[HPforGrownups] Re: _Harry Potter and the Bible_

[Amanda Lewanski]

No: HPFGUIDX 17539

This is long, sorry (well, what did you expect? Have I *ever* posted
anything short?). Welcome to the list, Richard!

rabanesss at yahoo.com wrote:

> In one post, a Dave Hardenbrook  wrote:
>
> >I've reluctantly picked up _Harry Potter and the
> >Bible: The Menace Behind the Magick_ and started to read
> >it.  My intention was to scrawl into the book comments by
> >Harry, Ron and Hermione . . . but I'm finding it impossible because
> long before >this Harry, Ron and Hermione would have thrown the book
> down the toilet (Sixty >points if it goes through >Myrtle's left
> adenoid. :) ).
>
>            Here is a classic example of juvenile attacks that are
> completely without warrant.

It occurs to me that you might have missed a reference or two. Dave is
being a bit juvenile, but he's referring to what was done with the
"Schoolbooks" that Jo Rowling just brought out for charity purposes.
They were supposed to be facsimiles of a Hogwarts library book
(Quidditch through the Ages) and one of Harry's schoolbooks (Fantastic
Beasts and Where to Find Them). In Fantastic Beasts, there are
handwritten notes in the margins, as a student would doodle, "by" Harry,
Ron, and Hermione. So Dave's not trying to desecrate your book, so much
as doing an in-joke.

You've read the main books, I take it, so you know that the reference to
the toilet and getting it through Myrtle's adenoid is from Chamber of
Secrets. Again, he's doing an in-joke.

I didn't really find this immature, so much as an attempt to set a
less-than-scholarly tone. He's providing a quick impression and
overview, not (at this point) doing a point-by-point with page
references.

>        This is a COMPLETE misrepresentation of my point in the book,
> and it is difficult to understand how "DAVE" could have misunderstood
> me.

As one of the chief interpreters an analyzers of Severus Snape, who has
had several brilliant, insightful, and downright ingenious posts
misunderstood, I do understand the frustration. <grins> But you must
yourself understand that one *can* understand a good argument and still
honestly disagree with it. That they disagree doesn't mean they didn't
understand.

> Notice by the way, that Dave gives no page numbers so you all can
> verify his accusations.

Again, Dave wasn't trying to do an analysis of your book. He did a quick
overview with a few examples.

> On page 135, I discuss how Harry's actions were not really all THAT
> extraordinary in the "CHRISTIAN PARADIGM" because according to
> Christian belief, sacrificing for a friend or for someone that loves
> you is NATURAL. It is basic instinct for a person to want to love
> those and help those who love and help them. We, as Christians, strive
> to go beyond this concept by loving and reaching out to those whom we
> would consider our enemies, even at cost to us (Luke 6:32-33; Rom.
> 5:7-8). Is this really such a horrible concept???

It's not a horrible concept at all, but a very laudable one. But I find
your basic premise, that there's nothing special about Harry's helping
his friends, to be odd. After all, it's "no greater love than to lay
down your life for your fellow man" (paraphrase). It doesn't specify who
the fellow man has to be.

Nor were all of them Harry's friends. Ron and Hermione surely were, but
Harry had never even met Fleur's sister, and in fact knew so little of
her that he didn't know her name or that, of a certainty, she *was*
Fleur's sister. She was just a little girl. And he rescued her, too.

There's also the element of self-sacrifice in Harry's abandonment of his
own goals in trying to win the event. He saves these people, not only in
the face of personal danger but in the face of personal disappointment.

> I then go on to simply state that it seems biased to attribute
> exceptional moral fiber to Harry for one specific deed, which is in
> reality, quite a natural response.

Your "natural response" is right up there with "common sense." It
*should* be, I wish it were, but it's sadly not really the norm. The
fact that Harry treated it as the natural response, thus, does warrant
some attention. His character, like you, doesn't think he did anything
special. In my mind, that enhances his deed, that he didn't think of it
as a "deed" at all (especially given his upbringing).

> It is especially one-sided when taking into account his many other
> moral failings. I agree he did a great thing, but this natural
> response to save friends is hardly exceptional, when the same person
> behaves in a most unethical way faced with other scenarios.

I will echo whoever requested specifics on this one. I'll broaden the
request and ask for specifics on anybody doing unethical things, since
(as I said above) my particular favorite character is Snape, who is
tremendously complex and the most likely, I think, to present ethical
dilemmas to the reader (in that he serves the good, but does things in
such a nasty way).

>           Again, only half-truths here. I do indeed talk about
> occultism in America and also mention studies indicating that
> occultism has factually been linked to teen violence and adolescent
> problems. Tis is documented people, and it has NOTHING to do with
> religion, Christian or otherwise. And I would not call my carefully
> documented chapters that thoughtfully separate the distinctions
> between Wicca, neo-paganism, and Satansim as a "tirade" (see chapter
> 9). I quote from numerous sources, many of whom are religion scholars,
> to explain these beliefs. Notice that Dave did not say I misrepresent
> any of the beliefs.

Can't comment here, haven't read it. I'll have to see if our local
library's got it. Unless you want to post the relevant passage? Because
I have three kids under six and when I get to run around outside the
house, I generally have this built-in problem with concentration.....

>             Dave here shows his complete unwillingness to
> accurately represent my words. First, I NOWHERE say that the HP books
> are a threat to mankind's salvation (by the way, if I HAD said this, I
> would have used the word "humanity" because "mankind" is so sexist).

Off-topic, but as a linguist I still bemoan the alteration of our
glorious language to be politically correct. I know, I know, there *is*
a measurable effect on children that the "generic" pronouns and stuff
are masculine. But I also don't know that language is the causal factor
and not a parallel cultural result. I just don't like setting out to
change things as a social experiment. [I know, I'm weird, I like strong
verbs, too, and bemoan their passing as well.]

> Second, I said an expert would see the occultism in the books. No
> expert says that occultism is NOT in the books. My gosh, Rowling
> herself says THAT (so Dave may be contradicting Rowling on this one).
> Third, an "expert" is any individual who has studied in-depth the
> field of question (in this case, occultism).

You must understand, we've seen so many tirades by people who are NOT
experts and are claiming to be. "Expert" may be one of the most misused
words in English. Did you provide any references or background on the
people you referenced? That would help.

> >but can anyone here point to
> >any article online by a Christian leader who speaks
> >intelligently about the vast gulf between occultism and
> >the Hogwarts universe?
>
>         Talk about bad arguments. Here, Dave is basically saying that
> in order to qualify as an expert in his eyes, someone would have to
> espouse what he considers to be an "intelligent" opinion -- i.e., one
> that agrees with HIS opinion. Beautifully illogical and intolerant.

I don't think that's what he was asking. Most of the Christian critiques
that I, at least, have read, have seemed to not be grasping the real
themes of these books. They tend to seize upon superficials and window
dressing, rather than address the merits of the substance. What Dave, I
think, was asking for was a critique by a Christian leader who had
demonstrably understood some of the points of the books, *and*
understood "occult" as it is used in common parlance. And I've already
pointed out that "understand" does not mean "agree."

> I SHALL NOW MOVE ON TO OTHER POSTERS
>
> Penny & Bryce Linsenmayer
>
>      Interestingly, rather than make up their own minds, these
> individuals simply choose to believe good old Dave. Is that wise? Is
> that intellectual? Is that fair? I do not believe so, especially since
> Dave, like so many other HP fans have completely misrepresented my
> book, many of them having NEVER even read it. interesting.

No, no. I keep saying that Dave posted a quick overview. This is akin to
the comments you find on Amazon, the reader reviews. Plenty of people
make a decision to seek out the book or not based on those, but plenty
of people simply read the comments and go no further, having gotten the
information they wanted on the "flavor" of the book right there. I don't
find any problem with this. Those who want to do a scholarly analysis of
your book will go and get it. Those who don't, won't. Our discussion of
Dave's "take" is not the same as a discussion of your book.

> AMY Z. wrote:
>
> > My  dictionary says it's belief in the supernatural, which would
> make most  Christians occultists.  But dictionaries aren't the most
> nuanced  sources . . .
>
>      This is the most suberbly poor definition of occultism I have
> ever heard.

And she defined it as such, herself.

> Any religion scholar would agree. The world of the occult and its
> practices extend back thousands of years to the
> ancient mystery religions. the word literally means hidden, or veiled,
> as in information that is not obtainable via the natural senses or
> channels of knowledge. The occult includes those various practice that
> attempt to go beyond our world and gather information through use of
> divination techniques. To go any further in explaining this would
> require far too much space.

In the early days of Christianity, the rite of confirmation was a
passage to just such mysteries. The hopeful, yet-uninitiated had to
leave the worship at a certain point, when the initiates to the
mysteries celebrated those mysteries together. In fact, the Catholic
church has attempted to reclaim a bit of that "privileged" feel to the
mystery of the mass, and RCIA students and others formally in the
process of becoming members do, indeed, leave the mass and go study the
day's readings while the congregation, the "initiated," celebrate the
Eucharist. But I digress.

Suffice it to say that any definition, interpreted broadly enough, will
fit any religion, and that, I think, was Amy's point.

>    Untrue. The books also contain positive presentations of occult
> techniques and practices (astrology, numerology, channeling, etc).
> That cannot be denied. They are there, per Rowling herself. Contradict
> on that and you contradict Rowling -- not me.

Well, the books contain presentations of them. To call all of them
positive, though, is a bit of a stretch. The only authority figures at
the school who are treated with anything less than dignity and respect
are Gilderoy Lockhart (who was an illustration of incompetence) and
Sybill Trelawney, professor of Divination. All of Divination is treated
as having no substance and no merit, hardly positive. So I don't think
your blanket statement is actually correct.

>     See, here is proof that everyone is sooooo quick to cindemn
> without bothering to get facts. I DO NOT equate occult with Satanism.
> Nor do I equate occult with Wicca. In fact, I go to great pains to
> distance Wicca from Satansim, and explain the vast difference between
> the two systems. Sorry, I do not fit your stereotyped, narrow-minded,
> fundamentalist boob.

*You* may not. But it's a sensitive issue, we've read so much about
banning and book-burnings and the like, by people who clearly haven't
put any thought into their reaction or their condemnation. I love that
you joined the list to discuss things, instead of simply writing us off
as uncultured heathen! But as a list, it must be admitted we have a bit
of emotional baggage on the issue, which I hope will be discarded as the
discussion continues.

Thanks!

--Amanda


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]