Re: Harry Potter–A Worthwhile series??

[moongirlk]

No: HPFGUIDX 33631

Hello Mr. Kimball,

I noticed that so far nobody has addressed certain aspects of your 
post, and I thought I'd give it a shot, as a Christian first and a 
Harry Potter fan second, I wanted to speak to some issues.

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kimballs6" <kevinkimball at h...> wrote:
> 
> MS. ROWLING'S WORLD VIEW:
> 
> Rowling presents an arbitrary world in which good and evil are 
> simply two sides of the same sorcery--the "Dark Side" and the 
> other side, although no name is ever given for it.  
Harry and his 
> friends must choose which side they're on, but of course the line 
> between the two is always moving.  

Is this so different from the Judeo-Christian tradition that 
interests you?  Addressing the Judeo portion of it - before Moses 
received the 10 commandments, what criteria did the Hebrew people 
have for good and evil?  The line was vague, at best, and God granted 
his favor simply to those who loved and feared Him, each of their 
individual actions not being as important as their intentions toward 
God and the world around them.

Determining where the line 
> is between good and evil becomes an individual choice, leaving 
> the reader wondering why something is okay for this person and 
> not the other. Sometimes breaking rules is honorable, 
> sometimes it must be punished.  Sometimes a lie is bad, 
> sometimes it is good.    

Once again, how does this in any way contradict Judeo-Christian 
reality?  It was forbidden to eat the bread in the temple, but David 
and his men did so, and were not punished (1 Samuel 21).  The 
parallel to this in Christian tradition was made by Jesus himself 
when the Pharisees confronted him over his followers "working" on the 
sabbath (Mark 2).  As for lies, think of Rahab the prostitute in 
Jericho who lied about the Israelite spies in order to protect them.  
She wasn't punished, but blessed by God, becoming the ancestor of 
Kind David, and of Jesus himself (Joshua 2) and honored by Paul in 
the New Testament (Hebrews 11) as one of the great people of faith.  
Sure, we are not supposed to lie, but it is clear that even in the 
Bible, "Sometimes a lie is bad, sometimes it is good.", as you said, 
or as Jesus said "God created the Sabbath for people, not the other 
way around."    

>And finally, adult authority is attacked > harshly, leaving ultimate 
>authority in the hands of the kid who > can grab the most power.

The only adult authority that is attacked in the Potter books is the 
adult authority that is used to abuse children.  In the Bible, even 
when children are admonished to obey their parents (note - not "obey 
adult authority"), the passage says:
"Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.
Honor your father and mother--which is the first commandment with a 
promise--that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long 
life on the earth." Ephesians 6:1-3

Which precludes obeying those who put you at risk not to enjoy a long 
life on the earth, and what's more is followed by:

"Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in 
the training and instruction of the Lord." Eph 6:4

Therefore I don't believe that Christian (I may be wrong about the 
Judeo portion of it) tradition says that children must obey all adult 
authority regardless of the situation or consequences.  In fact, if 
it did, then Jesus incited children to break God's law by encouraging 
them to come to him when his desciples told them not to. Mark 10:13-16

> First, breaking rules is glorified:  "Hermione had become a bit 
> more relaxed about breaking rules since Harry and Ron had 
> saved her from the mountain troll, and she was much nicer for 
> it."  But when Malfoy or other "Slytherins" break rules, they are 
> punished--to the cheers of Harry and his gang.  At one point 
> Harry is told not to ride on his broom.  When he does, instead of 
> any punishment, he is rewarded with a berth on the Quidditch 
> team.  Somehow it is a terrible thing for Hagrid to break the rules 
> and raise a forbidden dragon, yet honorable for the students to 
> break the rules and explore the forbidden areas of the school.  
> (Actually, it is not honorable for Malfoy to break the rules, only 
> Hermione and Harry--if they feel the need.) 

I think Jesus' words bear repeating:  "God created the Sabbath for 
people, not the other way around."  The *purpose* of the rule 
breaking *does* make a difference, both in Harry Potter, and in Judeo-
Christian tradition. 

> Second, Rowling leaves the option of lying up to the individual, 
> and even glorifies it.  If Harry needs to lie, he simply 
will:  "When 
> facing a magic mirror, Harry thinks desperately, `I must lie,..I 
> must look and lie about what I see, that's all.'"  And yes, he is 
> rewarded with the Sorcerer's Stone.  Yet later, when he asks 
> Headmaster Dumbledore questions, Dumbledore says, "...I 
> shall answer your questions unless I have a very good reason 
> not to, in which case I beg you'll forgive me.  I shall not, or 
> course, lie."  My immediate response was, why not? It works for 
> Harry.  Maybe Ms. Rowling meant this as a teaching point, but it 
> doesn't go anywhere.  Does Dumbledore never lie, or maybe 
> he'll just never lie to Harry, or maybe he just won't lie to Harry 
at 
> this time, or maybe this is itself a lie....  Rowling sometimes 
> glorifies lying, and other times doesn't  consider it as an 
option.  > Rowling appears confused on the issue of lying.  

God leaves this option up to the individual as well, allowing us all 
free will, and in the case of Rahab, glorifies her decision enough 
that she is listed in the very elite group of people of great faith 
in the book of Hebrews because she had the faith in God to lie to 
protect His people.  Also included in that list is someone else known 
for lying, and not for good reasons.  Twice Abraham lied about the 
identity of his wife.  This is wrong, and God doesn't glorifiy him 
for it, but nor does it keep him becoming the spiritual father of all 
Judeo-Christians.  My point is that sometimes lying is necessary and 
is not wrong, and sometimes it is clearly wrong, but does not 
necessarily make one a bad person.

> Finally, concerning the adult world, or those who would be in 
> authority, there is only derision.  Fred tells his 
>mother, "Honestly, 
> woman, you call yourself our mother?"   And another time, "All 
> right, keep your hair on."  

I wish you could read the other books - the Weasley family is blessed 
with a lively sense of humor, but they all love and respect their 
mother very much - respect her in certain cases even more than they 
love her, as she is a force to be reconed with, and not at all 
depicted as an object of derision.

>All the teachers at Hogwarts are either dirty, deranged, deceitful, 
>or all three. 

The only ones who are dirty are Sprout and Hagrid, who work outdoors, 
and Snape, who is presented that way for a reason.  I don't know of 
any who are deranged, and the one who is deceitful is effectively 
possessed, and rather a large plot-point in the book in that without 
him there'd be no story.  In all cases except for the last, the 
teachers act in the best interests of the students and are, barring 
Snape who, as I said, is unpleasant for a literary reason, reasonable 
and respectable.

> "Honestly, Hermione, you think all teachers are saints or 
something..."   

This was said when they believed (rightly, if misdirectedly) that one 
of the teachers was evil.  Even if that were not the case - I 
certainly wouldn't want to raise a child who thought that all 
teachers *were* saints, as teachers are just as human as the rest of 
us, and some are even nasty, bad people who might do them harm.

> When presenting the adult human 
> world, Ms. Rowling presents it in such a ridiculously negative 
> light that it becomes completely unrealistic and even offensive.  
> All adults are foolish, bungling, stupid and boringly 
> unimaginative.  Why would a child ever look up to them or need 
> them in any way?

Ok, we're going in circles a bit, but I include this to mention the 
overwhelming majority of adults in the first book alone who are 
nothing of the sort.  First there's Hargrid, who, while he does make 
mistakes, also rescued Harry from the rubble when his parents were 
killed, introduced him to his new world, gives him good advice 
regularly, and is the first person since his parents' death to show 
him the kind of love that God intended children to have.  Then 
there's Dumbledore, who, as the wisest and most powerful of wizards, 
can't easily be described in any of the ways you mentioned, and 
McGonagall, who I won't even try to defend as it's obvious she 
doesn't fit the description either.  I'd say it's easier to count 
those who do fall under the categories you listed than those who 
don't.  There's the Dursleys, who are abusive, hateful people to 
begin with, then there's Filch, the caretaker, who is the same.  I 
must make an aside here to say that boringly unimaginative is about 
the least possible thing one could say about Dumbledore.

<snip>
>  
> C.S. LEWIS'S AND J.R.R. TOLKIEN'S WORLD VIEW:
> 
<snip>
> Second, respect for order is a part of a Judeo-Christian world 
> view.  Consider the general anarchy encouraged at Hogwarts, 
> when the students sing the school song:  "`Everyone pick their 
> favorite tune,' said Dumbledore, `and off we go!'..... Everybody 
> finished the song at different times... and when they had 
> finished, he [Dumbledore] was one of those who clapped 
> loudest."  

First comment - this is nothing but a good bit of fun, and I can't 
see anyone seriously considering it a bad thing.  I can see someone 
having little patience for it, if they're unimaginative, but the idea 
that there is anything intrinsically wrong with it makes me giggle.

> Compare this to Aslan's words after Peter kills the 
> White Witch's Wolf:  "`Hand it [Peter's sword] to me and kneel, 
> Son of Adam,' said Aslan.  And when Peter had done so he 
> struck him with the flat of the blade and said, `Rise up, Sir Peter 
> Fenris-Bane.  And, whatever happens, never forget to wipe your 
> sword.'  Even in the midst of battle there is order.

How do these two things compare in the least?  One is talking about 
battle and *killing* for heaven's sake (As an aside I find it 
interesting that there is so much emphasis on lying in Harry Potter, 
but none on killing in other stories.), the other is talking about 
singing an innocuous little song.  The comparison is more like apples 
and paperclips than even apples and oranges, so I won't go on with 
this part, and the next bit about good and evil choices was 
adequately addressed by others, so all I will add is that there is a 
*big* difference between bad choices (like those made by Abraham when 
his fear caused him to lie or by Peter who denied Jesus) and *evil* 
choices.

> Finally, in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, the adults 
> either have integrity and nobleness, or they stoop to deceit and 
> treachery.  There is no ambiguity in their integrity or lack 
thereof.  
> Consider the difference between how Dumbledore, Headmaster 
> of Hogwarts School, and Aslan, ruler of Narnia, present 
> themselves in their first appearance before the children. 
> Rowlings writes,  "`Welcome!" he [Dumbledore] said.  `Welcome 
> to a new year at Hogwarts!  Before we begin our banquet, I 
> would like to say a few words.  And here they are:  Nitwit!  
> Blubber!  Oddment!  Tweak!'"... Everybody clapped and cheered.  
> Compare this to Aslan's welcome of the children:  "`Welcome, 
> Peter, Son of Adam,'  said Aslan.  `Welcome, Susan and Lucy, 
> daughters of Eve.  Welcome He-Beaver and She-Beaver.'  His 
> voice was deep and rich and somehow took the fidgets out of 
> them."  There is a vast difference between Dumbledore's 
> foolishness and Aslan's nobility.  

I submit that that is because Aslan represents Jesus, the son of God 
(not a particularly ambiguous figure), whereas Dumbledore represents 
a slightly dotty yet good and strong *man* with a wacky sense of 
humor.  Again, we're comparing things that have no business being 
compared.  Aslan cannot convincingly be used as an example of how 
regular adults are treated in Lewis's work, as he's not a regular 
adult.  Use their uncle, and we've got something worth comparing.
 
> Lewis and Tolkien uphold the values of absolute truth and 
> absolute right and wrong.  They acknowledge an orderly world, 
> one which brings out nobility in its heroes.  And learning from 
> and submitting to those who have gone before is honored as a 
> right way to gain wisdom.  

My world is very, very disorderly, because my world is one where 
humans live, and we humans have a tendency to be messy, confused, 
weak, moody and generally disorderly, even while we often manage to 
do great things and have integrity and show love and stand up for 
what is good despite the odds.  I see that world reflected well in 
Rowling's work, *and*, by the way, in Lewis's.  I can't comment on 
Tolkien, as I'm quite possibly the last living person who's read 
Lewis and Rowling but not Tolkien.
 
> Difference in character development between Harry, and 
> Edmund and Bilbo:
> 
<snip to make this marginally shorter> Not much growth in maturity 
has occurred between the first chapter and the last 
>paragraph.  ...Harry smiles and says, "They  
> don't know we're not allowed to use magic at home.  I'm going 
> to have a lot of fun with Dudley this summer...." 
> 
> Contrast that with Edmund and Bilbo.  At the beginning of The 
> Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Edmund is truly a spiteful, 
> mean-spirited brother:  <snip>  Yet by the end of the story, he's a 
new person:  "When at last she was free to come back to Edmund she 
found him standing on his feet and not only healed of his wounds but 
> looking better than she had seen him look--oh, for ages; ... He 
> had become his real old self again and could look you in the 
> face.   And there on the field of battle Aslan made him a knight."

I think this, too, is a poor comparison.  Edmund needed to be a new 
person.  The person Harry was was *not* spiteful or mean-spirited.  
Edmund is the cruel one in relation to his little sister.  In the 
case of Harry Potter, Dudley and his parents are the ones who have 
tortured and threatened and bullied him his whole life.  Harry has 
not only never been cruel to Dudley in the past, he has been turning 
the other cheek his whole life.  The fact that Harry has not learned 
to love his persecutors during the course of a story that is not 
*about* that, cannot be compared to Edmund, who needed redemption 
because he *was* the persecutor and betrayor, and that was a major 
portion of what the story was about.  He also didn't come back to a 
family that had and would continue to mistreat and harm him, he came 
back to a family that had loved him dearly all along and that he had 
chosen to betray despite this.  So I can't buy into the comparison.  
It wouldn't even be the same lesson learned.  The lesson you seem to 
be bemoaning Harry's failure to learn is "love your enemy", and it's 
true, he hasn't quite learned that, but I think that's premature for 
a child who started the book never having had an example of any kind 
of love at all.  That lesson comes later when he saves the life of 
the person who killed his parents - you haven't read that far in the 
series.  What he learns in book 1 is that there are people who can 
and will love him, and that he can trust and love in return without 
fearing that they will attack him physically and emotionally, and 
that he has some power to make decisions about his life and what he 
does.  What decisions has he made?  *Not* to hang out with kids who 
mock and tease and seek to hurt others, and instead *to* risk his 
life to protect others.  

All the characters--
> Harry, Bilbo and the children--are presented as heroes, yet only 
> Lewis's and Tolkien's live in a world that has true 
> consequences for right and wrong, and thus only they can truly 
> grow in excellence.

Can you explain the cause and effect in this statement?  In our 
world, wrong acts often go unpunished, and what's more, *good* deeds 
often have dire consequences, up to an including death, as is 
evidenced every day by people who risk their lives saving others.  
And yet they themselves are examples of people who have "truly grown 
in excellence."  I would submit that, as Dumbledore implies, it's the 
decisions one makes that allow one to grow in excellence, since often 
we have to make these decisions *despite* the consequences.

> In handing any book to a child, one must know if the child can 
>discern the world views and not be swept into a view that is counter 
> to the truth being instilled in him.

As a Christian, I look forward to someday reading with my children.  
It's one of the things that excites me most in thinking about having 
kids.  I will be thrilled to read C.S. Lewis's works and JK Rowlings, 
and if I ever get around to reading it first, Tolkien's work as 
well.  I will also be reading the Bible with them, and poetry and the 
newspaper and Dr. Suess and Dahl and Harper Lee and cereal boxes and 
anything else that I think might give them pleasure, instruction or 
food for thought. 

I won't address the grammar issues, as someone else has already 
addressed them more than adequately.  But I can't stop myself 
commenting on this line:

> Lewis and Tolkien both write with an impeccable understanding 
> of and a rightful submission to the English language.  

I have a smile on my face here.  Submission?  To a language?  
Language is a tool, a means to an end.  Should I also submit to my 
toaster oven?  My mittens?  Language in and of itself has no 
function.  It is not until it is put to use that it has value, and 
it's value can range from the simply utilitarian:
"Pass the salt." 
to the life-saving:
"Look out!" 
to the poetic:
"...
wholly to be a fool
while Spring is in the world
..."
(-ee cummings)  

JK Rowling does things with language that make me laugh and cry and 
think.  That's enough for me.

> Rowling's world view is not one to immerse a child in if you are 
>seeking to raise him in a Judeo-Christian ethic.  Beyond that, 
>encouraging a child to read poorly written yet "sensational" 
>literature may produce a child who can read Harry Potter stories, 
>but it will not produce a reader.

You are, of course, entitled and more than welcome to your opinion, 
but I couldn't disagree with you more, on all of these last points.  
Especially that Harry Potter "will not produce a reader."  I 
introduced my cousin's two sons to Harry Potter, and they have become 
voracious readers.  They have since read the "Chronicles of Narnia" 
series, as one example, and quite enjoyed it as well, although one 
commented that it wasn't nearly as realistic.

Probably since I started this post there have been a ton of others 
that have answered these issues better than I have or could, but I 
felt the need to try, nevertheless, to point out a few things that 
stood out to me, especially where they concerned my own Judeo-
Christian world view.

kimberly