Not Another Harry Potter Debate

[fides' Jack]

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:

 

I won't be reading them myself.  Personally, I still find the use of witchcraft and sorcery to be inherently evil, and so reading them would be sinful (or allowing myself to be in a near occasion of sin).

 

Actually, part of my purpose in posting here was to see if my own personal opinion on HP was too strong, and to see if maybe I could read them to get insight for myself.  

 

If you don't want to help me do that, that's fine.  Please don't post here anymore.

[MIKolbe]

I found it to be masterfully written.

[Nihil Obstat]

I found it to be masterfully written.

For the age level, absolutely.

[EmilyAnn]

 

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.

 

 

Enid Blyton is a very popular children's author in England. Perhaps it is a very English phenomenon, but the children's stories of boarding schools (which Hogwarts would fit into) almost always feature the protagonist misbehaving and breaking rules.

As to the 7th hedge, he overtly states that he is making that assumption: "the reader is not in the least encouraged to think about or dwell on the process of acquiring prowess in magic". 

While the author does make the same point as I did in my first paragraph, I believe he also fails to extend it as far as is necessary. Facsimiles of real occult practices do pose a spiritual danger, but fantastical practices do not pose the same danger. Harry Potter is very clearly fantastical. I first read Harry Potter books at no older than seven or eight (and due to some of the themes I personally would not let a child younger than that read it) and I was no more likely to start practicing the occult than I was to search for the Faraway Tree. The ultimate thing that I think the author misses is that by the time a child is old enough to know that fantasy is just that, they are old enough to have been educated by their parents to know better than to engage in occult practices. 

[cartermia]

About Harry not getting punished when he does something bad just think of book 5 Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix:

  "That's right. Because you know, deep down... you deserved to be punished. Don't you, Mr. Potter? Go on."

 

Also Harry is punished by Professor Snape several times.

[fides' Jack]

For the age level, absolutely.

 

That's a pretty sharp wit.  Granted, I don't have a super vocabulary.  What age group do you think it targets?

[EmilyAnn]

I won't be reading them myself.  Personally, I still find the use of witchcraft and sorcery to be inherently evil, and so reading them would be sinful (or allowing myself to be in a near occasion of sin).

 

Actually, part of my purpose in posting here was to see if my own personal opinion on HP was too strong, and to see if maybe I could read them to get insight for myself.  

 

If you don't want to help me do that, that's fine.  Please don't post here anymore.

My question (out of genuine interest, not criticism) is why, if reading about witchcraft and sorcery is inherently evil, you seem to be okay with some book with such themes but not others? And so do you not read any literature that features sinful or morally objectionable acts of behaviours?

[Nihil Obstat]

That's a pretty sharp wit.  Granted, I don't have a super vocabulary.  What age group do you think it targets?

Interestingly enough, I think there is a slight progression from the start to the end, which is fairly unusual for a series of books for young people. I would say, just off the top of my head, the demographic for the first couple was sort of the 10-14 year old range, give or take a year or two, while by the end of the series it is more along the lines of 14-18.
The same is true, more or less, of the movies. I would say it is more pronounced in the movies, and a rather sharper transition from the second to the third, when Chris Columbus was replaced by Alfonso Cuarón who was in turn replaced by Mike Newell, then last of all by David Yates.

 

People say that the series 'grew up' with its fans. I think that is valid. It does mean, at least IMO, that some discretion may be called for if a child on the younger end of that scale were to become a fan.

[fides' Jack]

Enid Blyton is a very popular children's author in England. Perhaps it is a very English phenomenon, but the children's stories of boarding schools (which Hogwarts would fit into) almost always feature the protagonist misbehaving and breaking rules.

As to the 7th hedge, he overtly states that he is making that assumption: "the reader is not in the least encouraged to think about or dwell on the process of acquiring prowess in magic". 

While the author does make the same point as I did in my first paragraph, I believe he also fails to extend it as far as is necessary. Facsimiles of real occult practices do pose a spiritual danger, but fantastical practices do not pose the same danger. Harry Potter is very clearly fantastical. I first read Harry Potter books at no older than seven or eight (and due to some of the themes I personally would not let a child younger than that read it) and I was no more likely to start practicing the occult than I was to search for the Faraway Tree. The ultimate thing that I think the author misses is that by the time a child is old enough to know that fantasy is just that, they are old enough to have been educated by their parents to know better than to engage in occult practices. 

 

Concerning your issue in the 1st paragraph again, I disagree.  Not only does the author make exactly that distinction, in fact he carries it further to say that in the use of magic, HP is actually farther removed from reality (and more fantastical), and therefore less objectionable.

 

For the 7th hedge, I think a fuller quote is necessary - I'm not sure I agree on the context of what he's saying.

 

I think I agree with your last point, but I don't know if it's possible to make the distinction for someone else - even your own kids.  I know people who thought the same of their kids and the kids admitted believing in the reality of the "magic" or fantasy, they were reading about - even if on some small level.

 

About Harry not getting punished when he does something bad just think of book 5 Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix:

Also Harry is punished by Professor Snape several times.

 

Yes, the article was written before book 5 came out.  Do you have any earlier examples, or are you saying that the author is correct in his assertions on the matter until book 5?

 

Also, the author does state that Snape is the one who punishes him, but that he doesn't really deserve it.  I don't know if that's true or not...

 

My question (out of genuine interest, not criticism) is why, if reading about witchcraft and sorcery is inherently evil, you seem to be okay with some book with such themes but not others? And so do you not read any literature that features sinful or morally objectionable acts of behaviours?

 

I didn't say I think reading about witchcraft and sorcery is inherently evil.  I said I believe the use of them to be inherently evil.  This article, as I said, is the best argument both for and against HP that I've ever heard/read.  I may end up using this as my basis for belief on the subject.  However, the author himself said that HP can be a good read and only argues that it might merit more parental guidance than most literature.  Some here seem to be getting defensive, though...  (not you :)  )

[fides' Jack]

My question (out of genuine interest, not criticism) is why, if reading about witchcraft and sorcery is inherently evil, you seem to be okay with some book with such themes but not others? And so do you not read any literature that features sinful or morally objectionable acts of behaviours?

 

Again, this is about the article - not my personal beliefs.

[fides' Jack]

Interestingly enough, I think there is a slight progression from the start to the end, which is fairly unusual for a series of books for young people. I would say, just off the top of my head, the demographic for the first couple was sort of the 10-14 year old range, give or take a year or two, while by the end of the series it is more along the lines of 14-18.
The same is true, more or less, of the movies. I would say it is more pronounced in the movies, and a rather sharper transition from the second to the third, when Chris Columbus was replaced by Alfonso Cuarón who was in turn replaced by Mike Newell, then last of all by David Yates.

 

People say that the series 'grew up' with its fans. I think that is valid. It does mean, at least IMO, that some discretion may be called for if a child on the younger end of that scale were to become a fan.

 

Oh!  I thought you were talking about the article, not the HP series...  :)  

 

I was thinking, "What does he expect?  A graduate-level research paper?"

 

I haven't read any of them (saw the first couple movies), but that has been my general assessment as well.

[Nihil Obstat]

Oh!  I thought you were talking about the article, not the HP series...   :)

 

I was thinking, "What does he expect?  A graduate-level research paper?"

 

I haven't read any of them (saw the first couple movies), but that has been my general assessment as well.

I thought your reply seemed unnecessarily combative. :P Thought I might have been misinterpreting it.

 

 

 

 

 

I would argue that most truly worthwhile literature necessitates some discretion on the part of parents, if their young kids are reading them. There are always themes to be explored, some of which can be challenging. The role of parents in this context is to help guide their children to a solid understanding of moral and ethical themes. But as kids grow older it is very difficult, if not impossible to simply dictate a correct interpretation. Rather, one must have prepared their children leading up to that point, such that the children are equipped to come to correct conclusions on their own.

 

I read All Quiet on the Western Front when I was twelve. The unedited version, not the one that was somewhat sanitized for schools. That could be a tough one for the average kid. It deserves attention, so that the themes can be unpacked and examined. It is not a book you simply read and forget about.

I also read the His Dark Materials trilogy when I was 10-11. Terrible books, very anti-Christian, and often explicitly so. I did not have any guidance while I was reading those, and frankly I got lucky because I did get a certain sense that something was very wrong. Once I was alerted to the fact that something was a bit off, then I was able to identify those more destructive themes. But thank goodness that I was already equipped at that age to notice something was wrong.

 

Harry Potter is not as extreme as these examples. It simply requires some gentle guidance from parents, I think, and all will be well. There are far more things to celebrate in the books than to condemn.

 

Edited April 24, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[HisChildForever]

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?

 

Yeah, the details are a little hazy now, but Harry, Ron, Hermione lost a total of 150 points for Gryffindor in the first book when they were caught outside their dorm at night. They were found right after they helped Hagrid smuggle his pet dragon to new owners. Hagrid could've figured that out on his own imo - instead he recruited three 11 or 12-year olds to help smuggle a very dangerous animal. Anyway they sucked it up, even though everyone in Gryffindor was pist at them.

[CrossCuT]

I won't be reading them myself.  Personally, I still find the use of witchcraft and sorcery to be inherently evil, and so reading them would be sinful (or allowing myself to be in a near occasion of sin).

 

Actually, part of my purpose in posting here was to see if my own personal opinion on HP was too strong, and to see if maybe I could read them to get insight for myself.  

 

If you don't want to help me do that, that's fine.  Please don't post here anymore.

If you honestly want to understand whats going on in the books, read them.

Catholics need to learn to educate themselves about the things in our world that could be threatening.

We dont cower in the shadows and make assumptions.

You are an education adult and if this truly is a subject that you want to dig deeper into, what other way can you do it without reading the books?

 

You will never get a better idea of what you think unless you do it yourself. I think its extremely ridiculous that you are relying on all of our input to understand the plot and specific examples when all you have to do is read them yourself and youll have your answer.

 

But other than all that, you seemed to be very solid in your opinion that you will NEVER read them, so I dont know why you bother discussing it anyways.

[HisChildForever]

If you honestly want to understand whats going on in the books, read them.

Catholics need to learn to educate themselves about the things in our world that could be threatening.

We dont cower in the shadows and make assumptions.

You are an education adult and if this truly is a subject that you want to dig deeper into, what other way can you do it without reading the books?

 

You will never get a better idea of what you think unless you do it yourself. I think its extremely ridiculous that you are relying on all of our input to understand the plot and specific examples when all you have to do is read them yourself and youll have your answer.

 

But other than all that, you seemed to be very solid in your opinion that you will NEVER read them, so I dont know why you bother discussing it anyways.

 

The Harry Potter series makes it incredibly clear that good is superior to evil, and that love can conquer anything. But anyway, there is so much fantasy in the books that I have a hard time believing a preteen or teen would prowl the mall for a magical stick (wand) and shout Latin at passing strangers. I'd be more concerned about books that incorporate actual pagan or Wiccan beliefs into the story line.