I totally respect your belief that Harry Potter is not a suitable thing for children to read. However, I would like you to consider a few things that I think are important in light of that decision. If you still feel the same way after this, then the matter will be dropped, and again, I completely and totally respect your decision.
Harry Potter contains witchcraft and wizardry, and this may be the reason for your discomfort, based on Deuteronomy 18:10-14 :
"There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination to the LORD, and because of these abominations the LORD your God drives them out from before you. You shall be blameless before the LORD your God. For these nations which you will dispossess listened to soothsayers and diviners; but as for you, the LORD your God has not appointed such for you."
These verses clearly state that those who follow God are not to associate with those who perform magic. I would like to point out that the Harry Potter series is not anything at all like a manual for how to work magic, make potions, raise spirits, or tell the future. After reading the entire series, I am not one step closer to being able to perform magic (much to my chagrin. Haha). It also doesn't give tips or pointers in how to find out where to get this information. JK Rowling is not out to create thousands of real witches and wizards. In the series, magic is used as a tool for storytelling. A parallel series could be one in which a group of friends uses very highly advanced technology to battle evil. This book would contain no tips on how to create these technologies, they just exist, and are tools that the characters use in the fictional world the author has created that help tell fantastical stories in which good always triumphs over evil.
Secondly, if you want to throw out Harry Potter because of its use of magic, then I think you must also be prepared to throw out a lot of other things. Nearly every Disney movie contains some aspect of magic. The Beauty and the Beast is centered around a magic spell; The Little Mermaid's antagonist is a sea-witch; in the Lion King, Rafiki uses his magic to call back the spirit of Mufasa to talk to Simba. Sleeping beauty has the three good fairies, and the immensely evil witch; Snow White has a shape-shifting witch and an enchanted mirror; Aladdin has a Genie; Cinderella's fairy godmother uses magic to transform Cinderella's clothing into a beautiful dress, a pumpkin into a carriage, and her mice into steeds. There's magic all over the Shrek series, The Emperor's New Groove, Enchanted, and in Pinocchio, a blue fairy magically transforms a puppet into a real boy. Mary Poppins could quite probably be called a witch with all of the magical feats she accomplishes. Even the Wizard of Oz is about an evil witch versus a good one. What about the Lord of the Rings? Magical elves, magic spells, wizards and magic creatures run around all throughout that story. Magic is all over these stories. Do you feel as uncomfortable with these stories, even though magic is often used through all of them?
The strongest example I have is of "The Chronicles of Narnia" by C.S. Lewis. Magic is an extremely important element in that story. The "Deep Magic" that allows Aslan to sacrifice himself for Edmund is clearly a metaphor for the power of God triumphing over sin. The White Witch is the main antagonist, and she uses magic to keep the world in eternal winter, and fool Edmund with the Turkish delights. The story is based around a journey through a magic portal into another world.
These stories cannot be dismissed based on their use of magic because of the lessons they offer. In the Lord of the Rings, Frodo is clearly a Christ figure, sacrificing himself for the good of all mankind. If he doesn't throw the ring into Mt. Doom, all mankind will suffer under the rule of Sauron, the metaphor for Satan. The story is full of resistance of temptation, dependence on friendship, sacrifice, pushing through adversity, and ultimately the ability of good to prevail against evil.
The Chronicles of Narnia series offers an even clearer view into this metaphor. As I said before, the magic throughout is merely a vehicle for the actual message of the story. Lewis doesn't try very hard to veil his message, and creates a story that has very clear allegorical meaning. Aslan is Christ, sacrificed for all of Narnia; Edmund is man, weak and able to fall to temptation; the White Witch and her lackeys are Satan and his demons. If you want to throw out this story because of the magic, you're also throwing away a great story that allows children to read the story of God's love for mankind. You don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water.
Returning to Harry Potter, the question must be asked, "Are there such redeeming qualities in its pages?" The answer is a resounding yes, even though it is not as clear cut as in The Chronicles of Narnia. Harry learns a lot about responsibility, and standing up for what he believes in. You learn about friendship, and how it can sustain you during times of great distress. You learn about self-sacrifice, putting others before yourself. You learn what it means to be a hero. Harry Potter is a Christ figure. He's always willing to sacrifice himself for his friends, and in the final book, he literally dies and comes back to life. This is a metaphor for the death and resurrection of Christ. JK Rowling is not peddling immorality.
In her world, there are 3 "Unforgivable Curses" that are punishable by life imprisonment. These include a killing curse, a curse that tortures your victim, and a cures that forces your victim to do whatever you want. Evil never prevails, and there are tons of role-models and life lessons throughout the books. The main characters are always encouraged to do what is right, even if it is difficult, and those who fail to do so are painted as slimy individuals that the reader doesn't like. The books are about growing up, and confront issues that come up with all children. Magic IS involved, but it's not in the light of "Hey, magic is really cool, go learn how to do magic spells." Instead, it exists as naturally as automobiles and airplanes do in the real world.
These books hold amazing stories that can hold the attention of any reader, especially a young one. If your kids are looking for books to read, I couldn't recommend any higher than these. They start off simply; they are short in the beginning, and the writing is simple. As the books go on, the issues become more complex and the writing becomes more complex. They're great books for your kids to grow up with.
I've always wanted to address this but have never gotten around to it. You brought up some really good points. Well done!
ReplyDeleteThanks tash!
ReplyDeleteI was one of those that snubbed my nose at people who even mentioned HP's name. It wasn't until my mum and lil sis visited NZ a few years ago and Amanda fell in love with the series (and Daniel Radcliffe) that mum realized it wasn't as bad as people were buzzing around our conservative little circle. People have tendencies to judge something they know very little of - we do it all the time (stereotypes, publications, etc). There's actually a great psychological study on why people do. From my experience, it's always best to just be open about learning and accepting - doesn't mean you won't agree with it, but you don't come across as a naive and ignorant person. Kudos to this blog
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFor the most part, I agree with you, Tommy. But I draw the line at describing either Frodo or Harry Potter as Christ figures.
ReplyDeleteNeither one was born of God, and neither was perfect, destined for sacrifice so that others would be saved. Both were mere mortals who found themselves thrown into one of the great stories, the ones that really matter according to Sam. They each had lots of chances to give up, but didn't. They never planned to die when they began their quests, and they were prepared to die only at the end when it seemed inevitable. I believe they personified the definition of Hero, not Savior.
By the way, the biggest objection C.S. Lewis had to J.R.R. Tolkien was the lack of allegory in his writing. Lewis believed -- in the rigid, judgmental way many extremely religious people adopt toward opinions that differ from their own -- that the only valuable writing is allegory. He dismissed Tolkien's work out of hand.
As for Harry dying and coming back to life, Dumbledore made it clear on more than one occasion that NO ONE can come back from the dead. If you define what happened to Harry in the forest as resurrection, then so was Voldemort resurrected. What I believe Rowling tried to make clear was that Harry's soul and one of the last bits of Voldemort's had moved to a place in between life and death, where Harry's soul could choose to go on or go back. If it went on, Harry would die. Their conversation in "King's Cross" took place in an instant, and neither he nor Voldemort had died.
Fair enough, Sue, but I think that it takes a lot less to be classified as a Christ figure in literary terms than that. For instance, Santiago in Hemingway's "The Old Man and the Sea" has been classified as a Christ figure in the past, and I think there's a lot less reason for him to be seen that way. Even Luke in "Cool Hand Luke" is sort of made into a Christ figure, and both are because of the cross-like poses that they lie in at some point or other.
ReplyDeleteBy saying "Christ-figure" I don't mean to say that his story mirror's Christ's, I just mean to say that they could be similarly viewed.
However, your point regarding resurrection is taken well, and I think could be a matter of interpretation. Sure, perhaps he didn't physically die and come back to life, but at least symbolically he did. Perhaps in a similar way that baptism is a symbol of resurrection. So I think that point still stands.
And I wasn't aware of C.S. Lewis' take on J.R.R. Tolkien's writings. That's interesting. To be honest, I was never the biggest fan of allegory. In my mind, the one-to-one substitution gets kind of old, and is a little bit too obvious. Not to say, of course, that I don't like C.S. Lewis' writing, I just can't read too terribly much of his fiction. I prefer his non-fiction.