Harry Potter Is No Hero

[KnightofChrist]

[url="http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=55967"]Harry Potter is no hero: Vatican newspaper[/url]

Vatican, Jan. 15, 2008 (CWNews.com) - A prominent article in the official Vatican newspaper has warned against a fundamental flaw in the Harry Potter novels.

In a signed essay in L'Osservatore Romano, Edoardo Rialti argues that despite "obvious superficial resemblances," the novels by J.K. Rowling do not deserve to be compared with the great Christian fables of J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis. The fundamental difference, he says, is that the Harry Potter books portray sorcery and magic as positive forces.

While Harry Potter has many admirable qualities, the L'Osservatore Romano critic writes, the books fall into "the old Gnostic temptation of confusing salvation and truth with secret knowledge." Rowling, the author, offers a character who manipulates secret forces, and turns dark powers to good use. By contrast, Rialti writes, the fictional works of Tolkien and Lewis remind readers that "the seductive power of magic always has grave and destructive consequences."

The hero in Christian allegory, like Frodo Baggins in the Lord of the Rings, achieves great things by perseverance and reliance on his own abilities, the L'Osservatore article notes. Harry Potter, on the other hand, invokes special powers that make him something more than a mortal human. Thus Harry Potter cannot be considered a proper hero, the article concludes.

Harry Potter, the L'Osservatore article notes, uses his recondite knowledge and special powers to manipulate nature and overcome obstacles. Rialti suggests that Rowling has created a memorable character who accepts an invitation very much like the one extended by the serpent in Eden, who told Adam and Eve that with the aid of forbidden knowledge, "you will be like God."

[st-annes]

Harry Potter is a [u]fictional character[/u]. I read fantasy novels all through my youth, and I saw a lot of movies, yet I turned out okay. Why? Because my parents told me not to take them seriously. They told me about the difference between fiction and reality. It's a book to have fun with, nothing more. Because, you know, all the kids have turned into devil-worshipers overnight...

[Church Punk]

The author of this article is right. Harry Potter holds no water to Lewis or Tolkein.

Lets say that you do take it seriously, and try to learn a moral lesson from each of these books what do you get?

The lesson you would learn after reading Lord of the Rings is that Good can defeat evil, only by purity of heart and offering of ones self to suffering and even death, "I will take the Ring to Morador even through I do not know the way". Only a "child like heart" (Frodo) was capable of over coming all the evil of Morador.

In Narnia we see the same theme, in order to conquer evil only self sacrifice can prevail, embracing evils heel. When Azland trades his life for Edmunds, he really is saved and then takes his life up again just as Christ does.

In Harry Potter, we learn that the line between good and evil seems to be somewhat relative. The evil powers use special curses and spells, and so does Harry Potter (speaking to serpents and such). There is one scene in one of the books (Gobblet of Fire i think) where their friends are placed under a spell and left for dead at the bottom of a lake for a mere tournament (no evil here?) Luckily Harry comes to the rescue. There is no self sacrifice on Harry's part, perhaps one could argue that of his parents falling to Valdamort, but perhaps this was only because they lost the fight? There are elements of good in Harry Potter, just as there are basically everywhere, but as a moral lesson I think it fails to convey a true good vs evil message due to the lack of self sacrifice on the "good character's" parts.

[Azriel]

The recurring theme in all of the Potter books is that Harry didn't die because his Mother gave her life for him. She protected him, and the only thing that defeated Voldemort was true love, true sacrifice.

I think that's a pretty good moral right there.

Spells and curses abound in fiction everywhere. What child do you know that hasn't pretended to be magic? Or wished for a magic wand? Or wanted to be a fairy? Even in Oz there was a good witch. And yeah, I know as a kid I wished for a magic wand to defeat my bullies. I also remember praying that I would not meet up with them. I understood the difference between fantasy and reality.

Fantasies and imagination never hurt any child. Its up to the parents to teach their children the difference between fantasy and reality.

[Autumn Dusk]

Spells in Potter aren't simply benign words that one can use when you're afraid or annoyed. Or just want them to work.

Spells in Potter are more like serious prayer. They are a tool to attain a greater state. Take for instance when Harry conjures a Patronis to save himself and Sirus from the death eaters. It took all his strength, will and "faith" I see the parallel in strong prayers ment to protect us in battle. Strong prayers that like "expecto Paronum" drive away the forces of darkness.

One of the reasons I like Harry is because magic dosn't fix everything for him. Magic dosn't bring back his parents, magic dosn't make the durslesys nice. Magic dosn't make a girl like him, magic dosn't protect him from snape or malfoy. Magic dosn't make him grow faster or more athletic.

And about talking to the snake. Its not "his fault" that he can speak to snakes. It was a "power" given becuase he encountered evil. I think this can be compared to insights and skills we acquire when we encounter evil. For instance there was a man who was held captive. During that time he developed great meditating skills and amazing dexterity because he was forced to do humiliating acts. When he escaped he used his meditating and dexterity skills for much good. Should he be seen as evil becuase his "talents" were developed in evil? No, never. In Potter there is a slight bit of relativsm but there is always a line between right and wrong.

[Deb]

Harry Potter is just a fun, adventerous read and in his books, good really did triumph over evil.

[Servant of the Secret Fire]

[quote name='Church Punk' post='1446463' date='Jan 16 2008, 04:43 PM']The author of this article is right. Harry Potter holds no water to Lewis or Tolkein.

Lets say that you do take it seriously, and try to learn a moral lesson from each of these books what do you get?

The lesson you would learn after reading Lord of the Rings is that Good can defeat evil, only by purity of heart and offering of ones self to suffering and even death, "I will take the Ring to Morador even through I do not know the way". Only a "child like heart" (Frodo) was capable of over coming all the evil of Morador.

In Narnia we see the same theme, in order to conquer evil only self sacrifice can prevail, embracing evils heel. When Azland trades his life for Edmunds, he really is saved and then takes his life up again just as Christ does.

In Harry Potter, we learn that the line between good and evil seems to be somewhat relative. The evil powers use special curses and spells, and so does Harry Potter (speaking to serpents and such). There is one scene in one of the books (Gobblet of Fire i think) where their friends are placed under a spell and left for dead at the bottom of a lake for a mere tournament (no evil here?) Luckily Harry comes to the rescue. There is no self sacrifice on Harry's part, perhaps one could argue that of his parents falling to Valdamort, but perhaps this was only because they lost the fight? There are elements of good in Harry Potter, just as there are basically everywhere, but as a moral lesson I think it fails to convey a true good vs evil message due to the lack of self sacrifice on the "good character's" parts.[/quote]

I have to disagree. Largely I think the HP books are good. There are some issues with them but I feel that article is totally off target.

Firstly, in GoF those at the bottom of the lake are not left for dead - they are perfectly safe. Harry just panics and doesn't realise this.

Secondly I don't know if you have read the last book but self-sacrifice on Harry's part plays a large part.

More generally though I think the problem with that article and with a number of commentaries that have popped up in the media is that they way they describe the magic in the books makes you wonder if the commentator has read them. It is not arcane knowledge but simply simply a natural ability. Yes there are instances where the metaphysics of the world JK Rowling has created is central to the resolution of some plot point but [i]in general[/i] she has avoided getting too tied up with that and made it very clear that it is our moral choices that are important. Above all it is self-sacrificial love that is the "magic" beyond all other. (And remember even CS Lewis use the word magic to refer to God's love.)

I say in general because there are some instances where things have perhaps hinged a little too much on the "mechanics of magic" so to speak. However to criticise the books in this way seems to show little understanding of them.

Of greater worth would be examining the moral actions of the characters more deeply. Certainly the heroes get away with an awful lot so long as their intentions and the eventual outcome are good. Generally it is inconsequential rules that are being broken but there are times when you can see some relativism. Above all in the final book we find out a lot that Dumbledore has been keeping from Harry and it raises huge questions about what Dumbledore should have done. But JKR makes it clear that Dumbledore did not get it entirely right, that Harry is the better man. Not that Harry is not also shown to be flawed in some ways. Certainly none of the heroes are flawless. However this is realistic and I think that so long as children are not left to fend entirely for themselves then the books are a very good thing.

Don't get me wrong though, I agree that Tolkien, and to some extent Lewis (comparisons here seem a little unfair as I think he was writing for a younger audience than either Tolkien or Rowling), are in a class of their own.

Edited January 16, 2008 by Servant of the Secret Fire

[SanctitasDeo]

I am not sure that objecting to Harry Potter on anti-secrecy grounds quite makes sense. The powers in the Harry Potter books aren't really secret forces, unless secrets are something that just about anyone can look up in a readily-available book. The majority of the magic wielded in those books is a common type that is actually a fairly neutral thing, concerning good and evil. This is especially true of the magic that most 'normal' witches and wizards know.

There is magic that is inherently evil. However, it is inherently evil because of its results. It kills and tortures and raises spirit from beyond the grave. It is merely power wielded to intent to evil. It is the same as an axe. An axe is a tool--power--that can be used to chop wood and thus bring light or to murder a man because people like him more than they like you.

The magic that protects Harry Potter is based on love and self-sacrifice. The reason Harry is initially safe from Voldemort--the man who would conquer death not through love, but through hate and the deaths of others--is because his mother loved him enough to die protecting him, as did his father.

The magic that is evil is secret, yes. Evil magic in Tolkien and Lewis is also secret.

Not many people know of the power of love--the good magic. But again, that is largely true in Tolkien and Lewis as well, especially in The Chronicles of Narnia. Aslan dies for Edmund because he loves him. After he is resurrected, he tell Lucy and Susan what happened and why it worked. He explain that the witch knew the Deep Magic that entitled her to every traitor's blood. But she [i]didn't know[/i] the Deeper Magic from beyond the Dawn of Time.

Magic in the Lord of the Rings can be compared to Harry Potter's magic as well; it is just a much rarer thing. Magic used to be commonly used by the Numenoreans, the people from whom Aragorn descends. The magic was not only good or evil in their hands. It was power by which good and evil occurred. Eventually, power went to their heads and they tried to reach what Heaven they could, and they were cast down. However, the same thing happened at the Tower of Babel without magic. Both people's were just too proud to handle the power they had.

The evil magic in the Lord of the Rings is the power of fallen angels. The good magic in the Lord of the Rings is the magic of angels still serving The One, who is the Creator of Middle-Earth. Gandolf is a wielder of the [u]Secret[/u] Fire, as is highlighted by the above poster's name.

In none of these books do the heroes, including Harry Potter, succumb to the temptation to "be as gods". They are all tempted by Power in its various forms, but in the end, they throw off the temptation and triumph over Evil and go back to the quiet life that they would like to live, if Evil hadn't interrupted things. One reason I liked the end of Harry Potter 7 so much was that in the end after stopping Voldemort's reign, he steps down and marries, has kids, and lives the life that he wished, that his parents wished. He doesn't seek political power, as he well could. He doesn't even try to replace Dumbledore or seek fame in any way. So one of the final messages is that power is not everything. Rowling sets this up with the three tools--the cloak and the wand and the stone, as well as other objects like the Sword of Gryffindor. Grindelwald's failing is that he tries to gain and hold onto all the power, and it corrupts him. Dumbledore eventually tries the same thing, and fails, as well. Harry seeks the power, but he relinquishes it again and again. He shares it with people. And in the end, he gives it all up. I'd say he is a hero.

As long as we don't lose sight of the fact that ultimately the analogue of the good magic in each of these books is the power of God, and the analogue of the evil magic the power of the Devil, these books are all good. I think Exodus proscribes the death sentence for witches not because magic is evil, but because they are replacing God with magic, spirit worship, idol worship.

And besides would people have such a problem with Harry Potter if his wand were a lightsaber, and his magic the Force? In each myth, it is just a form of power that can be used for good or evil. Neither exist in our world unless they cause us to forget God and wander strange paths. And there are so many things much more dangerous in that department. Money comes to mind.

Edited January 16, 2008 by SanctitasDeo

[Azriel]

[quote name='SanctitasDeo' post='1446499' date='Jan 16 2008, 01:41 PM']I am not sure that objecting to Harry Potter on anti-secrecy grounds quite makes sense. The powers in the Harry Potter books aren't really secret forces, unless secrets are something that just about anyone can look up in a readily-available book. The majority of the magic wielded in those books is a common type that is actually a fairly neutral thing, concerning good and evil. This is especially true of the magic that most 'normal' witches and wizards know.

There is magic that is inherently evil. However, it is inherently evil because of its results. It kills and tortures and raises spirit from beyond the grave. It is merely power wielded to intent to evil. It is the same as an axe. An axe is a tool--power--that can be used to chop wood and thus bring light or to murder a man because people like him more than they like you.

The magic that protects Harry Potter is based on love and self-sacrifice. The reason Harry is initially safe from Voldemort--the man who would conquer death not through love, but through hate and the deaths of others--is because his mother loved him enough to die protecting him, as did his father.

The magic that is evil is secret, yes. Evil magic in Tolkien and Lewis is also secret.

Not many people know of the power of love--the good magic. But again, that is largely true in Tolkien and Lewis as well, especially in The Chronicles of Narnia. Aslan dies for Edmund because he loves him. After he is resurrected, he tell Lucy and Susan what happened and why it worked. He explain that the witch knew the Deep Magic that entitled her to every traitor's blood. But she [i]didn't know[/i] the Deeper Magic from beyond the Dawn of Time.

Magic in the Lord of the Rings can be compared to Harry Potter's magic as well; it is just a much rarer thing. Magic used to be commonly used by the Numenoreans, the people from whom Aragorn descends. The magic was not only good or evil in their hands. It was power by which good and evil occurred. Eventually, power went to their heads and they tried to reach what Heaven they could, and they were cast down. However, the same thing happened at the Tower of Babel without magic. Both people's were just too proud to handle the power they had.

The evil magic in the Lord of the Rings is the power of fallen angels. The good magic in the Lord of the Rings is the magic of angels still serving The One, who is the Creator of Middle-Earth. Gandolf is a wielder of the [u]Secret[/u] Fire, as is highlighted by the above poster's name.

In none of these books do the heroes, including Harry Potter, succumb to the temptation to "be as gods". They are all tempted by Power in its various forms, but in the end, they throw off the temptation and triumph over Evil and go back to the quiet life that they would like to live, if Evil hadn't interrupted things. One reason I liked the end of Harry Potter 7 so much was that in the end after stopping Voldemort's reign, he steps down and marries, has kids, and lives the life that he wished, that his parents wished. He doesn't seek political power, as he well could. He doesn't even try to replace Dumbledore or seek fame in any way. So one of the final messages is that power is not everything. Rowling sets this up with the three tools--the cloak and the wand and the stone, as well as other objects like the Sword of Gryffindor. Grindelwald's failing is that he tries to gain and hold onto all the power, and it corrupts him. Dumbledore eventually tries the same thing, and fails, as well. Harry seeks the power, but he relinquishes it again and again. He shares it with people. And in the end, he gives it all up. I'd say he is a hero.

As long as we don't lose sight of the fact that ultimately the analogue of the good magic in each of these books is the power of God, and the analogue of the evil magic the power of the Devil, these books are all good. I think Exodus proscribes the death sentence for witches not because magic is evil, but because they are replacing God with magic, spirit worship, idol worship.

And besides would people have such a problem with Harry Potter if his wand were a lightsaber, and his magic the Force? In each myth, it is just a form of power that can be used for good or evil. Neither exist in our world unless they cause us to forget God and wander strange paths. And there are so many things much more dangerous in that department. Money comes to mind.[/quote]

[Servant of the Secret Fire]

It's interesting, I suppose you could argue that JK Rowling uses the term "magic" in much the same way as the hobbits tend to - ie in a manner that confuses Galadriel because they use the same term for both the results of the Elves exercising some of their natural graces and for the attempts of the Enemy to twist and corrupt Creation. It is perhaps this usage of the term that leads to much of the misfounded controversy. While I think Tolkien's approach goes deeper and illuminates a greater truth, I do not think it is inappropriate for Rowling to use the term the way she does. Really it is just a plot device.

(Btw cool observation about Babel and Numenor. Why did I never make that connection? )

Edited January 16, 2008 by Servant of the Secret Fire

[Tinkerlina]

As a huge Harry Potter fan, I am trying to get to the bottom of this! Apparently, what was published was only 1/2 of a pro/con HP debate. I personally see no harm in Harry Potter as the magic/sorcery is purely made up and bears no resemblence to real (and dangerous) "Magick."

[url="http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2008/01/harry-potter-wr.html"]http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fide...-potter-wr.html[/url]

[url="http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0800250.htm"]http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0800250.htm[/url]

Edited January 16, 2008 by Tinkerlina

[soccer girl =D]

Harry Potter can't be a real-life hero cuz he WASN'T real!
He was still pretty awesome though!

[XIX]

*shrug*


eh.

[Lil Red]

here we go again.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Long ago I said that Dumbledore was gay and nobody believed me. Of course we know that J. K. Rowling herself agrees with me! Now I must suggest that Harry Potter is gay; or at least metrosexual. Harry Potter is the pink herstory of a struggling boy seeking to find himself and discover that source of empowerment within us all. I celebrate the Harry Potter series as one of the greatest achievements in the herstory of civilization.


[img]http://fr.ragzag.com/wp-content/uploads/culture/dumbledore2.jpg[/img]
[i]"You don't say..."[/i]