Is Harry Potter a literary Christ figure, or the newest plot to turn you and your children into satanic evildoers?
When the Harry Potter books were new, many Christians refused to sell or even read them because of the elements of witchcraft found in the plot. It became fashionable in some Christian circles to swap Harry Potter horror stories and read books on why the fictional teenage boy was the next worst thing to happen to Christendom. Hating Harry became a popular pastime. It still is, though some of the energy of the anti-Harry Potter movement seems to have worn away as the books have aged and become less of a novelty.
Was this outcry deserved? Have hordes of schoolchildren really embraced witchcraft at the bidding of the green eyed wizard boy? Have we all been taken in by the golden griffin?
Snopes and truthorfiction.com agree that the internet rumors you've probably all heard about the scores of young people eagerly embracing Satanism have no basis in fact. Have individual readers turned from the straight and narrow after entering Harry's world? Perhaps, but that's not Harry's fault. If John Granger is right, it's not even Potter author J.K. Rowling's fault.
John Granger, the "Potter Pundit," holds a degree in classical languages and literature from the University of Chicago and is one of the first real academics to take a careful look at the Harry Potter phenomenon. (Tyndale generously offered to send me a copy of How Harry Cast His Spell: The meaning behind the mania for J.K. Rowling's bestselling books when I wrote about John's ideas elsewhere after hearing him speak.) Granger argues that, far from being hotbeds of dangerous occult activity, the Harry Potter books are positively riddled with powerful Christian symbols. In fact, he argues that this seminal Christian imagery is the reason Rowling's books are so popular. The books have sold millions of copies worldwide and shaped the imagination of a generation because they are deeply and fundamentally Christian.
What? Deeply and fundamentally Christian? Are these the same books that are supposed to be lying in wait for your innocent children, subversively leading them down the path to doom? Yup, same books. If Granger is right, the source of the controversy behind this series lies not in the books themselves but rather in the fact that those reading them aren't very well educated.
Western literature, built as it is upon a Judeo-Christian worldview, cannot be rightly interpreted without at least a rudimentary knowledge of scripture. Unfortunately, as the west has become increasingly secular, many no longer have this basic knowledge--hence the need for footnotes in newer editions of classical works explaining biblical allusions that would have been obvious to almost anyone just a generation or two ago.
Rowling's books need similar footnotes, and Granger provides them for us. In How Harry Cast His Spell Mr. Granger unlocks many of the 'secrets' of Rowling's success by explaining the origins and meanings of many of the story elements. Granger examines everything from character names to book structure to literary alchemy in a clear and easy-to-read manner that will delight both nerds and novices. He even explains why these books have appealed to people of so many different faiths and cultures, and why Dumbledore's first name is Albus. (Come on, you know you've always wondered.)
How Harry Cast His Spell is a good introduction to some of the ideas and symbols that undergird not only the Harry Potter books but much of western literature. More importantly, it is a useful jumping-off point for discussions of bigger and better things. Mr. Granger, who has taught for Barnes & Noble University, given numerous radio and TV interviews and even made an appearance in the special features section of the Order of the Phoenix DVD, repeatedly invites his readers to interact with him on his blog and through email. How Harry Cast His Spell should not be a stopping place in your quest for a better understanding of these popular books and the culture from which they came, but rather the beginning of a long conversation.
I finally read the first chapter of the first book at my wife's insistence in September. "Just one chapter, and I'll leave you alone." I finished the seventh and last book of the series a couple of days ago. My wife has been pretty smug about it.
Would that the Body had no bigger issues than the Harry Potter series.
I've read all 7 books, and my son is on the 7th, now. I don't think that we've begun sacrificing the neighborhood cats or anything.
The Potter books are definitely fun, and Granger's book convinced me that I missed a lot of cool stuff the first couple of times I read them. (Not surprising, given that I've never spent more than a day or two on any one book, even the longer ones.) I'm reading through them more slowly right now, keeping in mind what he said in his book, and I'm getting a lot more out of them this time. Definitely enjoyable.
The redoubtable success and acceptance of Potter books in Christian circles is strange and kind of creepy. This comes from someone who used to sleep with a 5' pyramid over his bed in college.
"The necromancy, ceremonial magic, curses, spells, blood sacrifice, and incantations, mirror actual occult ritual.
Names such as ‘Hedwig', ‘Cliodna’, Alberic Grunnion’, ‘Nicolas Flamel’, ‘Paracelsus’, Henry Cornelius Agrippa’ were all famous witches, sorcerers and alchemists throughout the ages. Then we have names such as "Azkaban", "Circe", "Draco", "Erised", "Hermes", and "Slytherin"; all of which are names of real devils or demons.
Former high-ranking occultist, ‘Peter’, said “The story of Harry Potter is an allegory: The story aligns with real occult books written by Gavin and Yvonne Frost, who, themselves, run the foremost school of witchcraft in the British Isles.” (http://www.crossroad.to/ask-peter/index.htm)
Mr. Granger, who has taught for Barnes & Noble University
B&N University? Is that like McDonald's Hamburger University?
"Erised" may be the name of a real demon, but it is used in the Harry Potter because it is "desire" spelled backwards.
Thank you for a sane voice on Harry Potter.
qwertyui909op,
I'm curious what it is about the acceptance of the Potter books among Christians that you find strange and creepy?
Rowling may have used names of actual practitioners of witchcraft, but that says nothing interesting about the themes and messages of her books.
Rowling has explicitly stated that her books are Christian in nature, and she has written them in the Western, Anglo-Christian literary tradition (following Lewis and Tolkien). John Granger really gets into the details of this in his books. You should take a look at what he has to say if you get a chance.
Rachel,
I've heard that "How Harry Cast His Spell" is just an updated and revised version of Granger's origianl "Looking For God In Harry Potter." Do you know if this is the case, and if so, is there enough new material to make the book worth buying (if you already own the first one)?
Thanks!
Former high-ranking occultist, ‘Peter’,
What the hell is that? There leader of the table of people that meet every Thursday at Starbucks down the street...except for when Sci-fi is running an unaired Stargate episode?
who, themselves, run the foremost school of witchcraft in the British Isles.
Ohhh golly gee, the 'foremost' school of witchcraft! I suppose you think you're too good to speak to anyone who studied witchcraft at a community college! I can't take this elitist snobbery, Sarah Palin please save me!
Harry Potter clearly has some Christian influence, especially if you've read the stories through to the end. The magic sits in the background either as comic relief or for 'mechanical' purposes of advancing the plot (most elements of science fiction can likewise be said to be magic dressed up in some scientific sounding jargon). The running theme throughout the series is the power of selfless sacrifice, primarily the willingness of Harry's parents to give their lives to protect their child which subverts not only the villians attempt on Harry's life but also thwarts much of the magic his agents later try to employ against him.
That being said, the series is not Christian in the sense that CS Lewis's works were. She isn't trying to retell the Christian story with a British spin. It is more along the lines of Tolkein who let Christianity influence his work but his work's main appeal is the intricate creation of an alternate universe with it's own rules, timelines, histories, folklore and so on.
The series is not Tolkein, though. The characters grow to a degree but they are also very predictable. The plot in almost every book is exactly the same. Odd things happen. None of the good guys actually talk to each other so the villians are able to advance their plans for most of the book until the end when some tedious dectective work combines with some characters noticing they just crossed page 500 so they can now reveal the information they've inexplicably been keeping secret for nearly the entire book to solve the mystery and save Harry from the nefarious plan. Yes it's better than Scooby Do but not that much better.
The books do make for easy reading, the huge array of characters are interesting because of their diversity. The view of adults from the perspective of the kids is smartly done, especially the way the various adults fall victim to politics, vanity and the human tendancy not to see diaster impending. The critical thinking is also well done...even the smartest characters end up being wrong more often than right and have to go through numerous hypothesises before they finally stumble on the truth....It's not a bad series of books and probably great for kids and adults but it's not the best of literature.
I was barely able to get through one of the books. The style of writing was not my cup of tea and seemed rather tedious.
This is a case where you may just want to use the movies instead of reading the books. Two hours is not too much time to invest in it per book....going through all the books is probably too much.
this is rediculus! you people are unbeliveable!
"The style of writing was not my cup of tea and seemed rather tedious."
That is interesting. I've never met anyone who actually read the books that didn't find them, well, spellbinding. People do have stylistic preferences, though. I have never been able to slog my way through an entire Tolkien book, though some of my friends have boundless enthusiasm for his work. To each his own.
David,
You're right, How Harry Cast His Spell is indeed a revised and updated version of Looking for God in Harry Potter. It's also the first Granger book I've ever read, so I don't know how different it is from the original.
'How Harry Cast His Spell' is the revised and updated version of 'Looking for God in Harry Potter.' It has three new chapters about the Christian content of Deathly Hallows and the allegorical and anagogical meanings of the series. It's 50 pages longer.
About 'Boonton's patronizing and dismissive comments to describe Ms. Rowling's artistry and depth, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Alan Jacobs, English professor at Wheaton College and author of The Narnian (a CSL biography), says the Harry Potter novels are better than Lewis' Narnia books. James Thomas, English professor at Pepperdine University for 30 years, says they are better than the Narniad or LOTR. I detail the author's writing at the four levels of meaning common to symbolist literature from Dante to Lewis (and she points to in the interpretation of the Hallows 'triangular eye' symbol in her last book) as well as the alchemical scaffolding and ten genres she has combined seamlessly in her work.
But you know it's 'kid lit' not fit for serious adult attention (as William Safire wrote years ago). Well, Boonton, I guess you know what you're talking about! To me, your review is reminiscent of readers in Swift's time who thought 'Gulliver's Travels' was a book for the nursery -- or, better, a guide-book for overseas adventurers (i.e., you missed everything not at the surface level).
Maybe this is just because I grew up in Mtn. Lakes? That Boonton/Mtn. Lakes disdain thing is hard to shake...
John,
Sorry to disappoint but I'm not from Boonton NJ...close but I just liked the way the name sounded after seeing it on the train line when I went to college.
I never read Lewis's Narnia books so I can't really comment on whether Harry Potter is better but I find it hard to say they are better than LOTR. I'll grant you that the books are spellbinding in their depiction of an alternate world and like I said I think she has a great eye for the foolishness of adult politics and fears, and prejudices (the pathetic response the wizard world has to the growing threat of Voldemolt's rise is especially well done IMO)....but I think the books really do have a bit too much of the 'Scooby Do' syndrome and I'm not the first person to say this.
As you say to each his own...if you loved them then I don't begrudge you that. There is a lot of stuff out there there is a lot worse.
David : "I'm curious what it is about the acceptance of the Potter books among Christians that you find strange and creepy?"
I have never read the series, but have seen and read enough about it to know what I am missing. Personally, a root canal would be a more preferable pastime. I find it "strange" because I expect Christians not to be so easily persuaded that something so blatently occult as the Potter series has a hidden "Christian message." And "creepy" because of the affect it has on children. You should read their testimonies. "I want to be a witch because. . . " Sad.
David: "Rowling has explicitly stated that her books are Christian in nature, and she has written them in the Western, Anglo-Christian literary tradition (following Lewis and Tolkien)."
Besides the fact that it breaks with the tradition of Tolkien and Lewis, it is also antithetical to basic Chritianity. I don't agree with alot of what this article says, but it does alot better than I could at addressing your point:
"A Christian Reading of Spells and the Supernatural in the Works of J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, and in J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter Books"
http://www.christianfantasy.net/sdg1.html
The writer concludes: "In particular I think children should also be exposed to books in which witches and wizards are always evil and attempts to traffic in magical forces always have nasty consequences. (Of course, this by itself is no guarantee that a book is good honey for a child's heart either."
This was a long read:
1. In general, Tolkien, Lewis, and Rowling -- especially Rowling -- depict magic in completely fantastical terms that bear no resemblance to actual occult practices in the real world, and that no one could possibly delude themselves into thinking they could successfully emulate. That is, whereas some more dangerous cultural depictions of magic include such genuinely dangerous phenomena as seances and astral projection, in Tolkien, Lewis, and Rowling you get wizards who can generate fire at a word, or who have books with spells of invisibility, or who ride flying broomsticks -- manifestations that are clearly meant to be make-believe and have virtually no potential to inspire direct imitative behavior.
2. Tolkien and Lewis relegate the pursuit of magic as a safe and lawful occupation to wholly imaginary realms, with place-names like Middle-earth and Narnia, that cannot be located either in time or in space with reference to our own world. By contrast, Harry Potter lives in a fictionalized version of our own world that is recognizable in time and space, in a country called England, in a timeframe of our own age.
3. Tolkien and Lewis relegate the safe and lawful pursuit of magic to characters who are numbered among the supporting cast, not the protagonists with whom the reader is primarily to identify. By contrast, Harry Potter, a student of wizardry, is the title character and hero of his novels.
4. Tolkien and Lewis relegate the pursuit of magic as a safe and lawful occupation to characters who are not in fact human (despite the human appearance of some, like Tolkien's Gandalf and Lewis' Coriakin; whom in fact we are told are, respectively, a semi-incarnate angel and an earthbound star). In Harry Potter's world, by contrast, while some human beings (called "Muggles") lack the capacity for magic, others, including Harry's true parents (and of course Harry himself), do not.
5. Tolkien and Lewis relegate the safe and lawful pursuit of magic to characters who, in appearance, stature, behavior, and role, embody a certain wizard archetype -- white-haired old men with beards and robes and staffs, mysterious, remote, unapproachable, who serve to guide and mentor the heroes. Harry Potter, by contrast, is a peer to many of his avid young readers, a boy with the same problems and interests that they have.
6. Tolkien and Lewis devote no narrative space to the process by which their wizard archetypes acquired their magical prowess. In the Harry Potter books, by contrast, Harry's acquisition of mastery over magical forces at the Hogwarts School of Wizardry and Witchcraft is a central organizing principle in the story-arc of the series as a whole.John Granger really gets into the details of this in his books.
"I have never been able to slog my way through an entire Tolkien book, though some of my friends have boundless enthusiasm for his work. To each his own."
From a literary standpoint, Tolkien is about a 99 and Lewis and Rowlings are lucky to be on the chart. Lewis was a much better philosopher/apologist and Rowling a better marketer, but no one writes like Tolkien.
qwertyuiop,
You can only consider the witchcraft depicted in Potter as a threat if you think witchcraft is REAL. But I have a newsflash for you, IT'S NOT. There is no such thing as sorcery and magic, so in my book, kids can pretend they're doing it all they want without any risk of harm. It's like protending to be an alien, for goodness sake.
qwertyuiop,
Considering the way in which dark wizards (especially Voldemort) are depicted in the HP series, it's difficult to see how Rowling doesn't cast witchcraft in a somewhat negative light. In fact, her message against the unrestrained quest for the acquisition of magical power comes out in full force in the 7th book (as well as her anti-occult themes).
Besides that, the use of magic in HP is so ubiquitous that after the first 2 or 3 books it isn't even all that special or exciting anymore. All the characters use magic, so everyone is on a level playing field and the story becomes more about the struggles of the characters themselves (sometimes with themselves).
Also, the 6 points you listed seem contradictory. The 1st point says that all three authors - but ESPECIALLY Rowling - depict magic in such a fantastical way that no child realistically expects to be able to do the things Harry does. Sure, some younger kids might run around swinging their toy wand through the air, but that's about it. Harry isn't inciting them to start having Ouija Board parties with their friends.
So, as far as I can tell, point 1 was a solid defense of Rowling. Points 2-6 tried to show that HP is maybe a little bit more dangerous than Narnia or LOTR, but the worries seem to be canceled out by the first point.
By the way, it would probably be best not to make such conclusive judgments without having read the books yourself. The movies don't capture all the themes in Rowling's books, so you can't base your judgments about the Christian nature of the series on the movies. Nor can you make such judgments without having read at least one book from cover to cover. I would suggest you do that (just skip to book 7, since you probably don't care about the end being spoiled) and then read John Granger's book. AFTER THAT, if you still think HP is evil occult-friendly garbage, I won't try to stop you.
qwertyuiop,
Your points:
1. Rawling's magic is mostly mechanical making it more akin to science (more on this blow). Wizards and witches use it as characters in a sci-fi story would use faster than light ships, time travel, light sabers etc. Interestingly, while it might be fun to imagine yourself casting spells and flying on brooms Rawling doesn't depict magic as very useful IMO. Even the most adapt wizards get tripped up in their human failings despite their magical prowless and more than a few times the stories are resolved by the characters resorting to non-magical virtues (or you can say the magic we all can access and utilize have as Dumbledore asserts 'love is the ultimate magic'). Off hand I can't think of any of her stories where superior magic really wins the day. The magic is essentially there for the special effects but it's the people that drive the stories.
2. Yes her books take place in 'our world' but Hogwarts is essentially removed from the normal muggle world as is the rest of the wizard world. It's premise is essentially along the lines of Tolkien's Hobbit. You may recall in the beginning of the Hobbit Tolkien asserted Hobbits are still around but we rarely see them because they are quiet and like to keep to themselves and Middle Earth is the same as our earth, the history he is recounting supposedly happened in some vague mytholigical period that then merged into our own history. This hardly seems like a very important theological point but rather a simple plot device. Some fantasy writers set their stories in another world, some simply create a hidden world inside of ours.
3. "Tolkien and Lewis relegate the safe and lawful pursuit of magic to characters who are numbered among the supporting cast, not the protagonists with whom the reader is primarily to identify." How would you defend the standard superhero story then? While they don't usually use magic as their plot device it's pretty clear the supposedly 'scientific' explanations for most superheros are little more than magic dressed up in some 20th Century jargon.
5. True Harry is a peer to many readers but his ultimate role model is Dumbledore who is more or less ripped off directly from Tolkein's Gandalf (who, BTW, is only non-human if you go all geek on the books. The casual reader of The Hobbit would have found little to support the assertion Gandalf wasn't human. Likewise years later when the LoTR came out you would have to search the appendixes to understand that Gandalf was more of an angel than a human)....who was partially ripped off of Merlin from the King Arthur stories.
6. At the end of the day Rawling doesn't really explain how wizards get their magic in her stories. It is simply a trait they are born with. Yes they require study and skill to use this power and some are more able than others but at the end of the day no one aquires magic, they simply have it or not as part of their natural endowments. I'm not sure, though, why this should be important. If Tolkien had lived longer would it have been unacceptable for him to have written a book from Gandalf's POV that featured him learning to use his powers when he first arrived on Middle Earth? Again what do you make of superhero stories that love to dwell on the 'backstory' of the hero getting his powers and learning to use them.
Putting it together you have identified differences between Tolkien, Lewis and Rawling but not distinctions. I'm seeing different plot devices used by these writers to tell the stories they wanted to tell but I fail to see a case made for why Rawling's devices are any worse than the others.
Boonton, I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to accept your invitation to agree that we disagree or your suggestion that we leave this to a function of taste ('de gustibus'). Your "Scooby Doo" comment is over-the-top and contending that you're "not the first to say it" doesn't make it any less silly.
There are three reasonable positions about Harry Potter, any one of which thinking people and Christians have taken:
(1) "I have it from authority I recognize as caring about my spiritual welfare that these books are not good for me to read. I have not, therefore, read them myself in obedience to this instruction. Not having read them, of course, I cannot comment on their quality except to pass on what I have heard."
(2) "I have read the books and enjoyed them tremendously. I encourage you to read them so we can discuss their artistry and meaning. I see failings and genius in their composition."
(3) "I have read the books and did not enjoy them. I suspect that is a function of my inability, by disposition or ignorance, to appreciate this sort of thing. While I cannot recommend them to others, I understand that scholars and serious readers who study this sort of work appreciate them at a different and more profound level than I am capable of. I see failings in them but do not get the genius or popularity of these novels."
The two unreasonable and, frankly, bizarre stances on Harry Potter, in contrast, are:
(1) "I haven't read them but I feel qualified to argue at length about their failings and value;" and
(2) "I have read them and don't like them, therefore, they're no good" or, a slight variation, "I can take or leave them; it's just a function of taste."
Note the difference between the third reasonable position -- "I don't like them but as many people do (including scholars in the field of fantasy literature), I understand my not liking them is not a failure in the books but is a result of my likes and dislikes," i.e., a position of humility -- and the second unreasonable position -- "I don't like them which represents a failing in the books even if I can only offer points of personal taste as criticism," a point of self-importance and ignorance projected as knowledge.
Boonton, no doubt this comes off as rather harsh to you, even uncharitable. But it is your know-it-all stance ("there's nothing great in these books") that is harsh and uncharitable. You don't understand the Harry Potter novels at any level other than "what you like" but you speak dismissively and patronizingly about a Christian writer's labor of 17 years, a work of significant artistry, accomplishment and edifying meaning.
Either learn to read more seriously than you are now capable of or stop feigning knowledge or expertise you don't have. This sort of thing isn't a matter of taste like what sort of ice cream flavor you prefer and pretending that it is in a public forum is intellectually dishonest and demeaning to everyone who posts on these boards.
"De gustibus" doesn't cut it as an intellectual position in literary criticism any more than it does in physics, engineering, or psychology.
John
There are three reasonable positions about Harry Potter, any one of which thinking people and Christians have taken:
This is usually a red warning sign. Life is very complicated and I'd treat any attempt to limit something to just a handful of choices to be very suspect.
In here you leave out a very obvious position: "I've read (some of) the books and found them a mixed bag. Some aspects were very well done, others were not. It's not great literature but it is also not trash but belongs in the middle". This is hardly asserting there is nothing worthy of scholarship in them and I don't begrudge anyone's enjoyment of the books....in fact I enjoyed what I read as well. But I don't think it's great literature and I don't think it's because I'm incapable of seeing great literature or because of a failure on my part as a reader. The 'Scobby Do' plot device is used too much and remains an annoying aspect of her stories. This is an area where I feel her characters do not behave like human beigns but behave in contrived ways to keep the plot going.
You don't understand the Harry Potter novels at any level other than "what you like" but you speak dismissively and patronizingly about a Christian writer's labor of 17 years, a work of significant artistry, accomplishment and edifying meaning.
Rawling has and will be very well compensated for her labors on these books....and there are many other authors who will receive nowhere near the compensation they deserve for their labors, partly because people like me choose to put their time into consuming Rawling's work rather than others. I have put my own time into her works. Time spent reading them as well as the time watching the movies and while I know that is a trivial fraction of the time Rawling spent writing them it is nevertheless my time invested in her work. As such I have every right to evaluate it and opine on whether I feel it was an investment that yielded modest returns, fantastic returns or losses.
"From a literary standpoint, Tolkien is about a 99 and Lewis and Rowlings are lucky to be on the chart. Lewis was a much better philosopher/apologist and Rowling a better marketer, but no one writes like Tolkien."
I don't know your qualifications to write "from a literary standpoint." You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I place Rowlings above Tolkien, myself. She deserves to be mentioned alongside R.L. Stevenson, in my opinion. I'm not the only English teacher on my staff that feels that way.
I'm not trying to pull an argument from authority on the strength of my master's degree here; that would be silly and pretentious. I'm just wondering if your relative appraisal of Tolkien and Rowlings is meant to be seen as objective or authoritative.
this book is pure evil.
they have no mention of God.
and should be banned.
the author should be put on trial and convicted of herasy.
this book is pure evil.
they have no mention of God.
and should be banned.
the author should be put on trial and convicted of herasy.
John: "You can only consider the witchcraft depicted in Potter as a threat if you think witchcraft is REAL. But I have a newsflash for you, IT'S NOT."
That is like claiming that acupuncture is not real because you doubt it's effectiveness. Irrespective of whether or not magic is real, witchcraft is. The harm comes to the one who practices it by consorting with, or at least desiring to consort with seducing spirits.
David: "Also, the 6 points you listed seem contradictory."
Good eye! I appreciate the time you have taken
to set the record straight, but honestly I have
seen far too much in the spiritual realm to ever
be neutral when it comes to the occult.
Rob: "I don't know your qualifications to write "from a literary standpoint." I'm not trying to pull an argument from authority on the strength of my master's degree here; that would be silly and pretentious. I'm just wondering if your relative appraisal of Tolkien and Rowlings is meant to be seen as objective or authoritative."
For what it is worth (and I sometimes think very little), I too have a masters degree. That doesn't qualify my opinion in these matters, but to compare the two writers is like comparing apples and oranges. Rowling and Lewis wrote for young children and it is obvious in their prose. Tolkien, an Ivy League scholar and language expert, wrote the Hobbit for his children but the LOR series was directed at a more mature audience.
The Hobbit is a fun Fairy Story (read JRRT's long, boring essay on such). LOTR is an epoch.
Gandalf is barely the same character; his change is almost as inconsistent as Harry beating Voldemort one on one in a magic duel.
Both series are great, and better for adults than the more Christian CS Lewis. As a now adult lover of both Harry & JRRT, I think Harry is generally better written.
But #7 was a bit of a let down, altho not because of the early 'slow part', because the invincible wand was so important but inconsistent.
Especially as compared to the near perfection of JRRTs Return of the King. Comparing HP #1 to The Fellowship (book I) -- many folks can't get thru the Old Forest / Barrow Downs slow part. JKR's Philosopher's Stone is a far better hook.
Harry, like Frodo, is a moral agent, explicitly making a moral choice. In both cases it's a clear Christian morality that nevertheless seems to transcend that foundation into a Civilization affirming universalist Morality. I'd guess all of the world's religious believers could accept most of the Harry Potter morality (tho I haven't heard of Muslim or Hindu controversies, so I don't know. Guess.)
I recently visited England and went to visit Shakespeare's home at Stratford-on-Avon. Only a couple doors down from the entrance to the Shakespeare site is one of the largest witchcraft and occult shops in the country as well as being a museum of withcraft. I went into the store with my pastor friend and it was frightening to see
I recently visited England and went to visit Shakespeare's home at Stratford-on-Avon. Only a couple doors down from the entrance to the Shakespeare site is one of the largest witchcraft and occult shops in the country as well as being a museum of withcraft. I went into the store with my pastor friend for a little research and it was frightening to see the homage paid to Alistar Crowley, Gerald Gardner and the Harry Potter/Rowling. They had an entire wall full of spell kits in neat little packages like you would find at Crabtree and Evelyn. They also advertised witchcraft parties for kids where each child got there only personal spell to use. In speaking with one of the workers in the store, he said the difference with their spells is that they "really work." Upstairs in the Museum the women behind the potion counter spoke about the Harry Potter books and said the books spoke about beginner spells and she said "there is no such thing as beginner spells." Their business has exploded since the Harry Potter books have come out. The excitement of the kids in the store was eerie. The store and museum had an extremely icy feeling to it and I was glad to get out of the place.
The Brits seems to have little or no compunction about talking about the occult and buying and learning divination and the use or crystals, amulets and spells. I was amazed. Road signs for popular occult oriented films were everywhere
My view is you can find as much or more Christian values in the Koran or Baghavad Gita as in Harry Potter books. So should be have our kids reading those books?
OBTW. SCI Fi will be airing a new reality series call "The Real Exorcist" on Thursday, Oct 30th between 6:00 and 10:00 PM.
This one is especially weak:
"3. Tolkien and Lewis relegate the safe and lawful pursuit of magic to characters who are numbered among the supporting cast, not the protagonists with whom the reader is primarily to identify. By contrast, Harry Potter, a student of wizardry, is the title character and hero of his novels."
That betrays a monumental misunderstanding of what is going on in the Lord of the Rings. The Lord of the Rings is the story of the demonic, supernatural power of the Ring, which was created by a demon to allow himself to be perpetually incarnate in it, being opposed by the supernatural forces of good, personified in Gandalf. To call Gandalf a "supporting character" almost defies belief. Granted, he's not the main character that people might identify with, but to suggest that the magic he does is incidental to the story is really to miss the point. It would have been impossible for Frodo to accomplish what he did (against his own will, ultimately) were it not for the "magic" of Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, and others summoning angelic powers through incantation on repeated occasions. Gandalf's very existence was predicated on opposition to the Ring -- he was ultimately the one fighting and winning the battle, with Frodo being the "supporting character" to the true plot.
Oh, and might I point out what the "title character" of the Lord of the Rings is???? A DEMON????
(BTW, lest I be misunderstood, none of this is to criticize LotR. It's to show that the contrast the author of those points is trying to make, is no contrast at all except superficially.)
True most of the time Gandalf's magic is kept pretty 'low key' but it's there nonetheless and he has some moments of dramatic magic/supernatural stuff....like the multiple times he is able to speak with birds and summon them to his aid.
This is simply a different in plotting styles between Tolkein and Rowling, I don't see evidence to support the assertion that Harry Potter is anti-Christian or pro-occultism.
qwertyurtyui,
"Good eye! I appreciate the time you have taken
to set the record straight, but honestly I have
seen far too much in the spiritual realm to ever
be neutral when it comes to the occult."
If this is more of a personal matter, I can appreciate that. But my whole point was that Harry Potter doesn't really endorse the occult, nor make it look fun and cool.
In fact, if children have grown up thinking that "magic" is like it is in Harry Potter, they are more likely to be disappointed and turned off by the real occult when and if they see it.
These books will only pose a problem for children who don't learn them in a Christian context. By that I mean, children who understand the tradition of the "fairy tale" (a Christian invention!) will not take these books as anti-Christian stories about the occult, and will better appreciate their Christian themes. This is especially true if an explicit connection is made to Lewis (what little kid didn't want to go to Narnia? But what kid joined the occult to try to get there?).
In other words, the only children in mild danger from these books (and even then, I still don't think the danger is serious) are the non-Christian ones, and so far we've only been discussing whether or not Christian children should read them.
David N.: "These books will only pose a problem for children who don't learn them in a Christian context."
David, I'm not sure I agree that a Christian context imparts any particular protection, or even that such protection is necessary. My children are 13 and 10, have no religious upbringing apart from historical and cultural religious education, and the Harry Potter books haven't harmed them in the least. On the contrary, these books have honed their appetites for well-written fiction of all genres. They show no particular attraction to the occult, possibly because they, like their parents, think it is all bunkum.
If anyone is at risk, it seems to me that it would be children raised to believe in magic and spirits, et cetera. I would imagine that pagans and wiccans and the like would be most susceptible, though I have nothing in the way of hard evidence to support this supposition.
Roger,
Your comment intrigued me, so I wrote to Mr. Granger and asked if he had any response. Here's what he said:
(1) Blaming Ms. Rowling for the exploitation of her books by those who intentionally misrepresent them and profit by selling wickedness would be a little bit like blaming the folks who translated the Bible into English for Jim Jones and his use of scripture to entrance his cult. Tolkien has been similarly blamed for the Dungeons and Dragons phenomenon and interest in the occult. Anyone who knows anything about Crowley and Rowling would know linking them is a non-starter...
(2) The only people who argue that Potter fascination has led to a big jump in occult participation are proselytizing occult members (or gift shop owners with similar motivation). Social scientists and sociologists who track real world numbers say, if anything, occult membership in the US and UK have been in decline for a decade. No doubt the Internet has made the Wiccans and the like more visible but their "growth" is as imaginary as Harry's world. Not that they will tell you that...
Of course, the seduction of anyone into this morass of evil is a horrible thing. To blame Harry Potter for it, however, is blaming the misused and maligned instrument for a crime committed with it by a sick person.
The Koran and Bhagavad Gita have little Christian symbolism or content drawn from English literature and don't turn on an individual's choice to believe and die to oneself as their hope of resurrection. Harry Potter would probably be better reading for Christians than those holy books, then...
I could see early on that the outcry over the Potter books from naive, illiterate Christians was much ado about nothing. It is sad to see us slipping away from biblical literacy and missing so much in literature, to say nothing of missing God's real truth in Scripture. My daughter's favorite course at her conservative Christian university is a religion in literature course. We have enough trouble trying to stave off attacks from the liberal, secular Illuminati. We don't need this nonsense from the religious right side.
Becky: "I could see early on that the outcry over the Potter books from naive, illiterate Christians was much ado about nothing. It is sad to see us slipping away from biblical literacy and missing so much in literature, to say nothing of missing God's real truth in Scripture."
What does biblical literacy have to do with this discussion besides revealing that those who find a Christian message in this series are perhaps biblically illiterate? The series portrays in a positive light practices that are condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. In Deuteronomy 18:9-12 is a passage in which enchanting divination, charms, consulting with familiar spirits, or a witch or a necromancer, are described as an “abomination” in the eyes of God, and must be driven out. Numerous other passages forbidding the practice of witchcraft, or consultation with mediums or diviners, can be found in Leviticus 19:31, 20:6, 27; Isaiah 8:19, 19:3; Galatians 5:19-21; and in Revelation 21:8, just to mention a few.
If Harry Potter is supposed to be a Christian allegory, then it’s a failed allegory. There are references in Harry Potter about sacrificing for friends, but those are common themes throughout all folklore and mythology. No real support for a Christian theme has been presented here besides the good witch/bad witch meme, which, of course, is no support at all.
Book 1, p. 291. "There is no good and evil, there is only power and those too weak to seek it."
In Granger's book he argues that just about every name, character, and event points in some way to Christianity. (Would that be the names of real demons and witches throughout the Potter series?) He says that Harry Potter’s name alludes to “Son of God” because the Cockney and French pronunciations of Harry are “Arry,” which sound like “heir to,” and God is described as a “potter” by Paul. Obviously he is desparate.
Elsewhere he contends that the centaurs are "Christian" symbols because Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey. That is about as convincing as saying that the broomstick was symbolic of the same. Who do you serve?
This comes from an article in American Prospect:
“Rowling initially was afraid that if people were aware of her Christian faith, she would give away too much of what's coming in the series. "If I talk too freely about that," she told a Canadian reporter, "I think the intelligent reader — whether ten [years old] or sixty — will be able to guess what is coming in the books."
The Prospect article conveniently leaves out what else she said in that
interview . . .
"On any given moment if you asked me if I believe in life after death, I think if you polled me regularly through the week, I think I would come down on the side of yes. But it's something I wrestle with a lot. It preoccupies me a lot, and I think that's very obvious within the books."
By the way, can anyone out there cite a direct quote from Rowling professing her belief in Christ?
This from Film Atheist.com:
"It is a fantasy and has very little to say about religion one way or the other. It no more promotes a disbelief in God than it does advocate worship of a divine being.
So, while Harry is not a spokesmen for atheism, he does have some valuable lessons to teach."
In reference to a religious influences in Tolkien's work, the Prospect article stated:
"The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work," Tolkien wrote to a Jesuit friend; "unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. . . . For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism." Those who invent mythic worlds, Tolkien wrote in an essay called "On Fairy Stories," serve as "subcreators" who "make . . . because we are made: and not only made, but made in the image and likeness of a Maker."
Yes, there are biblical images that can be found in Potter series, but the references to drinking of blood, possession, Potter "talking sepent," and casting spells carry a dark and sinister connotation.
The evil priests of Baal drank blood; the 1st king of Israel, Saul, was possessed of an evil spirit after consorting with the "witch" of Andora; the serpent was manifested as the devil, and divination was repeatedly called an abomination.
In reference to a religious influences in Tolkien's work, the Prospect article stated:
"The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work," Tolkien wrote to a Jesuit friend; "unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. . . . For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism." Those who invent mythic worlds, Tolkien wrote in an essay called "On Fairy Stories," serve as "subcreators" who "make . . . because we are made: and not only made, but made in the image and likeness of a Maker."
Yes, there are biblical images that can be found in Potter series, but the references to drinking of blood, possession, Potter "talking sepent," and casting spells carry a dark and sinister connotation.
The evil priests of Baal drank blood; the 1st king of Israel, Saul, was possessed of an evil spirit after consorting with the "witch" of Andora; the serpent was manifested as the devil, and divination was repeatedly called an abomination.
David: "This is especially true if an explicit connection is made to Lewis (what little kid didn't want to go to Narnia? But what kid joined the occult to try to get there?)."
That is preceisely why Tolkein's and Lewis' fantasy was harmless and Rowling's potentially harmful. From a child's perspective, you DO need to join the occult to get into Potter's world. The 1st book is totally devoted to that premise.
"In other words, the only children in mild danger from these books (and even then, I still don't think the danger is serious) are the non-Christian ones."
If it were to place just 50% of the millions of children in potential danger, that should be a concern for anyone who cares for children, and I am sure you do.
Judging from what others had said about the Christian nature of this series, one would expect it to conclude with something wholesome, like Harry going back to being a normal child, free from evil warlocks trying to kill him and possess his body. That is not how it works out in Rowling's scheme. This from the last book:
“'But if Voldemort used the Killing Curse... and nobody died for me this time — how can I be alive?'
“'I think you know,' said Dumbledore....
“'He took my blood,' said Harry.
“'Precisely!' said Dumbledore. 'He took your blood and rebuilt his living body with it! Your blood in his veins, Harry.... He tethered you to life while he lives!'
“'I live... while he lives? But I thought... I thought it was the other way round! I thought we both had to die?'...
“You were the seventh Horcrux.... What you must understand, Harry, is that you and Lord Voldemort have journeyed together into realms of magic hitherto un-known and untested.'"
Fearing death, Voldemort had hidden pieces of his soul in seven Horcruxes (containers)
Is this really the type of hokum that Christians are expected to believe is healthy for kids? Personally I loved reading Tolkien and wrote many songs inspired by his work. Over the years I have tried to read, or watch Potter movies and usually within a few seconds I was bothered by the witchiness of every scene.
In my travels I have encountered real witches and real people who were possessed. And believe me, there was nothing cute about them.
In the latter case a young child tried to take my eyes out with a large pair of scissors. This child who could scarcely speak railed about "devils," referred to Jesus as "the dead god of Israel" and then started rolling his tongue out like a snake.
Also, I lived in a house for years that had a reputation for being haunted. (The previous owner had the house moved because she thought that would solve the problem. It didn't.
No one can convince me that these things aren't real, or that flirting with the occult is harmless.
Because I am a Christian, I have nothing to fear.
But I would strongly advise people to be very careful of what they expose their children to.
My children were exposed to the Bible and LOR. Both were validictorians, and recently missionaries to the poor in Africa and Asia.
I believe the Lord has blessed our children emmensly because we honored Him and Him alone.
David: "This is especially true if an explicit connection is made to Lewis (what little kid didn't want to go to Narnia? But what kid joined the occult to try to get there?)."
That is preceisely why Tolkein's and Lewis' fantasy was harmless and Rowling's potentially harmful. From a child's perspective, you DO need to join the occult to get into Potter's world. The 1st book is totally devoted to that premise.
"In other words, the only children in mild danger from these books (and even then, I still don't think the danger is serious) are the non-Christian ones."
If it were to place just 50% of the millions of children in potential danger, that should be a concern for anyone who cares for children, and I am sure you do.
Judging from what others had said about the Christian nature of this series, one would expect it to conclude with something wholesome, like Harry going back to being a normal child, free from evil warlocks trying to kill him and possess his body. That is not how it works out in Rowling's scheme. This from the last book:
“'But if Voldemort used the Killing Curse... and nobody died for me this time — how can I be alive?'
“'I think you know,' said Dumbledore....
“'He took my blood,' said Harry.
“'Precisely!' said Dumbledore. 'He took your blood and rebuilt his living body with it! Your blood in his veins, Harry.... He tethered you to life while he lives!'
“'I live... while he lives? But I thought... I thought it was the other way round! I thought we both had to die?'...
“You were the seventh Horcrux.... What you must understand, Harry, is that you and Lord Voldemort have journeyed together into realms of magic hitherto un-known and untested.'"
Fearing death, Voldemort had hidden pieces of his soul in seven Horcruxes (containers)
Is this really the type of hokum that Christians are expected to believe is healthy for kids? Personally I loved reading Tolkien and wrote many songs inspired by his work. Over the years I have tried to read, or watch Potter movies and usually within a few seconds I was bothered by the witchiness of every scene.
In my travels I have encountered real witches and real people who were possessed. And believe me, there was nothing cute about them.
In the latter case a young child tried to take my eyes out with a large pair of scissors. This child who could scarcely speak railed about "devils," referred to Jesus as "the dead god of Israel" and then started rolling his tongue out like a snake.
Also, I lived in a house for years that had a reputation for being haunted. (The previous owner had the house moved because she thought that would solve the problem. It didn't.
No one can convince me that these things aren't real, or that flirting with the occult is harmless.
Because I am a Christian, I have nothing to fear.
But I would strongly advise people to be very careful of what they expose their children to.
My children were exposed to the Bible and LOR. Both were validictorians, and recently missionaries to the poor in Africa and Asia.
I believe the Lord has blessed our children emmensly because we honored Him and Him alone.
Obviously he is desparate.
Not as desparate as you it seems:
Book 1, p. 291. "There is no good and evil, there is only power and those too weak to seek it."
A statement spoken by the villian in the work, why do you present it with no context? Perhaps to imply to those who haven't read it that the author takes this position as the works theme?
The Prospect article conveniently leaves out what else she said in that
interview . . .
That she struggles with belief in life after death?
That is preceisely why Tolkein's and Lewis' fantasy was harmless and Rowling's potentially harmful. From a child's perspective, you DO need to join the occult to get into Potter's world. The 1st book is totally devoted to that premise
Actually you don't. Magical powers are simply an inherited trait, if you don't have them you'd make a fool of yourself trying to use them. As I said before, this is no different than the superhero theme of comic books. For all intents and purposes the heros of those stories have magical powers simply granted to them as a part of reality. There is no viable path for anyone else to aquire the same powers. Again I'll remind you unlike the superhero story, at the end of the day Potter is able to save the day not so much because he happens to have an inherited gift for magic but because of the nature of the decisions he makes.
"A statement spoken by the villian in the work, why do you present it with no context? Perhaps to imply to those who haven't read it that the author takes this position as the works theme?"
I was uncertain where the quote came from, but included it because the question of good witch/bad witch is inconsequential, particularly if both the protagonist and antagonist have the same occult-like lust for power.
"That she struggles with belief in life after death?"
Christians usually grapple with issues like predestination, eternal security, and the rapture. If the author is still equivicating over the basic question of life after death, then she apparently has a long way to go towards Christian maturity. The point being that she is certainly not in a position to be writing Christian allegories when she fails to come to terms with one of the basic requisites of the faith; acceptance of life after death.
I was uncertain where the quote came from, but included it because the question of good witch/bad witch is inconsequential, particularly if both the protagonist and antagonist have the same occult-like lust for power.
This is an amazing amount of dishonesty on your part. If you're position is both the protagonist and antagonist have a lust for power and the work presents that as a good thing then it matters quite a bit where the quote came from. If you only have a quote from the villian then you've presented nothing to support your argument. Since you clearly don't know what you're talking about I see no reason why anything you write about this topic merits being taken seriously.
Boonton: "This is an amazing amount of dishonesty on your part."
I think John Granger said it best on post #22, Boonton: "Either learn to read more seriously than you are now capable of or stop feigning knowledge or expertise you don't have. This sort of thing isn't a matter of taste like what sort of ice cream flavor you prefer and pretending that it is in a public forum is intellectually dishonest and demeaning to everyone who posts on these boards."
Now go back and re-read post #36. Obviously it was not meant to be deceptive in any way and regardless of where the quote came from (good witch or bad witch), it still reinforces the point that this series is not "Christian" literature.
"Since you clearly don't know what you're talking about I see no reason why anything you write about this topic merits being taken seriously."
I'll take the hemlock!
Honestly, I don't see how anyone could read book 7 of the Harry series and not see the clearly Christian themes of loving, sacrificial death and triumphant resurrection. The chapter when Harry walks into the forest to face Voldemort makes me cry every time. It is his "Gethsemane," and very like the chapter in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe when Aslan walks with Lucy and Susan to meet his own sacrificial death.
I think Mr. Granger makes a helpful point about the two kinds of magic in fantasy literature (a distinction Lewis also follows in the Narnia books) about "incantational magic" and "invocational magic."
Invocational is the bad sort--it involves calling up of evil spirits (the kind forbidden in scripture. This kind of magic is the kind that Caspian encounters in the second Narnia book, when the hag and werewolf try to call up the dead spirit of the White Witch--clearly evil. Conjuring up some kind of foreign spirit or power is certainly not good, and this is not the kind of magic that is in the Harry Potter books.
Incantational magic, however, is. This is the imaginary kind of magic that Lewis and Tolkien utilize in their fantasy novels. If my memory serves me right, it means "to sing along with" the natural order of creation (that is not purely material!). It defies a purely materialistic read of the universe and inscribes hidden meaning in the cosmos. You say the right word, and doors open to you. You ask the right question, and are given an answer. It has its own rules and internal logic. This is the kind of magic Lucy encounters in Voyage of the Dawn Treader when she says a spell to make the Dufflepuds visible again. It is clearly fantastical, and serves as a literary device to exemplify the idea of a deeper, internal logic (or logos) that orders the cosmos. In both Narnia and Harry Potter, the deepest magic is salvific, sacrificial love--"the love that moves the sun and the farthest stars."
qwerty
I think John Granger said it best on...
Non-responsive. You presented a quote out of context, from the villian of a work, and presented it as if that was the work's theme. This is dishonest except for the fact that when questioned about it you tell us you have no idea where the quote came from. The problem here is not my failure to 'read more seriously' but your failure to read at all (or at least read enough to know what you're talking about).
I'll take the hemlock!
I hope you're not waiting for us to object! Plato you are not.
Lucy G
Incantational magic, however, is. This is the imaginary kind of magic that Lewis and Tolkien utilize in their fantasy novels. If my memory serves me right, it means "to sing along with" the natural order of creation (that is not purely material!). It defies a purely materialistic read of the universe and inscribes hidden meaning in the cosmos.
Out of curiousity where would you rate:
1. 'The Force' in the Star Wars series.
2. Superhero stories which seem to use science as a type of incantational magic dressed up scientific jargon....
We could also add a lot of science fiction to the question. Star Trek, for example, seems to be mostly 'incantational magic' dressed up as techno-babble (we can't beam him through the shields! Wait, I'll adjust their harmony! It just might work!)
"Out of curiousity where would you rate:
1. 'The Force' in the Star Wars series.
2. Superhero stories which seem to use science as a type of incantational magic dressed up scientific jargon....
We could also add a lot of science fiction to the question. Star Trek, for example, seems to be mostly 'incantational magic' dressed up as techno-babble (we can't beam him through the shields! Wait, I'll adjust their harmony! It just might work!)"
1. I think that idea of the Force may have origins in "incantational magic" (given Lucas's borrowing of archetypes from the fantasy genre), but it would have to be (incantational) magic coupled with elements of Buddhist mysticism (hence Solo calling Obi-Wan a "crazy old wizard").
2. I don't think the superhero example is exactly invocational magic, per se, but it does seem to draw from the same literary source in fantasy literature.
I'm not sure there's a real difference between invocational magic and science. There's not much difference I see between Harry Potter's magic and Star Trek's 'science'. In both as in real science the person is simply applying way the universe works to his or her everyday situations. The only difference is in Harry Potter's world a cloak can make you invisible while in Star Trek your ship can have a 'cloaking device'.
Harry Potter
by Michael D. O’Brien
The author has written many articles that analyze in detail the Harry Potter novels. Here he reflects on the significance of the series as a whole.
In short, the series is a kind of anti-Gospel, a dramatized manifesto for behavior and belief embodied by loveable, at times admirable, fictional characters who live out the modern ethos of secular humanism to its maximum parameters.
. . . Without neglecting the valid point that good fiction need not be overtly Christian, need not be religious at all, we might ponder a little the fact that the central metaphor and plot engines of the series are activities (witchcraft and sorcery) absolutely prohibited by God.
. . . The saturation of a generation of young readers in the ethics and ethos of darkness, cosmetized as playful fiction, will have its long-range effects. Not least of these effects will be the further promulgation of moral relativism, which in cultural forms tends to become not only the dictatorship of moral relativism but the addiction of moral relativism.
. . . The promethean nature of magic, the fire stolen from the gods, confirms at a fundamental level of identity and appetite the psychological perception in the young of our times that they can "be as gods," complete with moral boundaries defined by the self and with reward mechanisms accountable to no higher authority than their own will. With the Potter series, many Christians have accepted this because the central character embodies the perennial seduction in an apparently sanitized form, that is: "You shall be as nice gods." However, if you read the stories with some attention to what is being communicated at levels deeper than the charming plots and characters, you will find that Harry is not all that nice. He ends as a nice enough fellow at the climax of Volume 7, but only after leaving a trail of mayhem, lies, and hatred throughout the preceding six. We never really learn how Harry matures from this condition into his sterling final form — the good sorcerer who saves the world.
. . . We might also consider for a moment the fact that no sane parents would give their children books which portrayed a set of “good” pimps and prostitutes valiantly fighting a set of “bad” pimps and prostitutes, and using the sexual acts of prostitution as the thrilling dynamic of the story. Why then is witchcraft and sorcery exempt?
. . . Conservative people are bad, anti-magic dogmatists are really bad and deserve whatever punishment they get (hence the delicious retributions against the Dursleys). The ultimate cause of evil is rejection of magic: the arch-villain Voldemort, for example, first went off track when he became a dysfunctional boy abandoned by his anti-magic father. Then there’s the adolescent romance in the atmosphere, a potent element when mixed with magic, usually latent but growing with each volume and culminating in domestic bliss for the central characters at the end of the final volume. Yes, Harry faces near-satanic evils, passes through an unceasing trial of conflict and woe, triumphs against insurmountable odds, saves the world, marries Ginny and brings forth with her a new generation of little witches and wizards.
. . . In fact, it is a new form of that ancient archipelago of heresies, a neo-gnosticism that borrows remnants of Judeo-Christian symbols and mixes them with cultic concepts of life and afterlife.
. . . J.K. Rowling has stated in one of her interviews that, “My books are largely about death. They open with the death of Harry’s parents. There is Voldemort’s obsession with conquering death and his quest for immortality at any price, the goal of anyone with magic. I so understand why Voldemort wants to conquer death. We’re all frightened by it.”
. . . Indeed there are myriad forms of violent death in the seven volumes, usually as the result of battles involving curses, hexes, and potions. The reader loses count of the human characters and other creatures who die in the series, and as far as I can remember none of them die naturally. Potterworld is death’s realm, death’s sovereignty, and its perpetual reign can be transcended only by using the tools of death. Throughout the series, death and power are inextricably entwined.
Wal Mart out of hemlock? It's our loss.
You Christians make me sick IMO. Srsly, SATANIC EVILDOER???1? L2SCHOOL fucking idiots. The bible is fake lolololol
Seriously, it is fake. L2think for yourself.
:DD:DD:D::D:D:D:D:
pbtxq ocka iwcyu sdfzow dwbpn hrjf vkdr
pbtxq ocka iwcyu sdfzow dwbpn hrjf vkdr
pbtxq ocka iwcyu sdfzow dwbpn hrjf vkdr
Boonton wrote, "Yes it's better than Scooby Do but not that much better."
I couldn't agree more!
Of course, I'm also a huge Scooby Doo fan ;) You captured the essence of the Heptology in a single sentence, both the good and the bad!