Not Another Harry Potter Debate

[Guest Raz]

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.

 

 

1. Catholics shouldn't be afraid to read works of fiction and if you want to have a discussion about anything, anything at all, you should have make an effort to learn the subject at hand. In this case that means reading Harry Potter for yourself, or at least watch the movies. This will let you form your own opinion and you will actually have something meaningful to bring to the discussion.

 

2. The position of any piece of writing is not determined by the reader. To say that from "your perspective" the article is "pro" anything is an absurd statement. You didn't write it, you cannot decide what the article is for or against. The writer clearly takes issue with many aspects of the book series and is definitely not "pro" harry potter. For example...

 

"Christian parents should have a reasonable level of concern about the dangers of magical experimentation and the occult; and they should be aware that Rowling, unlike Tolkien or Lewis, doesn’t share their beliefs on this subject."

 

Also, every one of his "hedges" is about how Lewis and Tolkein did it right, and Rowling did it wrong. The entire article is written from the opinion the Rownling's stories conflicts with Christian morality. Just about every paragraph contains something to prove the article is not "pro" harry potter.

 

In Rowling there is no moral barrier to wizardry and witchcraft in the ordinary “Muggle” world; which is to say, Rowling’s moral world breaks with real-world Christian morality, without so much as a nod or word about it.

 

3. The question you asked was "So!  What are your thoughts on the article, and specifically about the author's "hedges", and how they apply to several other literary themes?"

 

3a. You wouldn't apply these "hedges" to other literary themes, you would apply them to other stories.

 

3b. The entire article is about how the writer believes fantasy/magic literature can have an influence on society that could draw people away from Christian morals. With that in mind, I would have to say that everything CrosscuT has said is totally on topic, and good advice all around.

 

All that said, I'm not really a big fan of Harry Potter. I get it. I get why people like it. It was just "meh" to me though. To be fair I've only seen the movies. To be double fair, I couldn't get through the books because they bored me to death.

 

LOTR is whats up.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Raz

[Winchester]

[fides' Jack]

Really people, read the stupid article before posting here.  That was my rule.  It still is.  This isn't the whole thing, but if you think it's an anti-HP article, you're clearly wrong.

 

FROM THE ARTICLE:

 

Before plunging into the moral debate over the magic of Harry Potter, it’s worth noting that, in general terms, the Harry Potter stories have real merit as literature and entertainment, and perhaps social and moral merits as well (along with some moral drawbacks). They are well-written, lively, exciting, and quite funny, with vividly imagined creations and engaging characterizations.

 

Moreover, although highly fantastical and imaginative, Rowling’s narratives are packed with knowledgable allusions and references to historical myths, legends, superstitions, and so forth, so seamlessly woven into the fabric of the narratives that even literate adults may not catch them all. Tie-in books with names like The Magical Worlds of Harry Potteroffer readers insight into the cultural backgrounds of many elements in Rowling’s stories, potentially turning an exercise in entertainment and diversion into a genuine learning experience.

 

On a moral level, the Harry Potter books offer villains who are utterly odious and despicable, and protagonists who are, if not quite charitable or forbearing, at least brave and loyal. Courage and loyalty are, in fact, significant themes in the books, along with the evils of prejudice and oppression.

 

Best of all, there are wise and competent adult authority-figures, especially brilliant and commanding Albus Dumbledore, Headmaster of Hogwarts School of Wizardry and Witchcraft, who inspires boundless confidence as being always in control of the situation, who virtually never makes a mistake, and whom no one can for long have at a disadvantage. (On the other hand, the series takes too long for my taste to get around to pointing out the problem of Harry’s repeated failures to avert potential disasters by not seeking help from Dumbledore as soon as possible.)

 

 

 

Here's the whole point of the thing:

 

What I do object to is the claim that it is inconsistent or hypocritical to allow Tolkien and Lewis, but to object to Rowling. The Rowling books are significantly different from the Tolkien and Lewis books, and there is good reason to make a distinction between them, perhaps even to draw a line between them separating the allowed from the disallowed.

 

 

 

And then at the end:

 

By now it should be clear that I am neither an enthusiastic pro-Harry cheerleader nor a vehemently anti-Harry polemicist. I embrace neither the view that parents must ban the Harry Potter books from their houses, nor the view these books ought to be welcomed and read — though I have no quarrel with parents who follow either course of action.

I also object to the portrait of Harry Potter as a poster child for the occult, and the claim that parents who permit reading Harry Potter are necessarily exposing their children to harmful influences. The absence in Rowling of the hedges I’ve been discussing doesn’t make her books automatically harmful or even dangerous for all children, though it may make them harmful for some.

[...]

 

Yet reading Harry Potter by itself — or rather, reading Harry Potter as part of a well-rounded reading program including well-chosen books that might include the works of Tolkien and Lewis, the adventure stories of Howard Pyle, the fantasy of Lloyd Alexander, the frontier stories of Laura Ingalls Wilder, the apocalyptic fiction of Michael O’Brien, the fairy-stories of George MacDonald, or the detective tales of Encyclopedia Brown (and, later, Sherlock Holmes) — a child whose reading has this kind of breadth and depth is unlikely to be negatively influenced by having read the Harry Potter books.

 

Indeed, for such a child — not to mention his or her parents — the redemptive themes in Harry Potter of good vs. evil, of loyalty and courage, of the evils of bigotry and oppression, and of course the wildly imaginative effects of Rowling’s magical world may be fondly remembered for years to come.

 

 

 

 

[EmilyAnn]

Really people, read the stupid article before posting here.  That was my rule.  It still is.  This isn't the whole thing, but if you think it's an anti-HP article, you're clearly wrong.

 

Wow, that's really in the spirit of reasoned discussion. We don't agree with you, therefore we are wrong. That's not really a helpful attitude at all.

Edited April 25, 2013 by EmilyAnn

[Nihil Obstat]

I wish I could unread the article and keep posting here, just to make you angry. :|

I think it is unrealistic at best to try to dictate the finer points of a conversation on Harry Potter.

[CrossCuT]

Well sounds like you can read the book! Case closed!

[Guest Raz]

Really people, read the stupid article before posting here.  That was my rule.  It still is.  This isn't the whole thing, but if you think it's an anti-HP article, you're clearly wrong.

 

FROM THE ARTICLE:

 

 

 

Here's the whole point of the thing:

 

 

And then at the end:

 

Ah yes, a summary that seems to ignore the rest of the piece.

 

"I'm not against Harry Potter, I'm just listing reason after reason as to why it's dangerous and could lead readers away from Christian morals. But it should be fine for kids."

 

That said, it was a very cool and in depth analysis of these stories, very fun read! Thanks for sharing!
 

Edited April 25, 2013 by Raz

[CrossCuT]

I wish I could unread the article and keep posting here, just to make you angry. :|

I think it is unrealistic at best to try to dictate the finer points of a conversation on Harry Potter.

I read some of it  :hehe2:

[Nihil Obstat]

It certainly is a worthwhile read. I believe I even bookmarked it for later reference a year ago or whenever it was that I first stumbled across it. But it is rather long.

[Nihil Obstat]

Ah yes, a summary that seems to ignore the rest of the piece.

 

"I'm not against Harry Potter, I'm just listing reason after reason as to why it's dangerous and could lead readers away from Christian morals. But it should be fine for kids."

 

That said, it was a very cool and in depth analysis of these stories, very fun read! Thanks for sharing!
 

Meh. The more you analyze something, the more nitpicky reasons you can come up with that the material is not perfect. That does not mean that you strongly object to those things, or that you think the material was not worthwhile. I think it is perfectly valid to point out aspects of the 'Harry Potter Universe' that are somewhat morally problematic, but still conclude that the series as a whole is an entirely worthwhile read.

 

I could deconstruct one of my favourite anime, and point out a hundred little things that were silly or awkward or otherwise less than perfect, but it would still be my favourite anime. :hehe2:

Edited April 25, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[Guest Raz]

Meh. The more you analyze something, the more nitpicky reasons you can come up with that the material is not perfect. That does not mean that you strongly object to those things, or that you think the material was not worthwhile. I think it is perfectly valid to point out aspects of the 'Harry Potter Universe' that are somewhat morally problematic, but still conclude that the series as a whole is an entirely worthwhile read.

 

I could deconstruct one of my favourite anime, and point out a hundred little things that were silly or awkward or otherwise less than perfect, but it would still be my favourite anime. :hehe2:

 

Fair enough :paco: oh man, this place has some awesome emoticons...

[Alberto Guimaraes]

Peace and Good!   :saint2: 

When I was a little boy I liked very much to read comics, specialy Disney, where the carachters are mainly animals, and I didn' t leave my religious living, although, sometimes, I played some «adventures» where God and the saints weren' t presents.  :bananarap:  

Fiction is fiction, and reality is reality. Sometimes fiction is necessary to relax our mind, without blaspheming.   :harp: 

Jesus, Mary and Francis be with you and bless you!   :nunpray: 

Br. Alberto Guimaraes

Braga - Portugal

[Basilisa Marie]

1.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".

 

I'm saying that the author isn't completely right about HP, and his point isn't very good. :)

 

2. 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.

 

The secrecy of magic is only incidental to the plot of the book. Harry spends nearly all of his time around magic people, and the author's idea that magic belongs to a secret elite isn't true.  The point in HP is that magic shouldn't be a secret where it is a secret, and that those with magic are no better than those without.  

 

3. 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? 

 

Lol, I brought up the X-men.  It's called magic because Rowling decided to use wizards and a magic school, because that made more sense to her story involving a natural inborn force that must be tamed and developed.  Plus she includes a backstory that magic developed since the beginning of civilization as a genetic trait, and probably calls it "magic" because it fits best with her alternate fictional world history.  But we shouldn't be afraid of it simply because it's named "magic."  The stuff some entertainers do is called "magic" but we don't balk at that.  It's very apparent in the books, especially the later ones.  It's in the later ones that Rowling actually goes somewhere with all the themes that she has been setting up for a few years.  The skill that is studied in the books is often described as very difficult. One of Harry's friends takes a course on magical mathematics (basically wizard calculus), the teacher in charge of his "House" teaches Transfiguration which involves lots of complicated formulas, diagrams and theories.  Charms manipulates the physical attributes of an object and requires similar study.  Potions is a hybrid of chemistry and cooking.   The one subject that is in any way NOT actually all that scientific is Divination (crystal balls, tea leaves, etc)  and all the intelligent, praiseworthy characters dismiss it as a complete waste of time and the teacher as a fraud.  

4. 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...

 

No, the author isn't placing magic on the same level.  The ability to do magic is a neutral talent.  What you DO with it is either good or bad.  If we consider HP magic a simple inborn skill and NOT the demonic worship we consider it to be in the real world, my metaphor about blocking a punch stands.   The series doesn't say that magic should be avoided.  It says that what matters is making the right choice to use whatever skills and talents you have in the proper way, that promotes good in the world.  

 

5. 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.

 

Okay, that's a fine distinction.  But I think it's mooted by the fact that the "Magic" in the books is a neutral talent and not like the real world demonic magic we abhor in real life. 

 

6. 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.

 

For what it's worth, the headmaster of the school does embody the wizard stereotype.   And yeah.  Harry's an imperfect Christ-figure, but a Christ figure none the less. 

 

7. 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.

 

Some characters DO use magic without proper training, and in the books it leads to bad consequences.  So yeah, I guess it's fairly similar to other books with "magic." 

 

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?

 

Well, yeah, because Rowling is drawing on the tropes of fictional witches and wizards.  

 

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

 

Yes, like I said, I do.  I have one of each.  The Pagan I was in high school band with before she became Pagan, and the Wiccan I knew from youth group before she moved across the country and became Wiccan.  But both are now full devotees of their separate belief systems, and have read the Potter books.  They both say that the magic in the books is nothing like the "magic" they practice.   In fact, the students at the school celebrate Christmas and Easter (in the secular sense, but nonetheless).  

 

Rowling was never a Wiccan, that was a rumor started by people who said that they thought she must be a witch because her books are so evil.  She is an Episcopalian, and goes through periods where she's more devote than other times. 

 

Thing is the author of the article wrote it without reading the last books (where most of the real conclusions are reached), so his analysis is going to be very incomplete.  In that respect, it's really not that great of an article.  

 

Honestly, I think your assessment of the "dangers" of the magic in the books is too harsh. It wouldn't kill ya to crack open the first one and see what you think instead of relying on other people to tell you. :)  

[Winchester]

Really people, read the stupid article before posting here.  That was my rule.  It still is. 

 

Edited April 25, 2013 by Winchester

[MissScripture]

So from what I have gathered, it is only okay to decide if a book is worth reading after you have read it. :unsure: