal. The notion of turning the other cheek or using a soft answer to turn away wrath is completely foreign here; and even the more sober voices, such as that of his friend Hermione (whom Rowling has said of all her characters most resembles herself), generally caution Harry on purely prudential grounds, not moral ones.

Turning the other cheek? Has this author of this article read the books?

When Harry is apparently acting like an uncontrollable terror (as he seems to be described), he is doing it to defend a friend. Whether its Hermoine, Hagrid, Ron, Nevil or whoever else, there are many times when they are just walking between classes and one of the Slytherine boys starts calling them derogatory terms, or whatever else and...I dont know about you, but I would do the same thing as Harry. Id stick up for my friends!

This concept is VERY common in a ton of teen books,  not just Harry Potter so not only do I disagree with the authors attempts to find fault in it I also believe that its a bad point to make since its not something localized to Harry Potter.

 

Also arent we suppose to stick up for what we believe in? If youre walking down the street and you see, for instance, a woman being yelled at and physically harmed but the man she is with, or a classmate being teased and made fun of by a bully...do you turn the other cheek? Or do you help them?

There are times when turning the other cheek is a good practice of humility, but not when there is abuse (verbal or physical) going on. And in every instance, that is the case with Harry Potter. I have not read a single line when he lashes out at Malfoy for no reason. 

 

 

 

there are no real consequences for breaking any number of rules, because Harry’s heart is in the right place, or because he is a boy of destiny, or something like that.

 

Incredibly out of context.

Citing the first book, since this article is apparently super old, there is one instance where Harry and Ron break the rules of being in their dorms to save Hermonie from getting smashed by a troll. HOW DARE THEY NOT RESPECT THE CURFEW!!

 

As far as I know, when police or firefighters put their lives on the line in service of others they ALSO often break rules. Regardless of their own safety, they will plunge deep into uncertain grounds in order to save someone. I guess we should start reprimanding them.

 

 

 

I havent finished reading it yet but what I can tell so far it is clear that this author is pretty biased already against Harry Potter.

[Guest Raz]

there are no real consequences for breaking any number of rules, because Harry’s heart is in the right place, or because he is a boy of destiny, or something like that.

 

 

There's no date on this article but I have to assume that it was written before all of the books were out because this statement is remarkably ignorant. It was made pretty clear why they weren't punished breaking some rules at Hogwarts, just like CrosscuT pointed out.

 

I am not really a big fan of Harry Potter, but I am even less of a fan of ignorance.

 

An examination of the morality of fuctional characters based on specific actions would be a much more intellegent way to have this discussion. The article pandering and biased.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Raz

[Guest Raz]

fictional*

 

(not sure how that got changed...)

[fides' Jack]

It is a very long article, but I have read it. The author does make some interesting points, in particular about the difference between portraying realistic or semi-realistic occult practices and portraying imaginary phenomenon and fantasy.

 

I find the "hedge" idea slightly odd because he looks specifically at Tolkein and Lewis, both of whom were devout, practicing Christians. Rowling is not (although she says she is a Christian, she admits ambivalence towards her faith), so her approach to the subject was never going to have the same obvious "hedge" effect as Tolkein and Lewis.

 

I also find that by the authors reasoning, any book in which a protagonist or other main character is rewarded rather than punished for misbehaviour (the author makes a point of Harry Potter protagonists breaking school rules without consequence and often reward instead) could be placed in the same category as Harry Potter and be claimed to be morally corrupting, which eschews almost all children's literature. 

 

Thanks for taking the time to read it!

 

I think the point of the article was to assess any possible moral dangers that a (specifically) Christian person might be exposed to by watching/reading Harry Potter (probably more specifically reading), so it seems that his use of "hedges" is perfectly reasonable.  The question, then, becomes: "Is the author [of the article] correct in his suppositions about why reading Harry Potter might present spiritual dangers?"  Or, put another way, do the author's "hedges" accurately portray ways in which the use of magic in literature might be spiritually bad for the reader?

 

Interesting thought - can you provide an example in classic children's literature (a case in which the moral value of is not generally disputed) in which the same thing happens?  In every example that comes to my mind, there are definite and specific consequences for misbehavior (I'm thinking about nursery rhymes at the moment...).  Certainly there is a lot of "children's" literature out there right now that I wouldn't want my kids reading.

[CrossCuT]

I guess I didnt respond to the right parts of that article.

Geesh

[fides' Jack]

Turning the other cheek? Has this author of this article read the books?

When Harry is apparently acting like an uncontrollable terror (as he seems to be described), he is doing it to defend a friend. Whether its Hermoine, Hagrid, Ron, Nevil or whoever else, there are many times when they are just walking between classes and one of the Slytherine boys starts calling them derogatory terms, or whatever else and...I dont know about you, but I would do the same thing as Harry. Id stick up for my friends!

This concept is VERY common in a ton of teen books,  not just Harry Potter so not only do I disagree with the authors attempts to find fault in it I also believe that its a bad point to make since its not something localized to Harry Potter.

 

Also arent we suppose to stick up for what we believe in? If youre walking down the street and you see, for instance, a woman being yelled at and physically harmed but the man she is with, or a classmate being teased and made fun of by a bully...do you turn the other cheek? Or do you help them?

There are times when turning the other cheek is a good practice of humility, but not when there is abuse (verbal or physical) going on. And in every instance, that is the case with Harry Potter. I have not read a single line when he lashes out at Malfoy for no reason. 

 

 

Incredibly out of context.

Citing the first book, since this article is apparently super old, there is one instance where Harry and Ron break the rules of being in their dorms to save Hermonie from getting smashed by a troll. HOW DARE THEY NOT RESPECT THE CURFEW!!

 

As far as I know, when police or firefighters put their lives on the line in service of others they ALSO often break rules. Regardless of their own safety, they will plunge deep into uncertain grounds in order to save someone. I guess we should start reprimanding them.

 

 

 

I havent finished reading it yet but what I can tell so far it is clear that this author is pretty biased already against Harry Potter.

 

Thanks for reading it!

 

As the author himself pointed out, the article was written when the first movies of both series were first coming out.  So not all the books had yet been written (for HP).  I don't think the author was suggesting that every instance of breaking the rules was bad - but just that the only time they faced any sort of real consequences were when some other teacher/guy/person wanted to punish them unfairly.  But more context is needed for both sides of the argument.  You stated one case in which he had to break the rules in order to save someone's life (?), which seems fine, but you also suggested that maybe Harry acted physically against someone for verbal abuse of a friend...  Is that the case?  Or, getting away from physical violence (because I'm sure that the school has rules against other actions as well), does Harry speak out of turn?  Disobey?  Act sarcastically toward superiors?  Cheat?  All those are rules that, if broken, would certainly merit the author's words.

 

As I said above, I'm sure there are a lot of teen books out there that I wouldn't want my kids reading.  Heck, there are younger children's movies out there that I wouldn't want teen children watching.  It doesn't make it right.

 

For the quotes that you took to be out of context, can you be more specific?  How exactly are they out of context?  Citing one example to the contrary isn't really evidence either way.

[fides' Jack]

I guess I didnt respond to the right parts of that article.

Geesh

 

Huh?  No, I think you did.  I appreciate your honest feedback!

 

I had to take a break from my lunch to go to an unscheduled meeting - sorry for not responding to you sooner!

[fides' Jack]

There's no date on this article but I have to assume that it was written before all of the books were out because this statement is remarkably ignorant. It was made pretty clear why they weren't punished breaking some rules at Hogwarts, just like CrosscuT pointed out.

 

I am not really a big fan of Harry Potter, but I am even less of a fan of ignorance.

 

An examination of the morality of fuctional characters based on specific actions would be a much more intellegent way to have this discussion. The article pandering and biased.

 

The author made several points - is this the only one you take issue with?

 

It should be noted that the author has read them all at this point - as I have seen stated elsewhere on his site.  But this was like 12 years ago or something...

 

For the sake of argument, can you point out a case in which Harry and friends were reprimanded in the book when they deserved it?  It sounds like that's completely missing from the series, though I don't know - is Harry portrayed as being perfect and never needing reprimanding?

[CrossCuT]

Have you read the books Jack?

[EmilyAnn]

Thanks for taking the time to read it!

 

I think the point of the article was to assess any possible moral dangers that a (specifically) Christian person might be exposed to by watching/reading Harry Potter (probably more specifically reading), so it seems that his use of "hedges" is perfectly reasonable.  The question, then, becomes: "Is the author [of the article] correct in his suppositions about why reading Harry Potter might present spiritual dangers?"  Or, put another way, do the author's "hedges" accurately portray ways in which the use of magic in literature might be spiritually bad for the reader?

 

Interesting thought - can you provide an example in classic children's literature (a case in which the moral value of is not generally disputed) in which the same thing happens?  In every example that comes to my mind, there are definite and specific consequences for misbehavior (I'm thinking about nursery rhymes at the moment...).  Certainly there is a lot of "children's" literature out there right now that I wouldn't want my kids reading.

 

I was not trying to say it was unreasonable, my point is more that Tolkein and Lewis would obviously be more overt about making such barriers than a non-Christian author would be. I agree with the author distinguishing between facsimiles of real occult practices and fantastical magic because those are two very different things, and I would argue that the former is far more spiritually dangerous than the latter.

 

I will have to think more on it for specific examples, I haven't read children's books in a very long time. But I was actually thinking of older children's books rather than more modern ones - the sort of books handed down to me by my mother. Enid Blyton comes to mind. 

 

My criticisms of some of the hedges:

1. I find a fault in his first edge in regards to Lewis - Narnia may be a fantasy land, but it also co-exists with the real world. So I would argue that Lewis does not have the first hedge, as Tolkein does, but is more on par with Rowling (as the author says, the "wizarding world" is a fantasy world that co-exists with ours). 

 

2. Following in from the first hedge, in the world of Lewis the average person in the real world is not aware of the existence of Narnia or of any magical forces.

3. I accept the third hedge. 

4. I see and accept the authors point here, and while in Harry Potter magic is not always a corrupting influence, the author fails to note that in Harry Potter magic can be used both for good and for evil.

5. I find the authors differentiation between human and human in appearance to be fairly superfluous, and I find it unlikely that it would make a difference on influencing a reader (I'm a psych major, for the record).

6. One does not have to see someone as a peer in order to be influenced by their behaviour. Indeed, a mentor or guide figure is just as likely to have an influence as a peer (in some cases actually more of an influence). 

7. I find the authors assumption that because the acquisition of magic is not described it therefore does not encourage one to think about such acquisition to be overly simplistic.  

[fides' Jack]

Have you read the books Jack?

 

:huh: I think it's obvious that I haven't, which is why this post is here - to let those of you who have read it offer your thoughts on this article.  That's also why I haven't made any statements about HP, and why I'm asking about his behavior in the books.

 

Why do you ask?

[Nihil Obstat]

I recall reading that article some time ago, and thinking it was a relatively fair-minded look at things. I really am not interested in going back and reading it all again, but if you would like to jog my memory I probably could hold my own well enough.

I am of the opinion more or less that the Harry Potter books are fine to read, rather good books and movies, but that morally speaking they are not perfect. It is generally not the magic per se, but the ethical system that is promoted. Fairly good, but certainly by no means perfect. I have no major problem with that. For a kid to read it I think is fine, as long as the parents are perhaps talking to him about what he is reading, and making sure he is equipped to evaluate those things in the proper way.

[CrossCuT]

:huh: I think it's obvious that I haven't, which is why this post is here - to let those of you who have read it offer your thoughts on this article.  That's also why I haven't made any statements about HP, and why I'm asking about his behavior in the books.

 

Why do you ask?

 

I figured you havent, 

But i think that before you decide what you think about them, you should read them yourself.

Youre an adult, Im pretty confident you wont succumb to their evil ways and it will give you a real perspective on the issue.

 

Just like you required people to read the article you posted, I require you to actually READ the literature that you are discussing in so much depth so that we can have a real conversation about it on the same level.

 

I honestly find no reason to post in here until you do.  :idontknow:

[fides' Jack]

I was not trying to say it was unreasonable, my point is more that Tolkein and Lewis would obviously be more overt about making such barriers than a non-Christian author would be. I agree with the author distinguishing between facsimiles of real occult practices and fantastical magic because those are two very different things, and I would argue that the former is far more spiritually dangerous than the latter.

 

I will have to think more on it for specific examples, I haven't read children's books in a very long time. But I was actually thinking of older children's books rather than more modern ones - the sort of books handed down to me by my mother. Enid Blyton comes to mind. 

 

My criticisms of some of the hedges:

1. I find a fault in his first edge in regards to Lewis - Narnia may be a fantasy land, but it also co-exists with the real world. So I would argue that Lewis does not have the first hedge, as Tolkein does, but is more on par with Rowling (as the author says, the "wizarding world" is a fantasy world that co-exists with ours). 

 

2. Following in from the first hedge, in the world of Lewis the average person in the real world is not aware of the existence of Narnia or of any magical forces.

3. I accept the third hedge. 

4. I see and accept the authors point here, and while in Harry Potter magic is not always a corrupting influence, the author fails to note that in Harry Potter magic can be used both for good and for evil.

5. I find the authors differentiation between human and human in appearance to be fairly superfluous, and I find it unlikely that it would make a difference on influencing a reader (I'm a psych major, for the record).

6. One does not have to see someone as a peer in order to be influenced by their behaviour. Indeed, a mentor or guide figure is just as likely to have an influence as a peer (in some cases actually more of an influence). 

7. I find the authors assumption that because the acquisition of magic is not described it therefore does not encourage one to think about such acquisition to be overly simplistic.  

 

1st paragraph - I think that's the exact point the author was trying to make.

 

2nd paragraph - I've never heard of her...  Does anything else come to mind?

 

Criticisms:

1. I had the exact same thought, but the author spoke to that later on in the article.
2. Hmm..  good observation - again he discusses later and points out that the secret world in HP mimics in some ways our own normal world, which is something very distinct from Narnia.
3. Moving on...
4. I think the author makes the point that for regular people in (at least) Narnia, the average person is not capable of using magic for good. Maybe that's a little over-simplistic of his words.
5. The author touches more on this subject later in the article and looks at both sides of the argument - thoughts on that?
6. I think his point is that they are not main characters that we are supposed to relate to.  Harry is the main character to relate to.  He discusses this at greater length later on...
7. I had the same thought - but I don't think he's making that assumption.  Rather, he seems to be using it as another possible distinction - if the writer fails to explicitly write about how magic is attained, it leaves the reader without specific guidance on how to do it himself.  Again, both sides of all these points are discussed later in the article.