www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Harry Potter - Any readers here?

John,

I would question her narration ability. She seems to have a knack with dialogue and with plot tension. Those are two good skills to have. But, even with certain skills, her work does not approach classic literature.

To be a wordsmith, she would have to step beyond skills.
A careful read of Tolkien matures each time, maybe with a reader's age too. I can't see that happening with Rowling. (About natural law and deeper truth, I still say that's the underpinning. There is a lack of meaning in her work. That's what I was getting at.)

Terry

What connections do the seven volumes have with the seven sacraments of the Catholic and Orthodox churches?

None.

The 7 years follow the traditional English boarding school system. I suppose 7 could be argued to be the perfect number. Jo Rowling is an Anglican, but she takes pains to say that she is not writing morality tales, but fairy tales which deal with issues of morality. She does have strong themes of good vs. bad, death, slavery, friendship, loyalty, love, genocide, euthanasia, personal choice, racism, classism, success and power, war, and other hard-hitting issues. Nazism (with an uber-class) and socialism (for the greater good) both also run as themes. While many parallels can be made to Christianity, it is not intended as an allegory for the story of Christ.

Agreed. There are many modern, popular authors that can spin a good yarn, but have little in the way of refined descriptive tools to convey the particulars. I didn't even get a third of the way through the first Potter book without shrugging and thinking, "This is what everyone is so excited about?" Many years ago, Frank Peretti (an evangelical writer) wrote some supernatural-type angels vs demon type novels that all my friends were abuzz about. I read them, and yes, he is an excellent story teller, but a very, very poor writer.

Tolkien's excellent command of language was actually initially a detriment to me. You see, I had never read the "Rings" books until I had seen the films. When I was in high school and college, the kind of folks who were deeply into Tolkien were a little creepy (to be kind), so the books never interested me back then. My teen aged daughters brought the first movie home on DVD. While watching it with them, I had an advantage, because they had read the books and gave me a running commentary about what was happening and what things meant. I enjoyed the movie so much, I picked up my daughter's copy of Fellowship and started reading.

It was odd -- usually I read a book, then see the movie, and grouse about all the things that were left out. I started the book with an expectation that the action would unfold like it did in the movie, and of course, it does not. At first, I got bogged down. "When does the action pick up?" I wondered as I went through page after page of intricate descriptions of what elves wear. I had to consciously "dial it down" a bit and slow down mentally to appreciate the prose. Eventually, I started understanding Middle Earth from Tolkien's view, rather then Peter Jackson's.

For those of you who actually liked the Potter books, and have seen the movies, do you recommend the film version? I have not seen any of the Potter movies.

John

Are you being serious?

It frustrated me the parts that were dropped which I thought pivotal. I didn't like the Cuaron guy's style. The quidditch scene was great the first time but I didn't care for the one with the flying under the bleachers as much as it looked too computer generated. The parts are well cast. If I had to choose, I'd say #1 the movie is better and #2 on the books are. That's only because #1 isn't written very well so the movie in comparison shines.

May I crash the party?

Isn't witchcraft a very serious sin? Should it be promoted in any way?

Secondly, I don't think that the Patristic fathers would make the dubious distinction between fantasy and reality. (Take, for example, their notion of "symbol".) Everything in some way affects us.

Finally, one exorcist said that the spells HP uses are based upon actual pagan incantations. I'm not sure that these books are as benign as y'all make them to be. At the very least they are taking many innocent children to the edge of a dark world.

Rufinus

It definitely shapes our imagination, which in turn affects how we see the world.

Terry

I think witchcraft is from an earlier age when unusual happenings were attributed to the occult, rather than natural causes. The science of the time was too primitive to actually find those causes. I do not believe witchcraft exists or has ever existed except in the realm of overactive imaginations. As for Harry Potter, its witchcraft is too trite and silly to take seriously. I know, I know, get out the garlic and the holy water! Aren't we supposed to have faith in Christ that he will protect us and we have nothing to fear?

Dear ByzanTN,

I guess at your age, I too thought as you do...but today I'm smarter. It took many years of experience to realize that witchcraft is alive and well...and coming to your neighborhood.

Actually, to not believe in the occult, is to not believe in the devil and the power he has over us. But one should have no fear if one doesn't believe in him, because he never attacks his own. If on the other hand, you do believe in him, and are highly devout, then beware. You will be attacked, and you will know it in time. Uhhh! My spiritual father says, that if one goes to confession, one had nothing to fear. Regardless, I can assure you, our well known adversary will have you spinning.

God Bless,

Zenovia

"I do not believe witchcraft exists or has ever existed except in the realm of overactive imaginations."

We can also believe that there is no such thing as fire. Though by doing so there's a greater chance we'll be severely burnt if we start playing around with it than if we knew to keep our hands from the flame.

There is a reality to be weary of in the occult. If Harry Potter kindles an interest in tame magic, that interest can grow to a passion for what some would call the demonic.

Terry

I think we are talking about two different things. Do I believe some elderly lady can mutter incantations and harness spiritual forces to do her bidding? No, I don't. I don't think people ever have those kinds of powers. However, fallen angels and Satan do work hard to draw souls away from Christ.

Dear Zenovia, I will be 60 years old later this year. I still hope I am smart enough to not believe superstitious nonsense. Meanwhile, get your crucifix, the garlic, and a blanket so you can stay up all night and fret. See my later post on this thread for what I think is an important distinction.

If you mean that the work of Satan is limited to the psychological, then you're quite mistaken. Such a view cannot be supported by the Gospels and the lives of the saints, nor can it be supported by the testimony of priests who place themselves into contact with the demonic, in persona Christie.

Witchcraft has never existed? Deuteronomy 18:10, I Samuel 15:23 and Galatians 5:20 indicate that God takes witchcraft, sorcery, and divination very, very seriously. In my previous entries on this thread, I have indicated that I don't think the Harry Potter books are well written, and therefore do not warrant my attention. I do not dismiss the HP books out of hand for this other reason, but it causes great concern for me. I agree with Terry -- the HP books trivialize the occult. Its one thing to have fairy tale type witchcraft and sorcery -- like in Grimm's fairy tales, or the Wizard of Oz. But the HP books appear to elevate the occult to a level of seriousness that borders on the serious glorification of evil -- that is, evil as the Bible defines witchcraft as evil.

Terry described this earlier as the Potter books having a lack of a foundation in natural law. I've been looking to put my finger on that concept for a while, and he hit the nail on the head.

I had a relative of mine argue that its hypocritical for Christians to promote an occult based book series like "Lord of the Rings," while condemning the Harry Potter books. But there is a fundamental difference in the way occult powers and evil are portrayed in the two fictional worlds. Tolkien portrays occult power, as embodied in the "one ring" as something that is not only evil, but it corrupts. The use of this occult power is discouraged, and it must be destroyed. In Harry Potter, magic and the occult are not just the means to the end -- they are, in and of themselves, the end that is sought after. That concept, which Terry described so beautifully in the phrase "lacking a foundation in natural law" for the Potter books, is enough of a red flag for me to be cautious about getting to deeply into Rowling's fiction.

Don't get me wrong -- I am not for book banning, or for discouraging reading the books for this reason alone. But as I said earlier, I tried to read the first book, and can't recommend it as a "good read." This second factor, which is the fascination with the "dark side" of the occult, is another reason to say, "no thanks." That doesn't mean the books or the stories can't be read and enjoyed -- but I would caution any believer to do so properly warned and ready to process the books as such.