Not Another Harry Potter Debate

[Basilisa Marie]

 

I have to wonder whether that argument is a moot point; if (from a Christian perspective) one must be well-grounded and well-read to not be adversely affected by the lack of moral stance in HP, then all these new readers that HP is creating are in very real and grave danger.

 

 

One does not have to be well-rounded or grounded in classic literature to NOT be adversely affected by some of the not-great things in Harry Potter.  One simply has to a)know the difference between fantasy and reality b)have good parents who teach you about the faith and c)have parents that read potentially-questionable things with you so that they can guide your understanding of the text.  

 

 

Regarding the "hedges"

 

1. Wizards may live in the same world, but live in an "underground" society apart from non-magical people. Wizards are severely punished for breaching (or potentially breaching) the "international statute of secrecy."  Magic isn't portrayed as a safe activity in HP - in fact, it's often referenced how dangerous it is for people to just be left to their own devices without years of proper, structured guidance from experts. Magic doesn't seem to be inherently safe in Tolkien, and it's not always lawful in HP.  

 

2. The conflict between those who believe they are "the elite" and those whom the elite view as inferior is the CENTRAL conflict to the HP series.  Wizards who view themselves as inherently superior to non-magical people are viewed negatively, and in later books there are strong parallels to a "pure-blooded" wizard movement and Nazism. The heroes of the books fight against this kind of superiority, whether it be between wizards and wizards, wizards and non-magical folk, or humans and sentient non-humans. The "statute of secrecy" that keeps the wizard society a secret is described as being put in place for the protection of non-magical folk and so that magical folk wouldn't be harassed, but it is later remarked that it was likely a terrible idea that only served to underscore the racist tendencies of the elite. 

 

3. The magic of Harry Potter is different than the magic of Tolkien or Lewis. For HP, magic is an inborn talent one genetically inherits from one's parents (or someone in your ancestry).  It's not something just anyone can learn, which is exemplified when in later books a character without magical talent writes a letter to the magical school's headmaster asking to join, and she is denied.  Magic is a talent that mostly involves manipulating physical and chemical laws of nature in different ways. In Harry Potter, magic is merely a neutral part of who you are. Again, magic is neither inherently safe nor always used in a lawful way.  

4. Again, this point wrongly assumes that the magic is the same.  Magic is only Harry's "salvation" when he uses it properly.  Saying that Harry can't use magic when the most evil wizard is trying to kill him with magic is like saying you can't raise a hand to block a blow when a thug is trying to beat you to death.  In fact, it is conspicuously noted by some of the characters that Harry's go-to use of the "disarming" spell in combat (instead of some kind of aggressive spell) is famous among even the evil wizards.  Furthermore, the article completely ignores that magic is the SINGULAR CAUSE of ALL of Harry's problems that he tries to solve with magic.  The whole reason why Harry has to live with his abusive relatives is because an evil wizard tried to use magic to become immortal, went around killing everyone (with magic) who tried to stand in his way, and only failed when he tried to use magic to kill Harry.  Plus there are some kinds of magic which are completely forbidden to study.  Dumbledore, the headmaster of the magical school, even banned certain books from the school library, even from the written-permission-from-a-professor-only Restricted Section.  

 

5. Again, magic is neither always safe nor lawful in the HP books.  While Harry and his friends are human, there are plenty of non-human characters who have special kinds of magic themselves. Having the ability to do magic is like having an extra arm or hair or eyes. Some beings have it, others don't, and some beings have ones that look different.

 

6. Kids don't like Harry Potter because he can do magic.  They like Harry Potter because they relate to his experiences of growing up. Harry gets worried about his first day of school. Harry gets angry and frustrated for no reason when he's a teenager.  Harry deals with his first crush.  Harry deals with figuring out what it means to be a true friend.  Harry deals with bullies.  Harry deals with teachers who seem unfair.  Harry learns to stand up for what's right.  Harry learns that despite everything, some people have it worse than he does.  Harry learns that the love of your family is one of the most important things in the world.  Harry learns that sacrificial love is the most powerful magic on earth. Seriously.  Harry is intentionally meant as a Christological figure in the last book.  He willingly dies not only for his friends but for the entire wizarding world and comes back to life and defeats the evil wizard. Rowling has said multiple times that she was quiet about her religious beliefs because she didn't want to give away the ending of her books. 

 

7. Again, this is wrong.  People are BORN with magical talent, no one knows where it really comes from (though there's a theory about genetics), and people go to school to learn to control it and get better at it.  

 

The thing is, you could replace the words "magic" with "skill" and "wizard" with "practitioner" and no one would throw a fit about the books.  And any real Pagan or Wiccan will tell you that the "magic' in Harry Potter has absolutely nothing to do with "real" magic.  Seriously, I've asked Pagans and Wiccans.  

[Basilisa Marie]

Honest question: If you really think reading Harry Potter is sinful, why are you asking people who have participated in such "sinful" activity if it's okay?  Either Potter is sinful and we'll just lead you into temptation, or Potter isn't sinful and you should read them for yourself to find out what you think. 

[CrossCuT]

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.

 

I agree, I think it is a pretty great collection!

 

I prescribed to the whole "Harry Potter is EVIL" hokey pokey until I read them. I was surprised at not only how incorrect I was,a but what a fun read they were!

 

 

Honest question: If you really think reading Harry Potter is sinful, why are you asking people who have participated in such "sinful" activity if it's okay?  Either Potter is sinful and we'll just lead you into temptation, or Potter isn't sinful and you should read them for yourself to find out what you think. 

 

 

Thats what Ive been trying to understand. 

Edited April 25, 2013 by CrossCuT

[Nihil Obstat]

I prescribed to the whole "Harry Potter is EVIL" hokey pokey until I read them. I was surprised at not only how incorrect I was,a but what a fun read they were!

Hokey pokey is an anti-Catholic slur. :|

[Basilisa Marie]

Hokey pokey is an anti-Catholic slur. :|

 

...which a)has almost entirely lost its meaning and b)Isn't included in Harry Potter. 

[CrossCuT]

Hokey pokey is an anti-Catholic slur. :|

 

Seriously!  :hehe2:

I honestly had no idea! Im going to laugh my booty off every time I do that dance now!  :bananarap:

[fides' Jack]

Basilisa: thanks for a thoughtful response!  I'm at work and wanted to poke my head in.  When I have time (hopefully during lunch) I'll read it and see what I think.

 

All: this thread is not about me, but if you need a response, here it is: I did/do believe that HP is evil because it promotes witchcraft/sorcery.  However, I came across this article and found not only the best arguments I've seen as to why magic might not be good in some literature when it is good in others, but also the best arguments for lightening my own opinion of whether or not HP is morally readable/watchable.  My goal here is to see what HP fans think of the article itself - are there holes that I'm not seeing that make the article's arguments weak somehow?  If so, how do those holes apply to my own, personal, current beliefs on HP?  These are rhetorical questions to myself, but they may help you understand what I'm trying to do.

[Basilisa Marie]

Basilisa: thanks for a thoughtful response!  I'm at work and wanted to poke my head in.  When I have time (hopefully during lunch) I'll read it and see what I think.

 

All: this thread is not about me, but if you need a response, here it is: I did/do believe that HP is evil because it promotes witchcraft/sorcery.  However, I came across this article and found not only the best arguments I've seen as to why magic might not be good in some literature when it is good in others, but also the best arguments for lightening my own opinion of whether or not HP is morally readable/watchable.  My goal here is to see what HP fans think of the article itself - are there holes that I'm not seeing that make the article's arguments weak somehow?  If so, how do those holes apply to my own, personal, current beliefs on HP?  These are rhetorical questions to myself, but they may help you understand what I'm trying to do.

 

Cool. :) 

 

I think the biggest misconception about Harry Potter is about the nature of magic within it.  It's pretty different from any other book I've read that includes magic. I think the best way to describe it is that "magic" is really more a part of the setting, a plot device.  The thing is, if Rowling really wanted to promote taking up true witchcraft, it would have been incredibly easy for her to insert it into her books. She doesn't reference any "real" magic books, any potions made in Potions class (chemistry/cooking) include partial lists of mostly quite fictional ingredients ("Unicorn tail hairs"?) and any spells are either completely made up or usually garbled Latin names for plants.  Kids might wander over to the "magic" section of the bookstore because they're curious, but good parenting can easily put a lid on that. 

 

OH! I got it!  Magic in Harry Potter is like the superpowers in X-men.  People are either born with it or it "shows itself" on its own, and people with it have to go to a special school to learn how to use it for good, and when some people decide to use their "powers" for evil, other people with "powers" step in and defeat them.  

[CrossCuT]

Basilisa: thanks for a thoughtful response!  I'm at work and wanted to poke my head in.  When I have time (hopefully during lunch) I'll read it and see what I think.

 

All: this thread is not about me, but if you need a response, here it is: I did/do believe that HP is evil because it promotes witchcraft/sorcery.  However, I came across this article and found not only the best arguments I've seen as to why magic might not be good in some literature when it is good in others, but also the best arguments for lightening my own opinion of whether or not HP is morally readable/watchable.  My goal here is to see what HP fans think of the article itself - are there holes that I'm not seeing that make the article's arguments weak somehow?  If so, how do those holes apply to my own, personal, current beliefs on HP?  These are rhetorical questions to myself, but they may help you understand what I'm trying to do.

 

Again, the best answer to your questions would be to read the book yourself and put this whole thing to rest.

I knew a priest at a parish school I worked at that was a big Harry Potter fan! All I can tell you from the looks of this article is that it is very silly and takes everything to a very extremist viewpoint. 

I think that if you actually did your own homework and looked into the literature yourself, you might be pleasantly surprised at how innocent it really is.

It is quite an enjoyable story but people are so afraid and skeptical that they allow things to morph into ridiculous nonsense. 

 

I think if you want to get answers to something that is within your grasp like a book...go read it. This isnt a debate about a book...a book that you can get at the library.

When other books like the Da Vinci Code came out claiming all these wild tales, we didnt just hide under a rock. We took charge, opened the stupid thing up, and were then able to conclude that it was in fact erroneous  If you are not willing to open up the book yourself to answer your own questions, then shame on you for encouraging a mentality that cripples so many Catholics who refuse to open their eyes and understand the reality of our world.

We need to be people in this world...not OF the world.

How are we to appropriately combat evil if we dont even understand what it is or where it comes from?

[CrossCuT]

I would also like to add that I dont believe reading Harry Potter is a sin just as I dont believe reading a murder mystery book is a sin.

I do believe however if you decided to start practicing witchcraft, or murdering people like you read in either book...then yes, that would probably be a sin.

 

But I have full confidence that you will not do either of those things...right?  :hehe2:

[fides' Jack]

Again, the best answer to your questions would be to read the book yourself and put this whole thing to rest.

I knew a priest at a parish school I worked at that was a big Harry Potter fan! All I can tell you from the looks of this article is that it is very silly and takes everything to a very extremist viewpoint. 

I think that if you actually did your own homework and looked into the literature yourself, you might be pleasantly surprised at how innocent it really is.

It is quite an enjoyable story but people are so afraid and skeptical that they allow things to morph into ridiculous nonsense. 

 

I think if you want to get answers to something that is within your grasp like a book...go read it. This isnt a debate about a book...a book that you can get at the library.

When other books like the Da Vinci Code came out claiming all these wild tales, we didnt just hide under a rock. We took charge, opened the stupid thing up, and were then able to conclude that it was in fact erroneous  If you are not willing to open up the book yourself to answer your own questions, then shame on you for encouraging a mentality that cripples so many Catholics who refuse to open their eyes and understand the reality of our world.

We need to be people in this world...not OF the world.

How are we to appropriately combat evil if we dont even understand what it is or where it comes from?

 

CrossCuT, one last time - this isn't about me.  You obviously haven't read the article.  It's not extremist in any form.  It's actually pro Harry Potter - at least from my perspective.  Read the whole thing or stop posting here.

 

Edit: my questions are not about Harry Potter, so your first statement doesn't even apply.

 

Seriously, you're not adding anything constructive to this honest debate.  Talk to specific points in the article or don't talk at all.

Edited April 25, 2013 by fides' Jack

[fides' Jack]

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.

 

This isn't really appropriate to the subject at hand.

[fides' Jack]

One does not have to be well-rounded or grounded in classic literature to NOT be adversely affected by some of the not-great things in Harry Potter.  One simply has to a)know the difference between fantasy and reality b)have good parents who teach you about the faith and c)have parents that read potentially-questionable things with you so that they can guide your understanding of the text.  

 

 

Regarding the "hedges"

 

1. Wizards may live in the same world, but live in an "underground" society apart from non-magical people. Wizards are severely punished for breaching (or potentially breaching) the "international statute of secrecy."  Magic isn't portrayed as a safe activity in HP - in fact, it's often referenced how dangerous it is for people to just be left to their own devices without years of proper, structured guidance from experts. Magic doesn't seem to be inherently safe in Tolkien, and it's not always lawful in HP.

 

Are you arguing here that the author is incorrect about HP, or that his point isn't a good one?  It seems to me that there is a distinction to be made between the HP and non-HP literature in this context.  The relative "safety" of magic is covered in other "hedges".

 

2. The conflict between those who believe they are "the elite" and those whom the elite view as inferior is the CENTRAL conflict to the HP series.  Wizards who view themselves as inherently superior to non-magical people are viewed negatively, and in later books there are strong parallels to a "pure-blooded" wizard movement and Nazism. The heroes of the books fight against this kind of superiority, whether it be between wizards and wizards, wizards and non-magical folk, or humans and sentient non-humans. The "statute of secrecy" that keeps the wizard society a secret is described as being put in place for the protection of non-magical folk and so that magical folk wouldn't be harassed, but it is later remarked that it was likely a terrible idea that only served to underscore the racist tendencies of the elite. 

 

I don't think the author's point is about elitism, but about secrecy.  In fact, I think the fact (as you are putting forth) that Rowling tries harder to equalize those who perform magic and regular people even further demonstrates the differences illustrated by hedges 3, 4, and 5.  You've done nothing to show that there isn't a distinction to be made - Harry Potter does indeed employ a level of secrecy of magic that is not used by LOTR and Narnia.

 

3. The magic of Harry Potter is different than the magic of Tolkien or Lewis. For HP, magic is an inborn talent one genetically inherits from one's parents (or someone in your ancestry).  It's not something just anyone can learn, which is exemplified when in later books a character without magical talent writes a letter to the magical school's headmaster asking to join, and she is denied.  Magic is a talent that mostly involves manipulating physical and chemical laws of nature in different ways. In Harry Potter, magic is merely a neutral part of who you are. Again, magic is neither inherently safe nor always used in a lawful way.  

 

So I think you're saying that the distinction here is OK because the nature of magic is different.  That might be true.  Hm...  Actually, I think in both LOTR and Narnia magic is also an inborn talent, except in those cases where main characters might use items that have magical properties.  As to the statement about manipulating laws of nature - if that's true in HP then it's certainly worthy of mention.  Somebody brought up X-Men - which basically is the same type of "magic".  However, in X-Men it's not called "magic" but very scientifically "evolution".  If the magic in HP is more scientific, then that's a good rebuttal for this hedge; but then why is it called magic?  I saw the first couple movies, and that didn't seem to come across at all.  Is it more apparent in the books? 

4. Again, this point wrongly assumes that the magic is the same.  Magic is only Harry's "salvation" when he uses it properly.  Saying that Harry can't use magic when the most evil wizard is trying to kill him with magic is like saying you can't raise a hand to block a blow when a thug is trying to beat you to death.  In fact, it is conspicuously noted by some of the characters that Harry's go-to use of the "disarming" spell in combat (instead of some kind of aggressive spell) is famous among even the evil wizards.  Furthermore, the article completely ignores that magic is the SINGULAR CAUSE of ALL of Harry's problems that he tries to solve with magic.  The whole reason why Harry has to live with his abusive relatives is because an evil wizard tried to use magic to become immortal, went around killing everyone (with magic) who tried to stand in his way, and only failed when he tried to use magic to kill Harry.  Plus there are some kinds of magic which are completely forbidden to study.  Dumbledore, the headmaster of the magical school, even banned certain books from the school library, even from the written-permission-from-a-professor-only Restricted Section.  

 

The author is placing all magic on the same level - from the Christian perspective, which immediately places all magic as evil in the real world.  The point is to determine if any potential influences might be harmful.  In that light, I'm not sure it matters for this hedge if the magic is different or not.  Your analogy about blocking a punch is incorrect, as raising your hand has no intrinsic moral value.  Practicing magic does.

 

So is the HP series saying in the end that magic is to be avoided by everyone - you kind of imply that might be the case.  Is Harry's story one that admits, finally after a number of movies/books, that Harry would have been better off without magic?  That would also be worth noting...

 

5. Again, magic is neither always safe nor lawful in the HP books.  While Harry and his friends are human, there are plenty of non-human characters who have special kinds of magic themselves. Having the ability to do magic is like having an extra arm or hair or eyes. Some beings have it, others don't, and some beings have ones that look different.

 

The author's distinction is that in LOTR and Narnia, magic is never inherent to the characters we can mostly relate to - as a necessary rule.  In HP, everyone does magic (in the realm of magic, that is - not absolutely everyone in the HP universe).  Rowling seems to shrug off the moral barrier which would keep relatable characters from attaining the use of magic themselves.  That's the distinction.

 

6. Kids don't like Harry Potter because he can do magic.  They like Harry Potter because they relate to his experiences of growing up. Harry gets worried about his first day of school. Harry gets angry and frustrated for no reason when he's a teenager.  Harry deals with his first crush.  Harry deals with figuring out what it means to be a true friend.  Harry deals with bullies.  Harry deals with teachers who seem unfair.  Harry learns to stand up for what's right.  Harry learns that despite everything, some people have it worse than he does.  Harry learns that the love of your family is one of the most important things in the world.  Harry learns that sacrificial love is the most powerful magic on earth. Seriously.  Harry is intentionally meant as a Christological figure in the last book.  He willingly dies not only for his friends but for the entire wizarding world and comes back to life and defeats the evil wizard. Rowling has said multiple times that she was quiet about her religious beliefs because she didn't want to give away the ending of her books. 

 

Here, too, the distinction is that Harry is the main character, and does not embody the typical "wizard" stereotype, which you've clearly shown to be true.

 

It's interesting that Harry is lastly displayed as a Christ-figure.  I'm not sure if that's good or bad, given the conditions...  I'll have to think about that some more.

 

7. Again, this is wrong.  People are BORN with magical talent, no one knows where it really comes from (though there's a theory about genetics), and people go to school to learn to control it and get better at it.  

 

The author doesn't talk about where magic comes from, though that might be another hedge (one that, in this case, does not separate HP from Narnia and LOTR).  Instead, he talks about how the characters attain the use of it.  As in Hogwarts and classrooms and the experiences of Harry and friends while they learn new spells.

 

The thing is, you could replace the words "magic" with "skill" and "wizard" with "practitioner" and no one would throw a fit about the books.  And any real Pagan or Wiccan will tell you that the "magic' in Harry Potter has absolutely nothing to do with "real" magic.  Seriously, I've asked Pagans and Wiccans.

 

Maybe so - though the stereotypes of riding on brooms and waiving around "wands" might give it away.  Without even all those, maybe you are closer to X-Men?

 

So, personal question, do you have friends who are pagan or wiccan?

 

I should emphasize to you that the author's goal appears to be not to condemn Harry Potter, but simply to provide an argument against people who say that those who like the magic in LOTR but not HP are hypocrites.  I'm not sure you understand the difference - most of what you're saying seems to prove his points, that there is a distinction to be made between HP and LOTR and Narnia.

 

Nor are his "hedges" meant to be a list of what might be morally offensive about HP - but simply what makes it different in terms of magic than LOTR and Narnia, and why a parent might throw a fit of HP but not over LOTR.

 

Again, this is NOT an attack on Harry Potter.

 

Edit: didn't Rowling say she was Wiccan at one point?  That might be relevant to your point on hedge 6.

Edited April 25, 2013 by fides' Jack

[EmilyAnn]

CrossCuT, one last time - this isn't about me.  You obviously haven't read the article.  It's not extremist in any form.  It's actually pro Harry Potter - at least from my perspective.  Read the whole thing or stop posting here.

 

Edit: my questions are not about Harry Potter, so your first statement doesn't even apply.

 

Seriously, you're not adding anything constructive to this honest debate.  Talk to specific points in the article or don't talk at all.

I disagree that the article is "pro Harry Potter". I would actually argue that the author, while not stating it overtly, implies very strongly that he is anti Harry Potter.

You also state that Rowling claimed to be a Wiccan - this is to the best of my knowledge not true (I looked into her religious belief for the purposes to this discussion), she has professed to be Episcopalian (though possibly not practicing) and has stated she does not believe in magic. 

Edited April 25, 2013 by EmilyAnn

[CrossCuT]

I disagree that the article is "pro Harry Potter". I would actually argue that the author, while not stating it overtly, implies very strongly that he is anti Harry Potter.
 

I recognized the same thing after only reading the first section.

The whole section had strong sarcastic tones when it talked about different aspects of Harry Potter