Harry Haters and the Lack of Proof /intolerable art/another religious view

[Amy Z]

HARRY HATERS:

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Ripleywriter at a... wrote:
> 
> Ok...I really think the only person who understood the point of my 
post 

I thought *I* understood it, and that Dumbledad also did and 
responded very helpfully.  

If I understand correctly, you'd like to know the basis of the 
religious argument against HP, their "proof" if you will.  I think 
I've read enough of them to give some kind of answer.  For some 
people, the Biblical injunction against sorcerors and diviners means 
that witchcraft is evil and they do not want children to get HP's 
message that it can be good, harmless, or plain old fun.  For some, 
the powers exhibited by Harry and Co. are problematic because 
supernatural powers are good only when they come from God or are 
practiced in his name, i.e. by Christian prophets.  For some, such 
things as the apparent toleration of lying, the portrayal of many 
adults as weaker/more foolish/more evil than children, and 
Dumbledore's view of death as "the next great adventure" clash with 
their world view.

For some, lines like "there is no good or evil; there is only 
power..." express a view that is abhorrent to their morality and so 
they don't want people to read them.  Some of these seem unaware that 
those words are put in the mouth of one of the most evil characters 
and thus it's quite clear that JKR shares their morality on this 
point; others just don't think evil sentiments should *ever* be 
voiced in a book, however large the flashing neon signs saying "THIS 
IS EVIL!" may be.  

The web is full of examples.  Here are a few I've read:

www.crossroad.to/text/articles/ Harry&Witchcraft.htm 

www.facingthechallenge.org/potter.htm

http://www.academon.com/lib/paper/9305.html  (an abstract--it's on 
a "buy this term paper" site, so I would hope it will not be of use 
to anyone with any kind of moral integrity)

www.surfinthespirit.com/entertainment/ harry-potter.shtml 

http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/hpmain.html  

Whether you think they've offered "proof" or not is something for you 
to determine.  IMO, many of them have adequate proof that HP violates 
their views.  I think their *views* are inadequately supported by 
proof, but I think they are quite right:  HP promotes, or makes light 
of, opinions that they despise.

Did I understand you correctly?

One aside.  Someone's disapproval of a book should not be elided with 
the banning or burning of it.  There are lots of people who think HP 
has an evil message and they don't want their children to read it, 
but they have no intention of interfering with anyone else's right to 
read it (e.g. by banning it or getting it off library shelves), nor 
do they burn copies.  They just decline to read it or to allow their 
children to; one may judge that the former is narrowminded and the 
latter is bad parenting, but neither by any stretch can be 
called "banning."

ART THAT'S WAY OUT OF WHACK WITH ONE'S MORAL VIEWS

To my shame, I have not read Lolita, but I love the movie (the first 
one!  No offense to Jeremy Irons intended, but why would anyone 
bother to remake a movie starring James Mason?).  I think my dh, who 
has taught the book and loves it, would say that among other things, 
Nabokov is trying to look at the life of someone whose obsession puts 
him on or outside the margins of society.  And I think that conveying 
the inner life of someone who is so marginal that most of us find him 
incomprehensible is a very noble purpose of art.  However, thinking 
of a book I couldn't finish (Tournier's The Ogre, about a child-
murderer), I agree with Dumbledad that I sometimes have to stop 
because as much as I want to know what makes a child-murderer tick, I 
get ill reading about it.

I think it's important to recognize that one can find great wisdom in 
a work of art even if it portrays evil, and even if it portrays evil 
in a non-judgmental way.  Whenever this argument comes up I think of 
Frank Capra, who had to fight Hollywood censors to allow It's a 
Wonderful Life to end without Mr. Potter <g> getting punished.  The 
Hayes rules were that bad guys cannot get away with it.  I find the 
Hayes attitude offensive to *my* world view, which says that bad guys 
often do get away with it and tying up every loose end neatly denies 
the persistence of evil.

ANOTHER RELIGIOUS VIEW

I just learned that there will be a program on using HP to teach 
religious values at my upcoming church conference.  I'm not sure 
whether the vehicle is a worship service or a religious education 
curriculum, but it looks interesting.  And it just goes to show that 
some of us find HP not in tension with the morality we wish to teach 
children, but particularly suited to it.  But you knew that already.

http://www.uua.org/ga/all.html  and search for "Harry"

Amy Z