Harry Potter and the Paganization of Children's Culture
weil...@hotmail.com
By Michael D. O'Brien
The realm of human imagination is a God-given gift, a faculty of the
mind that is intended to expand our understanding by enabling us to
visualize invisible truths. In the modern era this zone of man's
interior life has moved to the forefront of his experience. With the
advent of film, television, and now the near-virtual reality of
special-effects videos and other electronic entertainment, the screen
of the imagination is stimulated to a degree (both in quantity and in
kind) more than at any other period in history. This has prompted a
continuing debate over what constitutes healthy nourishment of the
imagination and what degrades it.
In his essay "On Fairy Stories," J.R.R. Tolkien pointed out that
because man is made in the image and likeness of God he is endowed with
faculties that reflect his Creator. One of these is the gift of
"sub-creation"--the human creator may give form to other worlds
populated by imaginary peoples and beasts, where fabulous environments
are the stage for astounding dramas. The primal desire at the heart of
such imagining, he says, is the "realization of wonder." If our eyes
are opened to see existence as wonder-full, then we become more capable
of reverential awe before the Source of it all. "Fairy stories may
invent monsters that fly the air or dwell in the deep," he wrote, "but
at least they do not try to escape from heaven or the sea." However
fantastic the sub-created world may be, if it is a product of the
"baptized imagination" it will be faithful to the moral order of the
universe. Tolkien cautions, however, that because man is fallen, the
creative faculty is always at risk of veering away from its true
objective. We are all quite capable of taking God-given gifts back in
the direction of idolatry.
Even the most cursory glance at what is available in children's
literature and entertainment today offers ample evidence that the
paganization of the imagination is well underway. In the late 19th
century there appeared in children's fiction a trickle of books that
began the process of redefining Christian symbols and the presentation
of occult themes in a favorable light. Until then, witches and
sorcerers--important elements of traditional fables and fairy
tales--were consistently portrayed as evil. With the advent of the
occult revival (which entered the West primarily through certain
British writers involved in esoteric religion) more and more material
appeared that attempted to shift the line between good and evil. The
characters of the "white witch," the pet dragon, and the wise wizard
became familiar figures. During the last quarter of the 20th century
the trickle became a torrent, and by the final decade before the
millennium it entered the mainstream of culture, powerfully augmented
by the interlocking mechanisms of television, film, video, marketing
techniques and spin-off industries, and applauded by a class of critics
who told us that this was all a long overdue broadening of our
horizons.
In his book Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman describes how
television has reshaped our society. In the past, when Western man
moved from an oral culture to the print-dominated or "typographic"
culture, significant changes resulted in our capacity to absorb
experience and abstractions. The volume of information fed to the mind
increased, while the mind's ability to sort and evaluate the influx of
data did not always keep pace. With the advent of television another
quantum leap occurred. Flooded with powerful stimuli that bypassed the
mind's normal faculties for filtering and interpretation, both the
rational and the imaginative aspects of our minds became increasingly
passive. As a result, Postman warns, our ways of perceiving reality
itself are becoming fundamentally distorted. We now imbibe a massive
amount of impressions in small bites that demand of us neither
sustained attention nor truly critical thinking, thus rendering us
vulnerable to manipulation. We are dangerously close, he says, to that
condition described by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World; no longer
conscious of our bondage, we are soothed by endless entertainments.
Postman writes:
For in the end he [Huxley] was trying to tell us that what afflicted
the people in Brave New World was not that they were laughing instead
of thinking, but that they did not know what they were laughing about
and why they had stopped thinking.
How does this warning apply to books that promote a pagan view of the
world? Surely, it is argued, their popularity heralds a return to a
more literate culture. Is not their success a positive sign,
demonstrating that the human imagination can never be fully satisfied
by electronic media? At first glance, it would seem so. But a book is
not necessarily always better than a video simply because it is a book.
While it is true that media technology tends to overwhelm the viewer,
and books usually pay some respect to the integrity of the reader
(sparking the imagination but not displacing its creative powers), much
of contemporary fantasy for the young is actually closer in style to
television than to literature. It overwhelms by using in print form the
visceral stimuli and pace of the electronic media, flooding the
imagination with sensory rewards while leaving it malnourished at the
core. In a word, thrills have swept aside wonder.
If the purpose of wonder is to lead to reflection on the splendor of
existence, and reflection to clear thought about its meaning, what has
been lost? And why has it been lost? Postman warns that the power over
our minds exercised by constantly changing images is now so deeply
embedded in our consciousness that it has become invisible. We are fast
losing our ability to recognize that we have lost anything at all, let
alone the ability to ask why it has been lost.
There is no more disturbing consequence of the electronic and graphic
revolution than this: that the world as given to us through television
seems natural, not bizarre. For the loss of the sense of the strange is
a sign of adjustment, and the extent to which we have adjusted is a
measure of the extent to which we have been changed. Our culture's
adjustment to the epistemology of television is by now all but
complete; we have so thoroughly absorbed its definitions of truth,
knowledge and reality that irrelevance seems filled with import, and
incoherence seems eminently sane. And if some of our institutions seem
not to fit the template of the times, why it is they, and not the
template, that seem to us disordered and strange.
THE HARRY POTTER PHENOMENON
If the fragmenting and leveling of consciousness distorts how we
perceive the world, it will necessarily distort our assessment of
cultural material. A case in point is the publication of Joanne K.
Rowling's Harry Potter novels, which during the past four years have
met with a deluge of favorable reviews and an astonishing sales
response. Some 76 million copies have been sold, there are translations
in 42 languages, and three of the titles are concurrently on the New
York Times best-sellers list as this essay is written.
Because the Harry Potter series presents the world of witchcraft and
sorcery in a positive light, it has also sparked a minority reaction
ranging from outright alarm to sober analysis. Some critics say the
books are flawed but essentially harmless fantasy, filling a real need;
others decry them as the next stage in the ongoing degeneration of
culture. In either case the books invite an appraisal, for they are
going to be a major influence on the thoughts and perceptions of the
coming generation.
The four novels published to date are so rich in characters and ornate
sub-plots that it would be impossible to describe all of them in a
single article. However, at this point a sketch of the structure of the
series may serve to set the context for themes I will discuss further
on.
In volume one, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, we are
introduced to the world of sorcery and the boy who plays the pivotal
role in the struggle between good and evil as it is defined in the
series. The story begins with the murder of Harry's parents, a witch
and wizard who are destroyed by another wizard named Voldemort, chief
of all the wizards who have gone too far into practice of the "Dark
Arts"--the "evil side of sorcery." Baby Harry survives the attack for
some unexplained reason, and Voldemort flees, much reduced in power. We
later learn that the sacrificial love Harry's mother has for her baby
son somehow deflected Voldemort's curses onto himself, with the result
that Voldemort has become no more than a barely human shadow of his
former self. Harry is rescued by witches and wizards who take him to a
suburb of London to be raised by his aunt and uncle, Mr. and Mrs.
Dursley. The Dursleys are "Muggles"--the wizard term for ordinary
humans who have no magic powers. A thoroughly despicable couple, they
are unrelievedly cruel to Harry, opinionated, conceited and full of
malice for anything to do with magic. Harry knows nothing about his
background.
On his 11th birthday, Harry begins to discover that he has some
mysterious powers. He soon meets witches and wizards who harass the
Dursleys with magic in order to obtain their permission for Harry to
attend Hogwarts, a school of witchcraft and wizardry. There Harry meets
the headmaster Professor Dumbledore who is also the unofficial chief of
the "good wizards" in the world. At Hogwarts, Harry makes special
friends with fellow students Ron and Hermione, and together the trio
experience many adventures throughout the four novels written to date.
In this first novel Harry comes to understand that the Dark
Lord--Voldemort himself--seeks to recapture his old magical strength
and seize power over the world. One of the Hogwarts professors, a
wizard named Quirrel, is secretly loyal to Voldemort and tries to help
him by stealing the Philosopher's Stone (containing the "elixir of
eternal life") which is safe in Dumbledore's keeping, and by draining
the life from Harry in order to restore Voldemort's own powers. If he
can achieve this, Voldemort intends to kill Harry, for Harry is the
only one ever to have resisted his killing curse. In the attempt,
Voldemort possesses Quirrel and lures Harry into a confrontation where
he tries to seize the stone and kill the boy. But the power latent in
Harry is too strong for him; Voldemort flees and Harry collapses,
remaining unconscious for three days before he revives.
Volume two, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, chronicles Harry's
second year at Hogwarts. The plot revolves around mysterious events
connected to a secret chamber in Hogwarts castle. Supposedly an evil
presence lurks there and has been released to roam about the school,
terrorizing students and killing as it pleases. Students and some of
the professors suspect that the famous Harry Potter may be the cause,
and it is rumored that he has become a practitioner of the Dark Arts.
After all, it is argued, even as a baby he was more powerful than the
Dark Lord, the most powerful evil wizard in the world. Isolated and
despised, Harry begins to doubt himself, suspecting that he might be
destined to become evil. Dumbledore reassures him that this is not so.
Eventually Harry discovers a secret passageway to the underground
chamber, and enters it to save a little witch girl named Ginny who has
become entranced by Voldemort. He does not realize that Voldemort has
used her as bait. Inside the chamber Harry kills the Basilisk, a giant
snake that is associated with Voldemort, then uses a fang of the snake
to stab a magic dialoguing diary that was the method Voldemort used to
entrance Ginny. When Harry destroys the diary, Voldemort is banished a
second time.
In volume three, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry is
embroiled in an old conflict between his "godfather," a wizard named
Sirius Black, and a wizard named Peter Pettigrew, and other magicians
who are at odds with each other due to a mysterious ancient feud. Black
has been thrown into the wizard prison of Azkaban on a charge of
murdering Pettigrew--which he alleged did in revenge aafter Pettigrew
betrayed Harry's parents to Voldemort. The truth is that Pettigrew
faked his own death, framing Black for his murder, then transformed
himself into a rat named Scabbers (the sleepy pet of Harry's friend
Ron), in which disguise he has been hiding out for 12 years while Black
remained in prison. As the story begins, Black has broken out of
prison, and both the wizard world and the Muggle world (where he is
believed to be a mass murderer) are trying to track him down. The
wizard world thinks Black is searching for Harry in order to kill him.
Into the tale comes Romulus Lupus (who is also a werewolf) the new
teacher of Defense-Against-the-Dark-Arts at Hogwarts. We discover that
Lupus, Black, Pettigrew, and Harry's father had once been fellow
students at Hogwarts and were a foursome of friends during their youth.
Harry has a difficult time untangling the web of deception and
intrigue: who betrayed whom, who can be trusted, who is telling the
truth about the past? None of these characters are what they appear to
be. Harry's assumptions (and the reader's) about who is good and who
is evil are constantly flipping, and only in the last chapters do we
discover that Scabbers the rat is the real villain. In a final
confrontation Scabbers is transformed back into his human form (as
Pettigrew) by the commanding spells of Lupus and Black, who are about
to administer justice by killing him. Harry asks them to be merciful
and to send Pettigrew to Azkaban Prison. But Pettigrew escapes and
flees in search of his old master Voldemort.
Volume four, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, is about Voldemort's
elaborate plan to ensnare Harry through the services of Pettigrew, to
take some of the boy's blood and make a potion that will restore the
Dark Lord to his former powers. Indeed, the latter hopes to obtain more
power than he has ever known, for Harry's powers, though as yet
undeveloped, are potentially greater than those of Voldemort himself.
The plot revolves around a year-long competition in wizardry that
involves the student-champions of the three great schools of sorcery.
Harry is one of the champions for his school, and in feat after daring
feat he overcomes terrifying obstacles (usually by putting the good of
others above his own desire to win). He emerges the victor of the
competition, only in the end to be tricked into Voldemort's hands. The
Dark Lord takes some of Harry's blood, makes the potion and is restored
to his full powers. Harry rallies, resists Voldemort's killing curse
with the power of his will and magical commands, then flees to
Hogwarts. The book concludes with a stirring speech from the headmaster
Dumbledore, who praises Harry for his virtues, and calls the students
and professors to unity in the face of the overwhelming danger that now
looms over the world.
MATERIALIST MAGIC AND THE ASSIMILATED IMAGINATION
Pro-Harry commentators say that Rowling's sub-creation is witty,
thought-provoking, entertaining, expands the child's imagination, and
even retains a certain morality. Furthermore, she has succeeded in
introducing an electronically addicted generation to the world of
reading. All of this is true. The stories are packed with surprises:
delights of the imagination that will enchant almost all readers.
Talking chess pieces argue with the players about the advisability of
move;, ingenious toys and devices abound; mythological beasts run in
and out of scenes; owls deliver mail; a lovable giant hatches dragon
eggs and breeds new species of creatures; elves serve dutifully;
wise-cracking ghosts play tricks; and of course there is the game of
Quidditch-a combination of rugby, basketball, and polo played on
flying broomsticks.
But the charming details are mixed with the repulsive at every turn.
Ron seeks to cast a spell that rebounds on himself, making him vomit
slimy slugs; the ghost of a little girl lives in a toilet; excremental
references are not uncommon; urination is no longer an off-limits
subject; rudeness between students is routine behavior. In volume four
especially these trends are much in evidence, along with the added
spice of sexuality inferred in references to "private parts" and
students pairing off and "going into the bushes."
Student witches and wizards are taught at Hogwarts to use their wands
to cast hexes and spells to alter their environments, punish small
foes, and defend themselves against more sinister enemies.
Transfiguration lessons show them how to change objects and people into
other kinds of creatures--often against their will. In Potions class
they make brews that can be used to control others. In Herbology they
grow plants that are used in the potions; the roots of the mandrake
plant, for example, are small living babies who scream when they are
uprooted for transplanting, and are grown for the purpose of being cut
into pieces and boiled in a magical potion.
The wizard world is about the pursuit of power and esoteric knowledge,
and in this sense it is a modern representation of a branch of ancient
Gnosticism, the cult that came close to undermining Christianity at its
birth. The so-called "Christian Gnostics" of the 2nd century were in no
way Christian, for they attempted to neutralize the meaning of the
Incarnation and to distort the concept of salvation along traditional
Gnostic lines: man saves himself, they believed, by obtaining secret
knowledge and power. The figure of Christ was just one of many "myths"
which the Gnostics attempted to graft onto their world view. At
Hogwarts, similarly, holidays such as Christmas and Easter are stripped
of Christ, rendered down to no more than social customs and absorbed
into the "broader" context of the occult cosmology. Halloween is the
great feast of the year. Rowling's wizard world, gnostic in essence and
practice, neutralizes the sacred and displaces it by normalizing what
is profoundly abnormal and destructive in the real world.
The objection is sometimes raised: surely this is permissible because
it is a sub-creation, and so its author has free rein to establish its
own laws, its interior coherence and consistency. This objection
overlooks the fact that Rowling's wizard world interacts with the real
world and violates the moral order in both. The story takes place in
contemporary London and the English countryside. The witches and
wizards are the gnostic cabal whose secret knowledge must be hidden
from ordinary people and revealed only to initiates. The wizard world
coexists with the world of the Muggles, but it is so enchanted that
ordinary humans are blinded to its existence. When occasionally the
lines are crossed through the "misuse of magic," the Ministry of Magic
steps in to cover it up and to erase the memories of Muggles who happen
to discover the great secret. The students and professors of Hogwarts
are like personalities one would meet in any British boarding school;
their difference is only in their extraordinary powers and bizarre
activities. Some, like Harry, are likable; others are snobs and
bullies. This is our world, but one in which supernatural powers are
redefined as human faculties, needing only the proper learning in order
to be used rightly.
While Rowling posits the "good" use of occult powers against their
misuse, thus imparting to her sub-creation an apparent aura of
morality, the cumulative effect is to shift our understanding of the
battle lines between good and evil. The border is never defined. Of
course, the archetype of "misuse" is Voldemort, whose savage cruelty
and will to power is blatantly evil. Ye the reader is lulled into
minimizing or forgetting altogether that Harry himself, and many other
of the "good" characters, frequently use the same powers on a lesser
scale, supposedly for good ends. The false notion that "the end
justifies the means" is the subtext throughout. The author's
characterization and plot continually reinforce the message that if a
person is "nice," if he means well, if he is brave and loyal to his
friends, he can pretty much do as he sees fit to combat horrific
evil--magic powers being the ideal weapon.
This is consistent with the author's confused notions of authority. In
reality, magic is an attempt to bypass the limitations of human nature
and the authority of God, in order to obtain power over material
creation and the will of others through manipulation of the
supernatural. Magic is about taking control. It is a fundamental
rejection of the divine order in creation. In the first book of Samuel
(15:23) divination is equated with the spirit of rebellion. The
Catechism of the Catholic Church calls divination and magic forms of
idolatry.
All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult
powers, so as to place them at one's service and have a supernatural
power over others...are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion.
(2117; see also 2110-2116 and 2138)
In Rowling's wizard world, children are taught to manipulate undefined
forces, and to submit themselves to no higher law than the wizard
authorities who will help them exercise their powers "wisely." However,
the authorities themselves are divided, imparting to the impressionable
reader the certainty that the best person to decide what is or is not a
"proper use of magic" is the young witch or magician himself, guided
only by the occasional intervention of a Dumbledore or some similar
guru figure. The Ministry of Magic attempts to regulate the use of
magic, but it is as bumbling and riddled with compromise as ordinary
human governments.
The author repeatedly sets up the straw man of legalism and knocks it
down with unsubtle blows. The Dursleys are a parody of staid
conservatism, "touchy about anything even slightly out of the
ordinary." Ron's brother Percy, the most unattractive member of his
family, is a caricature of the fastidious clerk, "fussy about
rule-breaking." In Hogwarts, although it is organized along a system of
rules pretty much like an ordinary boarding school, Harry's
disobedience is frequently overlooked and even rewarded by the school
authorities. After all, he is a special boy: gifted, hated by evil
incarnate, and destined for greatness. Moreover, his daring and
resourcefulness (combined with a sense of fair play toward "good"
fellow students) are always pitted against "bad" characters.
But is Harry really all that good? He blackmails his uncle, uses
trickery and deception, and "breaks a hundred rules" (to quote the
mildly censorious but ultimately approving Dumbledore). He frequently
tells lies to get himself out of trouble, and lets himself be provoked
into revenge against his student enemies. He "hates" his enemies. The
reader soon finds himself forgiving Harry for this because the boy's
tormentors are vindictive and mocking. In a consistent display of
authorial overkill Rowling depicts such "bad" characters as ugly in
appearance. She does a good deal of sneering at the Dursleys for being
fat, and ridicules the oafish bodies of the students who oppress Harry.
In these details and a plethora of others throughout the series, the
child reader is encouraged in his baser instincts while lip service is
paid to morality. In fact, nowhere in the series is there any reference
to a system of moral absolutes against which actions can be measured.
In a word, this is materialist magic, magic as a naturalized human
power.
When the meaning of the human person is reduced to a strictly natural
definition, evil will be considered no more than erroneous abstractions
or problems in the dynamics of the psyche. In his book, An Exorcist
Tells His Story, Father Gabriele Amorth, the chief exorcist of the
Diocese of Rome, warns that modern men are losing their sense of the
reality of supernatural evil. As a result, he says, many have made
themselves more vulnerable to the influence of evil spirits who seek to
corrupt and destroy souls.
I can state that the number of those who are affected by the evil one
has greatly increased. The first factor that influences the increase of
evil influences is Western consumerism. The majority of people have
lost their faith due to a materialistic and hedonistic lifestyle...it
is a well-known fact that where religion regresses, superstition
progresses. We can see the proliferation, especially among the young,
of spiritism, witchcraft, and the occult.
Father Amorth does not hesitate to say that cultural influences such as
film, television, music, and books play no small part in the lowering
of spiritual vigilance. "I was able personally to verify how great is
the influence of these tools of Satan on the young," he writes. "It is
unbelievable how widespread are witchcraft and spiritism, in all their
forms, in middle and high school. This evil is everywhere, even in
small towns."
Speaking of the growing phenomenon of diabolical possession and other
forms of bondage to evil, Amorth points to sorcery as the most frequent
cause. He warns that ultimately there is no real difference between
"white" and "black" magic. Every form of magic is practiced with
recourse to Satan, he says. So either knowingly or unknowingly, the
practitioner of magic exposes himself to diabolic influence. He points
out:
Scripture warns us that witchcraft is one of the most common means used
by the devil to bind men to himself and to dehumanize them. Directly or
indirectly, witchcraft is a cult of Satan.
The spread of occult activity, and the resulting increase in the number
of exorcisms performed by Catholic priests, has been noted by secular
commentators as well. Articles on the subject have recently appeared in
the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. An article in the
November 28, 2000, edition of the New York Times reported a ten-fold
increase in the number of official exorcists in the United States
during the past decade. These, however, are still few in number, and a
majority of dioceses have yet to implement the directives of a 1999
Vatican document that instructed every ordinary in the world to appoint
an exorcist for his diocese. Father Amorth laments that many bishops
still do not realize the scope of the problem. If he is right, it is no
wonder that many lay people also consider the danger to be so remote
that it has no bearing on their lives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glossary Terms: Ordinary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PERCEPTION
With occult themes now a part of mainstream culture, the Potter series
is juxtaposed between a growing amount of blatantly diabolical material
for the young on one hand, and on the other a tide of cultural material
that redefines good and evil in more subtle ways. Thus it appears as a
healthier specimen of what has been more or less normalized all around
us. As Postman warned, the strange and disordered no longer strikes us
as such. Our society is saturated in the false notion that a lesser
evil (in this case, "good sorcery") is preferable to the great evil of
Satanism--a message further reinforced by the books' condemnation of
the extremes of diabolical behavior. What we so often forget is that
the "lesser evil" concept is a classic adversarial tactic in the great
war between good and evil--the real war in which we are all immersed.
The evil spirits seek to attract us to evil behavior by first offering
us evil thoughts disguised as good. In opposition to these, they set up
great evils from which we naturally recoil, and offer the lesser evils
as the antidote. If the lesser evil is presented with a little
window-dressing of virtue or morality (or the modern term "values"), we
can turn to it, assuming we are thereby making a choice for a good.
This dynamic can be observed in the way film classification has
gradually altered our judgments and consequent viewing habits. We have
come to assume that a film rated PG is better than an X-rated film,
forgetting that what is now called PG would have been completely
objectionable a generation ago. This is Postman's "adjustment." This
is reality-shift. This is, to put it simply, loss of discernment.
Children are dependent on adults to make careful discernments in the
area of culture because they do not have the advantages that come with
age and experience. They are in a state of formation, absorbing
impressions about the nature of reality at a fundamental level, and few
things in life are as powerful as culture for defining reality--for
defining good and evil. In the case of the Harry Potter series
discernment has been difficult for many people because these novels
seem at first glance to reject evil by dissociating magic from the
diabolic. Yet in the real world they are always associated. We must ask
ourselves if they really can be separated without negative
consequences. If magic is presented as a good, or as morally neutral,
is there not an increased likelihood that when a young person
encounters opportunities to explore the world of real magic he will be
less able to resist its attractions? Of course, children are not so
naive as to think they can have Harry's powers and adventures; they
know full well that the story is make-believe. But on the subconscious
level they absorb it as experience, and this experience tells them that
forbidden mysteries can be highly rewarding.
What long-term effects do fictional heroes and heroines have on the
mind's ability to distinguish truth from falsehood? A novel about a boy
who regularly skips along a tightrope across Niagara Falls without
falling is no real threat to one's child, because he instantly
recognizes the absurdity of the notion; the danger is immediately
perceived and the practice rejected. But a novel about a boy who skips
along a tightrope across an eternal abyss is a real threat, for the
danger is difficult to recognize unless one has a real knowledge of
moral absolutes and a developed sense of the immediacy of spiritual
combat. Parents' warnings about abstract dangers can pale in a child's
mind when set against tales packed with potent images that have lodged
deeply in his imagination.
Regardless of how few or many children are prompted to venture into
occult activity after reading the Potter series, the books will have a
strong effect on most, in the sense of what educators call the
propaeduetic: preparing the ground for later developments. If the
natural and spiritual guard has been lowered in a child's mind, if his
concept of morality has been skewed and authority undermined, what
other kinds of disordered interests and activities will follow as he
makes his choices later in life? This is no longer an academic
question. A recent search of the internet for Harry Potter references
yielded more than 500,000 "hits" or sites where the books are being
discussed. Selective searches turned up more than 100 high-profile web
sites devoted to the series, many of which offer links to advanced
occult web sites under titles such as "Learn More about the Secrets of
the Occult" and "How to Become a Witch." In an interview with Newsweek,
a spokesman for the Pagan Federation in England reported that he
receives an average of 100 inquiries a month from young people who want
to become witches--an unprecedented phenomenon which he attributes in
part to the Potter books. An article in the December 17, 2000, issue of
Time magazine reports that a similar organization in Germany deals with
an increasing number of inquiries, which it also credits to the Potter
factor. Rowling herself has expressed surprise at the volume of mail
she receives from young readers writing to her as if Hogwarts were
real, wanting to know how they might enter the school in order to
become witches and wizards.
Librarians in diverse social settings report that children in
increasing numbers are requesting material from the occult sections of
their collections. Kimbra W. Gish, a librarian at Vanderbilt University
who specializes in children's and young adult's reading, discusses the
controversy in the May/June 2000 issue of the librarians' journal The
Horn Book Magazine. Gish writes:
For many librarians, teachers, and parents, the world of children's
literature and that of the Bible represent different kingdoms whose
border continues to be debated as parents and others raise questions
about the appropriateness of certain titles. This is a passionate
issue: few things stir the heart like one's true faith or one's love
for sharing books with children.
In explaining Christian concerns about the Potter series, Gish outlines
how the books repeatedly portray in a positive light the very
activities that are condemned in the strongest possible terms in both
Old and New Testaments. She cites Deuteronomy 18:9-12, a passage in
which enchanting, divination, charms, and consulting with familiar
spirits or wizards and necromancers are described as an "abomination"
in the eyes of God, and must be driven out. She notes numerous other
passages forbidding the practice of witchcraft and wizardry or
consultation with mediums or diviners: Lev 19:31, 20:6, 27; Is 8:19,
19:3; Gal 5:19-21; Rev 21:8; 2 Kings 21:6, 23:24; 2 Chron 33:6. See
also the confrontation between St. Paul and a magician in Acts 13:6-12.
Gish points out that modern culture can desensitize people to the
corruptive nature of such activities, through "casual exposure to the
occult through media sources such as television, movies, games, and
books." While some parents are alarmed by any portrayal of occult
practices in children's fiction, she says, others feel that context is
the key: "Is the witch portrayed positively, negatively, or
ambivalently? Is the practice shown as an acceptable or enjoyable thing
to do, or something stupid or dangerous?" Like many reflective literate
people who love both children and children's literature, Gish favors
the latter approach. She comes down firmly against J. K. Rowling's
Potter series, and enthusiastically for fantasy in the line of J.R.R.
Tolkien's and C.S. Lewis's sub-creations. For her, as for many
Christian parents, the problem is not the presence of magic in a book,
but how magic is represented.
CHRISTIAN USE OF MAGIC IN FANTASY LITERATURE
Both Tolkien and Lewis use magic in a way fundamentally different from
Rowling's approach. In The Magician's Nephew, the first volume of
Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia, the corruption of Narnia begins when an
elderly Londoner dabbles in occult activity, and opens the doors
between worlds. The ensuing struggle for the restoration of Narnia to
its original order is the direct result of the very activities the
Potter books portray as forces for good. Lewis depicts them as forces
allied with chaos, disruption, bondage, and violation of the dignity of
creatures. Throughout the Chronicles witches are portrayed in classic
terms, as malevolent, manipulative, deceiving and destructive--not the
least of whom is a character called the White Witch.
In The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, a selfish boy who has no
understanding of the supernatural meets a dragon. Entering its lair he
seizes its treasure hoard and is changed into a dragon. He is liberated
from this condition--"undragoned"--only by the intervention of the
Christ figure, Aslan, who alone has the authority, the "deep magic," to
undo what evil has done. Supernatural powers, Lewis repeatedly
underlines, belong to God alone, and in human hands they are highly
deceptive and can lead to destruction.
In his great fantasy epic, The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien also portrays
magic as deception. Supernatural powers that do not rightly belong to
man are repeatedly shown as having a corrupting influence on man. While
it is true that Gandalf, one of the central characters, is called a
"wizard" throughout, he is not in fact a classical sorcerer. Tolkien
maintains (as shown in Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, edited by Humphrey
Carpenter and Christopher Tolkien) that Gandalf is rather a kind of
moral guardian, similar to guardian angels but more incarnate. As
Tolkien explains, his "good magic" is not in fact what we think of as
magic in the real world. Gandalf's task is primarily to advise,
instruct, and arouse to resistance the minds and hearts of those
threatened by Sauron, the Dark Lord of this saga. Gandalf does not do
the work for them; they must use their natural gifts. In this process
we see an image of grace building on nature, never overwhelming nature
or replacing it. Gandalf;s gifts are used sparingly, and then only so
far as they assist the other creatures in the exercise of their free
will and their moral choices.
The central character of the Lord of the Rings, Frodo Baggins, is asked
by Gandalf to bear a ring of magical power to a volcanic mountain in a
region ruled by Sauron, in order to destroy the ring in the volcano's
fires and thus weaken the grip that Sauron has over the world. Frodo
agrees to undertake the journey but soon realizes that the ring has a
seductive hold on him. As he carries the very thing that could ruin the
world, he is constantly tempted to use it for the good. But he learns
that to use its supernatural powers for such short-range "goods"
increases the probability of long-range disaster, both for the world
and for himself.
Supernatural powers, Tolkien demonstrates repeatedly, are very much a
domain infested by the "deceits of the Enemy," used for domination of
other creatures' free will. As such they are metaphors of sin and
spiritual bondage. By contrast, Gandalf's very limited use of
preternatural powers is never used to overwhelm, deceive, or defile.
Even so, the author mentions more than once in the epic that these
powers must pass away from the world as the "Old Age" ends and the "Age
of Man" (and by inference the Age of the Incarnation) approaches.
Much of the neopagan use of magic is the converse of this approach. It
is frequently used to overwhelm, deceive and defile. In the Harry
Potter series, for example, Harry resists and eventually overcomes
Voldemort with the very powers the Dark Lord himself uses. Harry is the
reverse image of Frodo. Rowling portrays his victory over evil as the
fruit of esoteric knowledge and power. This is Gnosticism. Tolkien
portrays Frodo's victory over evil as the fruit of humility, obedience,
and courage in a state of radical suffering. This is Christianity.
Harry's world is about pride, Frodo's about sacrificial love.
There is, of course, plenty of courage and love in the Harry Potter
series, but it is this very mixing of truth and untruth which makes it
so deceptive. Courage and love can be found in all peoples, even those
involved in the worst forms of paganism. The presence of such virtues
does not automatically justify an error-filled work of fiction. In
Potter-world the characters are engaged in activities which in real
life corrupt us, weaken the will, darken the mind, and pull the
practitioner down into spiritual bondage. Rowling's characters go
deeper and deeper into that world without displaying any negative side
effects, only an increase in "character." This is a lie. Moreover, it
is the Satanic lie which deceived us in Eden. You can have knowledge of
good and evil, you can have Godly powers, and you will not die, you
will not even be harmed by it, you will have enhanced life. There is so
much that dazzles and delights in Rowling's sub-creation, the reader
must exercise a certain effort to see these interior contradictions and
mixed messages.
DEFENSE AGAINST THE DARK ARTS
In his widely acclaimed 1993 study of the current state of organized
religion, Unknown Gods, sociologist Reginald Bibby notes that
fascination with mystery has in no way diminished along with the
decline of church-going. It is increasing proportionally, and he
suggests this is due to an innate spiritual hunger in human nature. Man
will continue to search in the realm of the quasi-mystical as long as
the vacuum of genuine spirituality spreads. As the Christian churches
lose their evangelical strength, the allurement of preternatural and
supernatural phenomena will continue to displace the world of the
sacred transcendent.
Traditionally, the signs, sacraments, and rituals of the Christian
world were a means of encountering God, and a way for man to find his
place in the hierarchy of being-a hierarchy leading all the way up to
the throne of his Father-Creator. The spread of rationalism (both in
secular and religious forms) has produced what Peter Berger, in his
book Rumor of Angels, describes as "a shrinkage of the scope of human
experience" that constitutes a profound impoverishment of man's sense
of identity and destiny. The "denial of metaphysics," he says, is
directly related to the "triumph of triviality." While this is
obviously true of the unbeliever, who has lost his connections to the
transcendent sacred realm, we must ask ourselves if the trivialization
of the great drama of existence has affected a majority of believers as
well. In other words, have most Christians in the developed nations
become practical materialists? It would seem so, if we are little more
than consumers of religious experience, rather than adorers and
obedient servants of the living God.
Philosopher Thomas Molnar in his seminal work on the rise of modern
Gnosticism The Pagan Temptation, writes:
Today the occult penetrates the lowered defenses of Christian
tradition, and those whom it persuades are the masses of men and women
who miss the sacred symbols that used to be present everywhere as
identifying signs of their civilization....the entire symbology of
Christianity yields to other, sometimes older, symbologies with their
underlying creeds and doctrines.
But why has it become so difficult for us to discern the penetration?
Psychiatrist Paul C. Vitz, in his Psychology as Religion: the Cult of
Self-Worship, discusses the psychology at work in our lack of
resistance:
...the heterogeneity of American culture, with its increasingly complex
mosaic of different religions and cultures, is a social-structural
analogue to the intellectual world of New Age. Just as the act of
rejecting a person because of his or her beliefs is considered
antisocial or undemocratic, so also to reject religious or spiritual
understandings is interpreted in the same way....When tolerance is the
primary accepted social virtue, commitment to a particular faith is
viewed as fundamentally antisocial and even threatening.
Other eminent thinkers of diverse beliefs and loyalties are agreed on
this point: religion's compromise with secular culture has produced not
so much an atheistic or agnostic culture as it has an irreligious
culture, one that pays lip service to religion but mutates it in the
service of what are considered to be higher "values" such as tolerance
or self-fulfillment. This is a broad generality, of course, and one
could find numerous exceptions, but the continuing spread of what Pope
John Paul II calls "the culture of death" has been made possible
because Christians have not lived as signs of contradiction to the rise
of neopaganism. Indeed we have cooperated with it extensively,
consuming its products and funding it generously, while authentic
Christian culture has been left comparatively undeveloped.
The inevitable outcome is that with each passing generation the
exigency of God's laws continues to fade in our minds as the power of
a mammon-driven culture increases. Indeed the secularization of
consciousness now intrudes very far into the life of most Catholics in
the developed nations. The pressing questions of existence are dealt
with by turning to the physical and social sciences and the humanities.
Even the person of strong Christian principles suffers the effects of
living in a milieu dominated by the separation of faith and reason. To
some degree, most if not all of us function with a bipolar overemphasis
on either one or the other. Indeed, the meaning of the word "faith" can
too easily be reduced to a set of beliefs assented to by the intellect.
If the beliefs are orthodox Catholicism, that is well and good. But it
is not enough.
For example, it is now almost universally taken for granted that we can
absorb a certain amount of immoral entertainment without being
adversely affected by it. We simply assume that if we have sufficient
rational faith, we will be able to sift through good and bad material
without being harmed by it, ignoring the bad and savoring the good. We
numbly watch the graphically dramatized murders of many human beings
every week, but would be upset if a dog were to be kicked on screen. We
are entertained by television programs based on the occult world view,
such as Charmed, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Sabrina, the Teenage
Witch, and salacious comedy programs such as Cheers, Friends, and
Seinfeld, deriving enjoyment from the wit but little realizing how a
diet of laughing at what is profoundly unfunny will over time alter our
ability to understand the gravity of immoral acts. In short, we have
accepted the normalcy of corruption.
On a higher level of culture, the realm of serious thought, the
application of academic templates (including literary criticism) to
religious questions now functions as a kind of alternative magisterial
authority, even among many orthodox Catholics. While it is true that
social sciences and the humanities can help explain a part of man's
struggle to find his place in the great chain of being, they are
limited tools. The danger inherent in secular models of analysis--even
in the hands of faithful Catholics--is that the tool all too easily
redefines the very thing it is designed to serve. The part dominates
what rightly belongs to the whole. The supra-rational--that which
cannot be comprehended by reason alone--is all too easily dismissed as
irrational. Thus the worth of cultural material is rarely assessed with
the entire range of Christian charisms. What is forgotten is that when
the supra-rational is denied, the result is not necessarily a more
rational approach to life, but the virulent growth of the irrational.
As G. K. Chesterton once pointed out: when men cease to believe in God
they do not then believe in nothing. They then become capable of
believing anything.
Books and films which three generations ago would have been instantly
recognized as unhealthy for our children are now considered acceptable,
and those who oppose them alarmist or hysterical. Why is this so? I
believe it is due to distortions in the psychology of perception, among
believers no less than among non-believers. In other words, real
threats to our children's welfare are now being interpreted as
harmless. Molnar points out that it is precisely this dynamic which is
corrupting us.
The belief in the presence of the supernatural--always a mediated,
veiled presence--does not weaken without reawakening the latent
temptation of paganism. The pagan myth--the occult, the magical, the
idolatrous love of nature, immanentist philosophies--begins to awaken
among the masses by exerting an imperceivable influence on the
unconscious; only then does it make its appearance in consciousness and
rationalist systems.
When the reference points of Scripture and Tradition are rendered
ineffectual by over-reliance on individual reason, we risk entering the
final phase of assimilation by paganism. Chesterton once pointed out,
tongue in cheek, that the madman is not one who has lost his reason;
rather he has lost everything but his reason. In other words,
intelligence is no reliable measure of truth, for when intelligent
people are subjective they are subjective in a highly articulate
fashion.
The hard question we must ask ourselves at this point in history, is to
what degree have our judgments been influenced by "imperceivable
influences on the subconscious." The record of our hits and misses in
the area of discernment offers something of an answer. Reasonable
Christian parents would not permit their children to read a series of
enthralling books depicting the rites and adventures of likable young
people involved in drug-dealing, or premarital sex, or sadism. We are
still capable of recognizing the falsehood in glamorizing torture,
because physical pain is a reality in everyone's life and anyone
unjustly inflicting pain is instantly recognized for what he is: an
enemy. We would not give our children fiction in which a group of "good
fornicators" struggled against a set of "bad fornicators," because we
know that the power of disordered sexual impulse is an abiding problem
in human affairs, the negative effects of which we can see all around
us. Why, then, have we accepted a set of books which glamorize and
normalize occult activity, even though it is every bit as deadly to the
soul as sexual sin, if not more so? Is it because we have not yet
awakened to the fact that occultism is in fact a clear and present
danger?
When literary experts tell us that fantasy such as the Potter series is
a laudable expansion of the imagination, an enrichment of mind and
soul, that it is--well, "literature"--our antennae should quiver a
little. We should ask ourselves why evil concepts, if they are wrapped
in the aura of "culture," now enjoy a special exemption from the normal
rules of discernment.
Moreover, we should take note of the fact that in our sensually
dominated society the habit of acting out fantasy is becoming a
cultural norm. It varies from voracious consumption of expensive toys
for all age groups to trading in one's spouse for a new one found on
the internet, from clubs devoted to immoral activity to high school
murders. Why, then, do we presume that a sensually powerful series of
children's books will not affect a young reader's interests and
activities? Why have we come to assume that such novels have no
consequences, that the experience of plunging the imagination into that
alternative and ultimately false world will remain sealed in an
airtight compartment of the mind? We must ask ourselves how we arrived
at a position where we allow our children to absorb for hours on end,
in the form of powerful fiction, activities that we would never permit
them to observe or to practice in real life.
Michael D. O'Brien, a professional artist and popular novelist, is also
the author of Landscape with Dragon: The Battle for Your Child's Mind.
awil...@sjc.edu
Probably because I'm Catholic I don't see the harm in Harry Potter or
fantasy in general that other Christians do.
However, we have to remember our grandparents thought comic books were
evil, and we know how many people felt about Elvis. While Elvis and
comic books may have had some negative influences, they truly did not
bring down our culture and morals--and neither will Harry Potter.
In the end, if fantasy and science fiction are filling a need once
filled by religion, then it is up to religious institutions and
individuals to try to promote spirituality and the upright life and
make religious faith a more important part of our culture by positive
example, not just by criticizing the arts.
Still, I think every parent should be aware of the content of the Harry
Potter books and discuss them with his/her children. For one thing, I
don't like the fact that Harry keeps secrets from adults who care for
him. I think this is a bad example for children. Second, I don't like
the way adults are portrayed as fools. I know this is common,
especially on children's TV shows, but frankly, I think it's worse than
swearing, sex and violence. I also don't like the fact that Herminone's
dedication to studies is rather a joke. Americans are starting to fall
behind because our culture does not value education sufficiently.
So while I don't agree with fantasy being a tremendous problem, I would
say every book a child reads should warrant interest/discussion/debate.
Ann
Man o Tea
Sam's the little guy
Hi there! Stop trolling.
Ian Patton
<weil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122639914.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Harry Potter and the Paganization of Children's Culture
>
> By Michael D. O'Brien
>
>
>
> The realm of human imagination is a God-given gift, a faculty of the
> mind that is intended to expand our understanding by enabling us to
> visualize invisible truths.
<snip>
I think I would have said
The realm of human imagination "might be" a God-given gift. As to
"his/her/it's" intention for bestowing this gift ... I have no bloody idea
whatsoever.
Look, if the conservative Christian community wants to compete with JKR, my
advice is, write a better book.
Ian
Sam's the little guy
awil...@sjc.edu wrote:
> Probably because I'm Catholic I don't see the harm in Harry Potter or
> fantasy in general that other Christians do.
Please don't respond to trolls. As it happens there are few - if any -
Christians who think that Harry Potter is at all controversial. It's
primarily a beat up by others, and in the context of these newsgroups,
by people trying to troll atheists for a reaction. By responding to the
troll, you feed it's sense of self importance which in turn worsens a
likely psychological disorder.
Ordog
You know, those kids Christians are so bloody concerned about have a
lot more understanding of reality than some adults. ...Until they are
totally brainwashed by religious zealots!
This whole storm in a tea cup is getting on my nerves! Yet again comes
an idiot and post such a garbage to alt.atheism. You must be really
retarded if you expect a different kind of response from atheists!
Ordog
"Beware of the man whose God is in the skies." Bernard Shaw
Christopher A. Lee
>Harry Potter and the Paganization of Children's Culture
>
>By Michael D. O'Brien
>
>
>
>The realm of human imagination is a God-given gift, a faculty of the
>mind that is intended to expand our understanding by enabling us to
>visualize invisible truths. In the modern era this zone of man's
>interior life has moved to the forefront of his experience. With the
>advent of film, television, and now the near-virtual reality of
>special-effects videos and other electronic entertainment, the screen
>of the imagination is stimulated to a degree (both in quantity and in
>kind) more than at any other period in history. This has prompted a
>continuing debate over what constitutes healthy nourishment of the
>imagination and what degrades it.
>
>In his essay "On Fairy Stories," J.R.R. Tolkien pointed out that
>because man is made in the image and likeness of God he is endowed with
[snip 800+ lines of stupidity]
This sort of essay shows even moderate members of his church just how
out of touch with reality the writer was.
What did you imagine you were achieving, posting it to atheist, Harry
Potter fan, Tolkien fan and SF newsgroups?
The only place it was even relevant was the Roman Catholic newsgroup,
where you will only drive away your less extreme co-religionists.
Sam's the little guy
>
> What did you imagine you were achieving, posting it to atheist, Harry
> Potter fan, Tolkien fan and SF newsgroups?
>
I guess he imagined he would solicit an angry response, since that was
the purpose of the fake article - to troll.
And I see the troll has succeeded again - this is like the 5th time
someone has posted faux articles that claim to be from Christians or
representing a Christian viewpoint - and have you noticed that the
original poster never again posts into the thread?
> The only place it was even relevant was the Roman Catholic newsgroup,
> where you will only drive away your less extreme co-religionists.
It has nothing to do with Catholicism - it's a troll. And its not the
erstwhile residents of alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic responding
to the troll. Does the cross-posting annoy you? THEN STOP RESPONDING TO
THE TROLL! Or else take off the crossposting and reply in alt.atheism
if you must - the rest of us don't need to see examples of your lack of
self control.
Christopher A. Lee
<samd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On 29 Jul 2005 05:25:14 -0700, weil...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> What did you imagine you were achieving, posting it to atheist, Harry
>> Potter fan, Tolkien fan and SF newsgroups?
>>
>
>I guess he imagined he would solicit an angry response, since that was
>the purpose of the fake article - to troll.
Somebody took the trouble to create an 840 line fake?
The problem is that there are enough genuine loonies who honestly
think things like the poster wrote.
It would be hard to come up with a fake as bizarre as eg Falwel's
comments on the Tele-Tubbies.
>And I see the troll has succeeded again - this is like the 5th time
>someone has posted faux articles that claim to be from Christians or
>representing a Christian viewpoint - and have you noticed that the
>original poster never again posts into the thread?
>
>
>> The only place it was even relevant was the Roman Catholic newsgroup,
>> where you will only drive away your less extreme co-religionists.
>
>It has nothing to do with Catholicism - it's a troll. And its not the
>erstwhile residents of alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic responding
>to the troll. Does the cross-posting annoy you? THEN STOP RESPONDING TO
>THE TROLL! Or else take off the crossposting and reply in alt.atheism
>if you must - the rest of us don't need to see examples of your lack of
>self control.
Or your phony amateur-psychologising, asshole.
Man o Tea
> ... it is up to religious institutions
> and individuals to try to promote
> spirituality and the upright life and
> make religious faith a more important
> part of our culture by positive example,
> not just by criticizing the arts.
Well said.
MarkA
> Harry Potter and the Paganization of Children's Culture
>
> By Michael D. O'Brien
>
>
>
<snip mindless drivel>
It always puzzles me why the "Christian Defenders of Children's Innocence
League" has so many issues with Harry Potter, yet finds nothing wrong with
Tolkien's stories. Is it because Tolkien was a devout Catholic, and
Rowling is an atheist? Hmmmm....
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
Sam's the little guy
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On 29 Jul 2005 06:35:25 -0700, "Sam's the little guy"
> <samd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> >> On 29 Jul 2005 05:25:14 -0700, weil...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >
> >>
> >> What did you imagine you were achieving, posting it to atheist, Harry
> >> Potter fan, Tolkien fan and SF newsgroups?
> >>
> >
> >I guess he imagined he would solicit an angry response, since that was
> >the purpose of the fake article - to troll.
>
> Somebody took the trouble to create an 840 line fake?
>
Consider the LAST thread on the same topic, crossposted to the same
newsgroups entitled 'Brits cancel satanic Harry Potter Day' and scribed
by one 'alejandro de tacobell' The author has not contributed one more
post to that thread, yet it has 211 replies.
The one previous to that 'Why Pope Benedict Opposes Harry Potter
Novels' 504 responses, surprise! the author has not posted in that
thread either, and yet found time to post again (being the same author
of this, the latest troll).
> The problem is that there are enough genuine loonies who honestly
> think things like the poster wrote.
>
> It would be hard to come up with a fake as bizarre as eg Falwel's
> comments on the Tele-Tubbies.
>
It sounds to me like rather than examine the evidence objectively your
are basing your position on your own subjective feelings concerning
another religion. Saying (against the objective evidence to the
contrary) that this position has widespread support amongst Christians
because of what Falwell says is like saying all atheists must believe
the same things as Stalin, on account of the fact that he was an
atheist.
> >And I see the troll has succeeded again - this is like the 5th time
> >someone has posted faux articles that claim to be from Christians or
> >representing a Christian viewpoint - and have you noticed that the
> >original poster never again posts into the thread?
> >
> >
> >> The only place it was even relevant was the Roman Catholic newsgroup,
> >> where you will only drive away your less extreme co-religionists.
> >
> >It has nothing to do with Catholicism - it's a troll. And its not the
> >erstwhile residents of alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic responding
> >to the troll. Does the cross-posting annoy you? THEN STOP RESPONDING TO
> >THE TROLL! Or else take off the crossposting and reply in alt.atheism
> >if you must - the rest of us don't need to see examples of your lack of
> >self control.
>
> Or your phony amateur-psychologising, asshole.
I'm happy to be proven wrong, if being wrong gets these ridiculous
threads out of aft and af-hp. If you want to prove me wrong, then don't
respond to the troll, and see to it that your fellow atheists don't
respond either - although you might weant to hustle, they seem to
falling for it yet again.
thingemy
> I guess he imagined he would solicit an angry response, since that was
> the purpose of the fake article - to troll.
Hmm, I feel I ought to pick you up on this one - the article (more of an
editorial piece really) is on Catholic World News ww.cwnews.com and has
been since 2001. Old, and rather trolling to post it now, but seemingly
not fake.
Nuki Mouse
"Sam's the little guy" <samd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122644125.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> I guess he imagined he would solicit an angry response, since that was
> the purpose of the fake article - to troll.
>
> And I see the troll has succeeded again - this is like the 5th time
> someone has posted faux articles that claim to be from Christians or
> representing a Christian viewpoint - and have you noticed that the
> original poster never again posts into the thread?
This was not a fake article, nor was the author a faux Christian. It is an
editorial from the Catholic World News Sevice http://www.cwnews.com that
was written about 4 years ago. However you may be right that Weiler161 is a
troll, or it could be that once he pasted this article here (or the other
thread he started about the Pope and HP) that it said all he wanted to say
and that is why he doesn't respond to the replies.
>> The only place it was even relevant was the Roman Catholic newsgroup,
>> where you will only drive away your less extreme co-religionists.
>
> It has nothing to do with Catholicism - it's a troll. And its not the
> erstwhile residents of alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic responding
> to the troll. Does the cross-posting annoy you? THEN STOP RESPONDING TO
> THE TROLL! Or else take off the crossposting and reply in alt.atheism
> if you must - the rest of us don't need to see examples of your lack of
> self control.
OK, its a troll... SO WHAT? Some of the best and most popular debate
threads I've seen have been started by trolls. That is why I would never
tell Gaza (for example) to get lost or not post, although I will tell
someone that is taking him a little too seriously that Gaza IS a troll. The
only time *I* might tell a troll to get lost is when he is being nothing
more than excessively vulgar and/or trying to start or maintain a flame war.
This post was not a flame or written in such a way to cause anger among most
HP fans, nor is it too far fetch that some people in the HP, Tolkien, or SF
newsgroups would not be interested in this article. I did not see this in
the Alt.religion... newsgroup, I don't subscribe, but that does not mean I
might not want to debate if HP is "paganizing" children literature, or that
culturally all witches and wizards have always been evil and should remain
so in literature. The last one Weiler161 started, "Why Pope Benedict Opposes
Harry Potter Novels" ran over 500 responses so some people do want/like
debating this.
If *YOU* don't like the debate, _don't read the thread_, is that so hard?
Don't tell others what they can or can't do, don't be the thought police or
news group censor. Just Ban the thread in your newsgroup viewer and/or don't
read if it bothers you so much, and let others read and debate it if they
want. If no one at all in the Newsgroup you hang in is responding (though
some may still be just reading the posts), then make a polite request to
have that heading removed but don't chastise others for responding.
Nuki_Mouse
--
"This is just my opinion, I maybe wrong" D. Miller
"Defend free speech! Read a banned book today!" unknown.
"I may not like what you say, but I will defend your right to say it with
my Life" Voltaire
Trond Michelsen
> It always puzzles me why the "Christian Defenders of Children's Innocence
> League" has so many issues with Harry Potter, yet finds nothing wrong with
> Tolkien's stories. Is it because Tolkien was a devout Catholic, and
> Rowling is an atheist? Hmmmm....
If you actually think that, you'll be disappointed. Rowling has stated
on several occations that she is christian and believes in God.
Here's one of those occations:
http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2000/1000-vancouversun-wyman.htm
My deepest apologies if facts aren't welcome in this discussion.
--
Trond Michelsen
The Eggman
1. Mao Tse Tung "Religion is poison"
2. John Lennon "God is a concept by which we measure our pain"
can we please stop all this crap and get it into your heads that your
religions will not matter.....the only thing that matters here is loads of
people love the HP books and could care less what religions thought of
it....you ask me, there is just as much war, bloodshed and sex in the bible
than in any HP book....want to believe in a sure thing? Believe in
yourself...do that and you have nothing to worry about.
<weil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122639914.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Christopher A. Lee
<samd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
It seems to me that you are a paranoid liar.
Go back and read what I said:
WE HAVE SEEN SO MANY GENUINE RELIGIOUS LOONIES, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO
TELL WHETHER A TROLL IS ACTUALLY A LOONY, OR JUST PRETENDING.
In real life as well as the net.
In all the major denominations.
Including yours.
David Johnston
>
>Probably because I'm Catholic I don't see the harm in Harry Potter or
>fantasy in general that other Christians do.
Cardinal Ratzinger felt rather differently on the subject, so it's
probably not because you are Catholic.
>
>Still, I think every parent should be aware of the content of the Harry
>Potter books and discuss them with his/her children. For one thing, I
>don't like the fact that Harry keeps secrets from adults who care for
>him. I think this is a bad example for children.
You should read the stories of public school misbehaviour that are
Potter's ancestors. They aren't examples so much as fantasies of
things the real children wouldn't dare really do.
Second, I don't like
>the way adults are portrayed as fools. I know this is common,
>especially on children's TV shows, but frankly, I think it's worse than
>swearing, sex and violence. I also don't like the fact that Herminone's
>dedication to studies is rather a joke.
I'd say that Hermione gets a lot of respect for her formidable
intellect and ability to apply it.
The REAL Naminanu
Shadow
>
> By Michael D. O'Brien
<snip>
This guy really needs to get laid.
James
Ah well, she's still a good writer. I suppose we all have our flaws.
--
James B
aa #944
"Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies."
-Friedrich Nietzsche
Tony
news:hJudnZ5Ryc5...@incentre.net...
>
> Look, if the conservative Christian community wants to compete with JKR,
> my advice is, write a better book.
Won't happen. After all, it takes imagination to write.
Tony
"MarkA" <mant...@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.07.29....@stopspam.net...
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 05:25:14 -0700, weiler161 wrote:
>
>> Harry Potter and the Paganization of Children's Culture
>>
>> By Michael D. O'Brien
>>
>>
>>
> <snip mindless drivel>
>
> It always puzzles me why the "Christian Defenders of Children's Innocence
> League" has so many issues with Harry Potter, yet finds nothing wrong with
> Tolkien's stories. Is it because Tolkien was a devout Catholic, and
> Rowling is an atheist? Hmmmm....
I'm just having problems with the idea of the Catholic church defending
children's innocence.
John Baker
>Harry Potter and the Paganization of Children's Culture
>
>By Michael D. O'Brien
You didn't really expect anyone to actually take the time to read that
long-winded bullshit, did you?
斧R.L.Measures
rgo...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote:
>On 29 Jul 2005 05:40:54 -0700, awil...@sjc.edu wrote:
>
>>
>>Probably because I'm Catholic I don't see the harm in Harry Potter or
>>fantasy in general that other Christians do.
>
>Cardinal Ratzinger felt rather differently on the subject, so it's
>probably not because you are Catholic.
>
• My take on Joe Ratzinger is that he's miffed - if not pissed - because
J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter series of books is outselling the Roman
church's new catechism by a Roman Mile-- quite probably because her books
are one hell of a lot more readable, and they make children smile.
cheers, Dave
--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr
John Baker
>two statements i have always agreed on....
>1. Mao Tse Tung "Religion is poison"
>2. John Lennon "God is a concept by which we measure our pain"
>
>can we please stop all this crap and get it into your heads that your
>religions will not matter.....the only thing that matters here is loads of
>people love the HP books and could care less what religions thought of
>it....you ask me, there is just as much war, bloodshed and sex in the bible
>than in any HP book....want to believe in a sure thing? Believe in
>yourself...do that and you have nothing to worry about.
Love them or hate them, the Harry Potter stories got kids to turn off the TV and
the computer and open a book. In this day and age, that's pretty damned magical.
Morgil
Second, I don't like
> the way adults are portrayed as fools. I know this is common,
> especially on children's TV shows, but frankly, I think it's worse than
> swearing, sex and violence.
If there are kids who *don't* think adults are fools,
I'd suggest therapy before it's too late.
Morgil
John Baker
Correcting the error is sufficient. Sarcasm is not necessary.
Tim Peters
>> Harry Potter and the Paganization of Children's Culture
>>
>> By Michael D. O'Brien
>>
>>
>>
>> <snip mindless drivel>
[MarkA]
> It always puzzles me why the "Christian Defenders of Children's Innocence
> League" has so many issues with Harry Potter, yet finds nothing wrong with
> Tolkien's stories. Is it because Tolkien was a devout Catholic, and
> Rowling is an atheist? Hmmmm....
Leaving aside that Rowling isn't an atheist, O'Brien's views of the relevant
differences between Tolkien's and Rowling's stories were explained at length
in the very "mindless drivel" you snipped. It was serious criticism from a
particular but informed Christian perspective, and actually quite cogent.
Gene Ward Smith
weil...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Harry Potter and the Paganization of Children's Culture
Personally, I blame Tolkien and C. S. Lewis for this insidious
paganizaion of children's culture. Pagan Greek ideas were all over the
Narnia series--is it an accident that the first being Lucy meets is
Tumnus, a faun? As for Tolkien, his
Valar are really just the gods under another name, and his elves and
dwarves derive from pagan sources.
Derek Broughton
> On 29 Jul 2005 05:40:54 -0700, awil...@sjc.edu wrote:
>
>>
>>Probably because I'm Catholic I don't see the harm in Harry Potter or
>>fantasy in general that other Christians do.
>
> Cardinal Ratzinger felt rather differently on the subject, so it's
> probably not because you are Catholic.
>
>>
>>Still, I think every parent should be aware of the content of the Harry
>>Potter books and discuss them with his/her children. For one thing, I
>>don't like the fact that Harry keeps secrets from adults who care for
>>him. I think this is a bad example for children.
LOL. It's a basic principle of much of our entertainment these days. I
don't like the fact that 90% of books/TV/movies in the mystery genre rely
on the hero/heroine keeping secrets from the police - because if they
didn't, the cops would have wrapped up the investigation without the hero's
help.
> Second, I don't like
>>the way adults are portrayed as fools. I know this is common,
>>especially on children's TV shows, but frankly, I think it's worse than
>>swearing, sex and violence. I also don't like the fact that Herminone's
>>dedication to studies is rather a joke.
>
> I'd say that Hermione gets a lot of respect for her formidable
> intellect and ability to apply it.
I agree. Yes, they initially thought it was a joke, but Harry & Ron pretty
quickly realize she's vital to their chance of success at school. I
_don't_ think treating _some_ adults as fools is bad for children - the
kids don't think _any_ of their teachers are fools, even the ones who turn
out to be the bad buys. Adults in HP are treated as covering the whole
gamut of human nature. Some good, some bad, some wise, some foolish.
Children certainly shouldn't be taught that all adults are wise and
all-knowing - that's an open invitation to have someone take advantage of
their innocence.
--
derek
Caleb N. Diffell
If you're going to criticize it that vehemently, the least you can do
is read it to make sure you have your facts straight, I think.
Man o Tea
> Pagan Greek ideas were all over the
> Narnia series--is it an accident that
> the first being Lucy meets is Tumnus,
> a faun? As for Tolkien, his Valar are
> really just the gods under another
> name, and his elves and dwarves derive
> from pagan sources.
As does Christianity. A supposedly
monotheistic religion, it is riddled
with lesser divinities: angels, demons
and saints.
http://demons.monstrous.com/angels_and_demons.htm
What if Rowling had written about a
school for Angels with a new student
named Harry fighting a fallen angel
named Tom?
Misleart Chuff
news:1122642938.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: weil...@hotmail.com wrote:
: > Harry Potter and some random bullshit from a loon
: >
: > By Michael D. O'Brien
[snip]
: You know, those kids Christians are so bloody concerned about have a
: lot more understanding of reality than some adults. ...Until they
are
: totally brainwashed by religious zealots!
The intelligent ones can't be brainwashed.
: This whole storm in a tea cup is getting on my nerves!
As opposed to a tempest in a teapot?
Yet again comes
: an idiot and post such a garbage to alt.atheism.
How about that idiot that responded to the troll, and didn't trim even
one character from the garbage?
You must be really
: retarded if you expect a different kind of response from atheists!
You've gotta know by now, that the xians who post their tripe on a.a
are thoroughly deluded...and need delousing.
: Ordog
What's an Ordog?
Nuki Mouse
> I think I would have said
>
> The realm of human imagination "might be" a God-given gift. As to
> "his/her/it's" intention for bestowing this gift ... I have no bloody idea
> whatsoever.
>
> Look, if the conservative Christian community wants to compete with JKR,
> my advice is, write a better book.
While not a "better" series of books, people tend to forget the Chronicles
Of Narnia by CS Lewis are a Christian series of books set to explain
Christian views and theologies to children through a set of children's books
were the characters in Narnia represented different Christian icons or
persons.
For example Aslan was Jesus Christ. It was told via heavy analogy and
symbolism, since CS Lewis judged that many children would not read a too
obviously religious series of books, and too many adults would take offence,
claiming they were either blasphemous or brainwashing children.
Pip R. Lagenta
"Any sufficiently advanced parody is indistinguishable from a genuine
kook."
--Alan Morgan (talk.origins)
>In real life as well as the net.
>
>In all the major denominations.
>
>Including yours.
--
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
Mike Schilling
silly to use the fact that one series of books has become so popular to call
children's culture "paginated".
kathryn
>
excuse me while I point and laugh
Misleart Chuff
news:9krke1pe9ij831ghu...@4ax.com...
: On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:46:07 GMT, "The Eggman" <ze...@hotmail.com>
Heh....in my house, it's been more difficult to get my son to sit down
and watch TV, instead of reading/playing video games...until lately,
that is....now, he's up in the middle of the night watching anime.
Kids whose parents fail to show proper appreciation for books, will
probably not grow up with such an appreciation themselves. My son
grew up in a house filled with thousands of books.
Misleart Chuff
news:1122664844....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
When I find a turd lying in my path, I don't stop and inspect in
closely, as I am able to recognize it for what it is from a distance.
Nuki Mouse
"Gene Ward Smith" <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122662902....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I sure hope you are just being humorous, the Valar are based on Christian
angels, not gods and the story of LOTR is a basic good Vs evil Christian
morality play.
As for Narnia, that is a direct retelling of basic Christian theologies via
allegory. In "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe" Aslan is Jesus, the
children are the first Christians/apostles, the witch is/was the Jewish
religion, and the faun and the other residents of Narnia represent the
struggle between the secular world and spiritual nature of faith in
pre-Christians.
Nuki Mouse
"Nuki Mouse" <Nuki_...@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:dce39...@news2.newsguy.com...
> For example Aslan was Jesus Christ. It was told via heavy analogy and
> symbolism, since CS Lewis judged that many children would not read a too
> obviously religious series of books, and too many adults would take
> offence, claiming they were either blasphemous or brainwashing children.
That should be "...heavy ALLEGORY..." not analogy, although analogy almost
works as well.
Sorry, Nuki_Mouse
John Baker
Here in alt.atheism, referring to 857 lines of religion-influenced drivel as
"long-winded bullshit" hardly qualifies as criticism at all, let alone vehement.
<G>
Nuki Mouse
"Nuki Mouse" <Nuki_...@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:dce5v...@news2.newsguy.com...
> As for Narnia, that is a direct retelling of basic Christian theologies
> via allegory. In "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe" Aslan is Jesus,
> the children are the first Christians/apostles, the witch is/was the
> Jewish religion, and the faun and the other residents of Narnia represent
> the struggle between the secular world and spiritual nature of faith in
> pre-Christians.
Sorry, one quick correction about the White Witch, she did not represent the
entire Jewish faith but rather the Pharisees and secular leaders of Judea
that resisted the coming of Christ. Mr. Tinmus and the other residents of
Narnia also represented the Jewish faithful and others wanting for the
coming of the Son of God. (the Emperor-Over-Sea, Aslan's father.)
willre...@yahoo.com
At least two conservative Christians have written better books than
Rowling will ever write, Tolkien and Lewis. I don't think, however,
that either of them would find Harry Potter an alarming phenomenon.
Maybe one or both of them would agree with me that the series is worth
reading but wildly over-rated.
Will in New Haven
--
"Hunting is hunting and mating is mating; The prey HAS no gender."
Feather from POKER FOR CATS
Wayne Throop
: Children these days mostly watch TV, play video games, etc..It's just
: plain silly to use the fact that one series of books has become so
: popular to call children's culture "paginated".
And anyways, maybe some of them are reading an electronic version,
which needn't be paginated at all.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Wayne Throop
: As for Narnia, that is a direct retelling of basic Christian
: theologies via allegory. In "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe"
: Aslan is Jesus, the children are the first Christians/apostles, the
: witch is/was the Jewish religion, and the faun and the other residents
: of Narnia represent the struggle between the secular world and
: spiritual nature of faith in pre-Christians.
Yes.
Except, of course (per long-running rasfw flame), it's not an allegory
at all. Because, as you point out, Aslan *is* Jesus, not a reference
*to* Jesus. And Aslan his own self says so fairly explicitly. In the
same sense that Lord Byron is not an allegory for George Gordon, or that
a historical figure in a work of fiction is not an allegory. For example
(rot13 to avoid spoilage Oravgb Zhffbyvav va Avira/Cbhearyyr'f "Vasreab"
vf abg na nyrtbel).
But I digress.
Gene Ward Smith
> As for Narnia, that is a direct retelling of basic Christian theologies via
> allegory. In "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe" Aslan is Jesus, the
> children are the first Christians/apostles, the witch is/was the Jewish
> religion, and the faun and the other residents of Narnia represent the
> struggle between the secular world and spiritual nature of faith in
> pre-Christians.
Sorry, Mouse, but on this topic we have the infallible authority of
Leonard F. Wheat to call upon. He has pronounced it erroneous to
believe that the children symbolize the four evangelists. Instead,
Edmund symbolizes a sinner (which of course is entirely different than
actually being one) and the two girls symbolize Mary the mother of
Jesus and Mary Magdalen. My own former view, that the children bear
some resemblence to the children in E Nesbit books, obviously can't be
right because there tends to be five of those. Of course, adding in the
Gospel of Thomas makes it pretty likely that Nesbit intended to
symbolize the Five Evangelists, but that's wandering from the point.
Clayton From The Church Of Jesus Christ You've Got To Be Kidding
>
> By Michael D. O'Brien
<huge snip of bullshit>
People like this are some of the greatest recruitments for atheism there
are...thanks for the boost!
<plonk>
Ike
<weil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122639914.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Harry Potter and the Paganization of Children's Culture
>
> By Michael D. O'Brien
>
>
>
> mind that is intended to expand our understanding by enabling us to
> visualize invisible truths.
It didn't work in your case.
Trond Michelsen
>> My deepest apologies if facts aren't welcome in this discussion.
> Correcting the error is sufficient. Sarcasm is not necessary.
What? No sarcasam? Are you saying this isn't a trolling thread in several
usenet groups? Did I make a wrong left turn at Alberquerque?
--
Trond Michelsen
David Johnston
wrote:
>: "Nuki Mouse" <Nuki_...@NoSpam.com>
>: As for Narnia, that is a direct retelling of basic Christian
>: theologies via allegory. In "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe"
>: Aslan is Jesus, the children are the first Christians/apostles, the
>: witch is/was the Jewish religion, and the faun and the other residents
>: of Narnia represent the struggle between the secular world and
>: spiritual nature of faith in pre-Christians.
>
>Yes.
>
>Except, of course (per long-running rasfw flame), it's not an allegory
>at all. Because, as you point out, Aslan *is* Jesus, not a reference
>*to* Jesus.
Aslan may be Jesus, but that does not mean that his self-sacrifice in
the book isn't allegorical.
Nuki Mouse
> Sorry, Mouse, but on this topic we have the infallible authority of
> Leonard F. Wheat to call upon. He has pronounced it erroneous to
> believe that the children symbolize the four evangelists. Instead,
> Edmund symbolizes a sinner (which of course is entirely different than
> actually being one) and the two girls symbolize Mary the mother of
> Jesus and Mary Magdalen. My own former view, that the children bear
> some resemblence to the children in E Nesbit books, obviously can't be
> right because there tends to be five of those. Of course, adding in the
> Gospel of Thomas makes it pretty likely that Nesbit intended to
> symbolize the Five Evangelists, but that's wandering from the point.
1) Until today I never heard of Leonard F. Wheat, but I'm always leery of
self-declared experts.
2) I thought CS Lewis did state himself that the children represented the 4
evangelist, among other things.
While Edmund does represent the sins of man for which Aslan must die for, he
and his siblings also represents those first redeemed by Aslan's death and
rising, and becomes one of the four first kings/queens of Narnia, the rulers
of the new golden age of Narnia i.e. the four apostles and first leaders of
Christianity. But like it says in my sig, much of this is just my opinion, I
maybe wrong.
raven1
<snip>
>In his essay "On Fairy Stories," J.R.R. Tolkien pointed out that
>because man is made in the image and likeness of God he is endowed with
>faculties that reflect his Creator. One of these is the gift of
>"sub-creation"--the human creator may give form to other worlds
>populated by imaginary peoples and beasts, where fabulous environments
>are the stage for astounding dramas. The primal desire at the heart of
>such imagining, he says, is the "realization of wonder." If our eyes
>are opened to see existence as wonder-full, then we become more capable
>of reverential awe before the Source of it all. "Fairy stories may
>invent monsters that fly the air or dwell in the deep," he wrote, "but
>at least they do not try to escape from heaven or the sea." However
>fantastic the sub-created world may be, if it is a product of the
>"baptized imagination" it will be faithful to the moral order of the
>universe. Tolkien cautions, however, that because man is fallen, the
>creative faculty is always at risk of veering away from its true
>objective. We are all quite capable of taking God-given gifts back in
>the direction of idolatry.
>
>Even the most cursory glance at what is available in children's
>literature and entertainment today offers ample evidence that the
>paganization of the imagination is well underway. In the late 19th
>century there appeared in children's fiction a trickle of books that
>began the process of redefining Christian symbols and the presentation
>of occult themes in a favorable light. Until then, witches and
>sorcerers--important elements of traditional fables and fairy
>tales--were consistently portrayed as evil. With the advent of the
>occult revival (which entered the West primarily through certain
>British writers involved in esoteric religion) more and more material
>appeared that attempted to shift the line between good and evil. The
>characters of the "white witch," the pet dragon, and the wise wizard
Such as Tolkien's own Gandalf, for example?
I'm torn between whether to employ an "own goal" or "shooting yourself
in the foot" metaphor here...
>became familiar figures.
Indeed they do, even in the works of that most Catholic of fantasy
authors.
---
"This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause"
- Padme Amidala, Episode III
Mark K. Bilbo
weiler161 burst into the room and exclaimed:
> Harry Potter and the Paganization of Children's Culture
>
> By Michael D. O'Brien
Why do we get *all the kooks?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
Sean
>
> Harry Potter and the Paganization of Children's Culture yada yada
Some right-wing religious zealots probably bad-mouthed Homer's
Iliad and Odyssey when they came out, too. "How shocking! Grown men
actually playing with wooden horses. The very idea! Certainly unfit
material for impressionable young people." And of course the king
who killed his own daughter to get a favorable sailing wind;
simply scandalous.
It was these same kind of narrow minded zealots who condemned Socrates
to death for "corrupting the youth of Athens" when all he was doing
was searching for truth by rational thinking.
Well for all we know the Pagan religion was a good idea; imagine
holding your church services in a grove of trees rather than some
Gothic colossus built by laboring peasants while they lived in hovels,
and I never heard that the Pagans ran a Spanish Inquisition.
Sean
David Johnston
>
>It was these same kind of narrow minded zealots who condemned Socrates
>to death for "corrupting the youth of Athens" when all he was doing
>was searching for truth by rational thinking.
Then again several of his students were numbered among the "Thirty
Tyrants" who brieftly took over Athens with Spartan backing. That may
just possibly have some bearing on the idea they got that Socrates had
been corrupting their youth.
>
>Well for all we know the Pagan religion was a good idea;
There was more than one, you know.
Phÿltêr
weil...@hotmail.com astounded us with:
news:1122639914.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Harry Potter and the Paganization of Children's Culture
>
> By Michael D. O'Brien
>
>
>
> The realm of human imagination is a God-given gift
snipped the other 850 lines as the above is a dead giveaway as to the rest of
the idiot's twaddle.
--
Ph˙ltęr
AA#1938
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
Remove "s" to respond
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
The DCLXVIth Earl of Helpus.
weil...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Harry Potter and the Paganization of Children's Culture
>
> By Michael D. O'Brien
>
The title is a bit unwieldy.
The DCLXVIth Earl of Helpus.
Oh, and when I found out who you are, I'm going to prosecute you for
stealing my electricity.
Van Bagnol
"Tim Peters" <tim...@comcast.net> wrote:
> [weiler161]
> >> Harry Potter and the Paganization of Children's Culture
> >>
> >> By Michael D. O'Brien
> >>
> >> <snip mindless drivel>
>
> [MarkA]
> > It always puzzles me why the "Christian Defenders of Children's Innocence
> > League" has so many issues with Harry Potter, yet finds nothing wrong with
> > Tolkien's stories. Is it because Tolkien was a devout Catholic, and
> > Rowling is an atheist? Hmmmm....
>
> Leaving aside that Rowling isn't an atheist, O'Brien's views of the relevant
> differences between Tolkien's and Rowling's stories were explained at length
> in the very "mindless drivel" you snipped. It was serious criticism from a
> particular but informed Christian perspective, and actually quite cogent.
It had snippets of cogency but the obvious Christian slant gets in the
way. While the first part of the essay had some astute observations on
the effect of media on our perceptions of reality, you have to accept
the author's premise of an absolute morality and rejection of magic to
agree with the rest. He starts to write: "In reality, magic is an
attempt to bypass the limitations of human nature and the authority of
God, in order to obtain power of material creation and the will of
others through manipulation of the supernatural.... Directly or
indirectly, witchcraft is a cult of Satan." He asserts that
"supernatural powers...belong to God alone...."
O'Brien's explains his support of Tolkien and Lewis in contrast to
Rowling, in sum, by pointing out that T & L depict witchcraft as bad,
while Rowling depicts witchcraft practiced by "good" characters also,
which O'Brien opines is a bad thing:
"Our society is saturated in the false notion that a lesser evil (in
this case, "good sorcery") is preferable to the great evil of Satanism
-- a message further reinforced by the books' condemnation of the
extremes of diabolical behavior.... The evil spirits seek to attract us
to evil behavior by first offering us evil thoughts disguised as good."
O'Brien basically posits: "Magic is bad. Harry Potter does magic.
Therefore Harry Potter is bad. Doesn't matter if Voldemort is worse."
I wonder whether Michael D. O'Brien is an embodiment of Vernon Dursley
or the other way around.
Van
--
Van Bagnol / n p c o m p l e t e at bagnol dot com / c r l at bagnol dot com
...enjoys Theatre / Windsurfing / Skydiving / Mountain Biking
...feels "parang lumalakad ako soo loob ng panaginip"
...thinks "An Error is Not a Mistake ... Unless You Refuse to Correct It"
Van Bagnol
awil...@sjc.edu wrote:
> Probably because I'm Catholic I don't see the harm in Harry Potter or
> fantasy in general that other Christians do.
>
> However, we have to remember our grandparents thought comic books were
> evil, and we know how many people felt about Elvis. While Elvis and
> comic books may have had some negative influences, they truly did not
> bring down our culture and morals--and neither will Harry Potter.
>
> In the end, if fantasy and science fiction are filling a need once
> filled by religion, then it is up to religious institutions and
> individuals to try to promote spirituality and the upright life and
> make religious faith a more important part of our culture by positive
> example, not just by criticizing the arts.
While I agree with your post, I wish to point out that fantasy/science
fiction and religion aren't necessarily in competition. My nephew is
deeply religious, reads Harry Potter, plays video games, is on the
school basketball team and a semi-professional dance squad, and still
gets straight As in school. Fantasy can play a part of one's life
without being at the expense of one's religion, just as religion can
become play a part of one's life without being at the expense of the
rest of one's life.
斧R.L.Measures
** Not per se, but the Roman church ran the Holy Office of the
Inquisition and it has Pagan roots for damn sure.
cheers, Sean
--
€ R.L.Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
remove _ from e-mail adr
Sea Wasp
> "Gene Ward Smith" <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1122662902....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>weil...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Harry Potter and the Paganization of Children's Culture
>>
>>Personally, I blame Tolkien and C. S. Lewis for this insidious
>>paganizaion of children's culture. Pagan Greek ideas were all over the
>>Narnia series--is it an accident that the first being Lucy meets is
>>Tumnus, a faun? As for Tolkien, his
>>Valar are really just the gods under another name, and his elves and
>>dwarves derive from pagan sources.
>
>
>
> I sure hope you are just being humorous, the Valar are based on Christian
> angels, not gods and the story of LOTR is a basic good Vs evil Christian
> morality play.
You can interpret it that way, but the Valar could just as easily be
interpreted as gods in the Greek/Norse mold, something Tolkien knew a
great deal about. While Tolkien may have (and probably did) intend the
Christian interpretation, it's sufficiently well-hidden that anyone
not looking for it can miss it very easily.
>
> As for Narnia, that is a direct retelling of basic Christian theologies via
> allegory. In "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe" Aslan is Jesus, the
> children are the first Christians/apostles, the witch is/was the Jewish
> religion, and the faun and the other residents of Narnia represent the
> struggle between the secular world and spiritual nature of faith in
> pre-Christians.
The Christian imagery in Narnia is much stronger, yes. It's not
impossible to miss, though, as quite a number of us have pointed out
in past discussions. And if you're trying to write in "paranoid
Christian Loon" mode, the OTHER imagery they use is EEeeevil and
dangerous. (Tolkien and C. S. Lewis were both targeted by the infamous
Jack Chick years ago)
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Sea Wasp
> Children these days mostly watch TV, play video games, etc..It's just plain
> silly to use the fact that one series of books has become so popular to call
> children's culture "paginated".
>
>
Heh. I read it that way at first too.
And I'd be much more concerned, if I was going to worry about the
"pagan" (bad word choice but not surprising) problem, about the shows
and video games. Some of those are, well, very much NOT in line with
what the Christian Fanatic types would like. A lot more so than Harry
Potter, which doesn't take much of a stand on the religious side.
Sea Wasp
> "Nuki Mouse" <Nuki_...@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
> news:dce5v...@news2.newsguy.com...
>
>>As for Narnia, that is a direct retelling of basic Christian theologies
>>via allegory. In "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe" Aslan is Jesus,
>>the children are the first Christians/apostles, the witch is/was the
>>Jewish religion, and the faun and the other residents of Narnia represent
>>the struggle between the secular world and spiritual nature of faith in
>>pre-Christians.
>
>
>
> Sorry, one quick correction about the White Witch, she did not represent the
> entire Jewish faith but rather the Pharisees and secular leaders of Judea
> that resisted the coming of Christ. Mr. Tinmus
Tumnus.
and the other residents of
> Narnia also represented the Jewish faithful and others wanting for the
> coming of the Son of God. (the Emperor-Over-Sea, Aslan's father.)
Actually, I think that the White Witch, Jadis, represents Satan; she
tempts Diggory in the Garden. So does Tash, of course, although some
of the discussion of Tash seems to border on implying that the "other
side" is on an equal level with Aslan's, something definitely not
accepted by many Christian sects.
>
> Nuki_Mouse
Sea Wasp
> Tony wrote:
>
>>"Ian Patton" <iy...@hyperscribe.ca> wrote in message
>>news:hJudnZ5Ryc5...@incentre.net...
>>
>>>Look, if the conservative Christian community wants to compete with JKR,
>>>my advice is, write a better book.
>>
>>Won't happen. After all, it takes imagination to write.
>
>
> At least two conservative Christians have written better books than
> Rowling will ever write, Tolkien and Lewis.
This is a matter of opinion, not a universal truth. I don't think I'd
put her work over Professor Tolkien's, but I would, I'm afraid, put
them above Narnia.
Christopher A. Lee
<seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote:
>> As for Narnia, that is a direct retelling of basic Christian theologies via
>> allegory. In "The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe" Aslan is Jesus, the
>> children are the first Christians/apostles, the witch is/was the Jewish
>> religion, and the faun and the other residents of Narnia represent the
>> struggle between the secular world and spiritual nature of faith in
>> pre-Christians.
>
> The Christian imagery in Narnia is much stronger, yes. It's not
>impossible to miss, though, as quite a number of us have pointed out
>in past discussions. And if you're trying to write in "paranoid
>Christian Loon" mode, the OTHER imagery they use is EEeeevil and
>dangerous. (Tolkien and C. S. Lewis were both targeted by the infamous
>Jack Chick years ago)
I never realised it until somebody pointed it out in my twenties. I
had just thought it was a rather insipid children's fantasy - in a way
that Rowling's stuff isn't.
But then I wasn't raised as a Christian or any other kind of theist.
Christopher A. Lee
<seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote:
>willre...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Tony wrote:
>>
>>>"Ian Patton" <iy...@hyperscribe.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:hJudnZ5Ryc5...@incentre.net...
>>>
>>>>Look, if the conservative Christian community wants to compete with JKR,
>>>>my advice is, write a better book.
>>>
>>>Won't happen. After all, it takes imagination to write.
>>
>>
>> At least two conservative Christians have written better books than
>> Rowling will ever write, Tolkien and Lewis.
>
> This is a matter of opinion, not a universal truth. I don't think I'd
>put her work over Professor Tolkien's, but I would, I'm afraid, put
>them above Narnia.
Lewis's stuff is pretty awful.
The first book I read was "Out of the Silent Planet" which was
interesting, but I'd read better. The hero was a bit too goody-goody
and the bad guys a bit too stereotyped. The other books in the trilogy
were worse, culminating in a massacre by wild animals of the people
I'd thought were the good guys in the last volume, which Lewis
justified because they were evil.
Sea Wasp
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 13:49:12 GMT, Sea Wasp
> <seawasp...@obvioussgeinc.com> wrote:
>
>
>>willre...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>Tony wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ian Patton" <iy...@hyperscribe.ca> wrote in message
>>>>news:hJudnZ5Ryc5...@incentre.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Look, if the conservative Christian community wants to compete with JKR,
>>>>>my advice is, write a better book.
>>>>
>>>>Won't happen. After all, it takes imagination to write.
>>>
>>>
>>>At least two conservative Christians have written better books than
>>>Rowling will ever write, Tolkien and Lewis.
>>
>> This is a matter of opinion, not a universal truth. I don't think I'd
>>put her work over Professor Tolkien's, but I would, I'm afraid, put
>>them above Narnia.
>
>
> Lewis's stuff is pretty awful.
Actually, I think Lewis' stuff is great. But Rowling's, especially as
it moves into progressively higher reading levels (deliberately), has
more "meat" to it. I love Narnia, I just think the Potter books are
better. That could change if she completely fumbles the ball on the
7th book, but I am cautiously optimistic that she will not.
raven1
>Harry Potter and the Paganization of Children's Culture
No fair giving away the title of Book Seven so early!
TT Arvind
> Tolkien and C. S. Lewis were both targeted by the infamous
> Jack Chick years ago
Didn't he drop the reference to the two of them from later printings of
the tract?
--
Arvind
Middle-age is so called because your age starts to show at your middle.
purplepyramid
falls at the first hurdle. Paganism has very little in common with anything
in the Harry Potter books.
As the next guy says:
If you feed Trolls they just get bigger...
"Sam's the little guy" <samd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122642453.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> awil...@sjc.edu wrote:
> > Probably because I'm Catholic I don't see the harm in Harry Potter or
> > fantasy in general that other Christians do.
>
> Please don't respond to trolls. As it happens there are few - if any -
> Christians who think that Harry Potter is at all controversial. It's
> primarily a beat up by others, and in the context of these newsgroups,
> by people trying to troll atheists for a reaction. By responding to the
> troll, you feed it's sense of self importance which in turn worsens a
> likely psychological disorder.
>
Emma Pease
> In episode <1122639914.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> weiler161 burst into the room and exclaimed:
>
>> Harry Potter and the Paganization of Children's Culture
>>
>> By Michael D. O'Brien
>
> Why do we get *all the kooks?
I suspect all the members of all the groups in the newsgroup line are
asking the same.
In the following excerpt try replacing magic by science and technology
> This is consistent with the author's confused notions of authority. In
> reality, magic is an attempt to bypass the limitations of human nature
> and the authority of God, in order to obtain power over material
> creation and the will of others through manipulation of the
> supernatural. Magic is about taking control. It is a fundamental
> rejection of the divine order in creation.
and ask what is the moral difference between magic as described in the
Potter books and science/technology (besides the former not existing)?
Emma
ps. I think O'Brian also misunderstands what Rowling intends in the
books; it isn't magic that is going to win the war. He also
misunderstands Tolkien's use of magic by conflating the 'deceits of
the enemy' with all magic (a counterexample would be Galadriel's use
of power which Sam thinks of as elf magic). Worst of all he is
deliberately confusing witchcraft as defined in the Bible, witchcraft
as defined by Wiccans which is more closely equated to prayer and
religious ritual, and witchcraft as defined in the Potter books. Be
interesting to know what he thinks of Jacob's use of rods in Genesis
30 which the Bible does not define as witchcraft, but, I think he
would condemn as witchcraft if it appeared in the Potter books.
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
Gene Ward Smith
Nuki Mouse wrote:
> 2) I thought CS Lewis did state himself that the children represented the 4
> evangelist, among other things.
I'd be amazed if that were true. I think you'd better have a cite for
it, or retract the claim.
Gene Ward Smith
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> The first book I read was "Out of the Silent Planet" which was
> interesting, but I'd read better.
>From a purely literary point of view, in the science fiction
department? No you haven't, because the skill level in Lewis' writing
is as good as it gets in science fiction. Of course, the science level
is abysmal, and the world view not to everyone's taste.
The hero was a bit too goody-goody
> and the bad guys a bit too stereotyped.
The "hero" was not particularly heroic. As for the bad guys, Weston in
this book was not the tragic figure he became in Perelandra, but the
scenes where Ransom has to translate his rhetoric into Old Solar are
certainly some of the funniest in sf, a real tour de force. Dick Divine
went to the point that mere greed and selfishness are not as dangerous
as True Believers can be. The whole idea in the first two books of
updating Milton for the 20th century was brilliantly done. It's
literary and clever in a way that most science fiction authors not only
cannot acheive, but cannot even attempt to grasp at.
The other books in the trilogy
> were worse, culminating in a massacre by wild animals of the people
> I'd thought were the good guys in the last volume, which Lewis
> justified because they were evil.
I think you've managed not to understand anything in the book. However
little you may like the good guys, the bad guys cannot be mistaken for
anything but rotten to the core.
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
> Lewis's stuff is pretty awful.
>
> The first book I read was "Out of the Silent Planet" which was
> interesting, but I'd read better. The hero was a bit too goody-goody
> and the bad guys a bit too stereotyped. The other books in the trilogy
> were worse, culminating
<snip>
Hey! Use spoilers please!
[Well, I was never going to read the Perelandra series anyway].
Gene Ward Smith
Van Bagnol wrote:
> It had snippets of cogency but the obvious Christian slant gets in the
> way. While the first part of the essay had some astute observations on
> the effect of media on our perceptions of reality, you have to accept
> the author's premise of an absolute morality and rejection of magic to
> agree with the rest.
What's the point of a rejection of magic if magic doesn't work?
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
> Except, of course (per long-running rasfw flame), it's not an allegory
> at all. Because, as you point out, Aslan *is* Jesus, not a reference
> *to* Jesus. And Aslan his own self says so fairly explicitly. In the
> same sense that Lord Byron is not an allegory for George Gordon, or
> that a historical figure in a work of fiction is not an allegory.
> For example (rot13 to avoid spoilage Oravgb Zhffbyvav va
> Avira/Cbhearyyr'f "Vasreab" vf abg na nyrtbel).
Well, I was about to switch ROT-13 on, but then realised I didn't know
what was about to be spoiled. So can we be told what this is a spoiler
for?
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>>The first book I read was "Out of the Silent Planet" which was
>>interesting, but I'd read better.
>
> From a purely literary point of view, in the science fiction
> department? No you haven't, because the skill level in Lewis' writing
> is as good as it gets in science fiction.
OotSP is a mediocre Welles pastiche. Perelandra is pretty decent,
but then the series ends in a bizarre Orwellian anti-science,
anti-UN plotline.
And since we're discussing Lewis, Tolkien, and Rowling, it seems
that the comparison should be to fantasists, in which case Lewis's
writing isn't all that. Tolkien and Rowling are superior, and I'd
rank him below Machen, Dunsany, Peake. Even Lovecraft out does him
when he's on his game.
--
Sean O'Hara | http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
The intervention of a 'California lawmaker' is almost always the
sign of a really, really dumb idea.
-Andrew Suttaford
Cathy Weeks
Sea Wasp wrote:
> > At least two conservative Christians have written better books than
> > Rowling will ever write, Tolkien and Lewis.
>
> This is a matter of opinion, not a universal truth. I don't think I'd
> put her work over Professor Tolkien's, but I would, I'm afraid, put
> them above Narnia.
Oh, funny. I think Lewis' Narnia and Rowling's HP books are on par,
and both are better than LOTR, which I found quite boring. The
farthest I've gotten in the series is about half way through the second
book. I liked the movies, though. :-)
Cathy Weeks
Van Bagnol
I suppose that's reason to take issue with O'Brien's essay. If magic
doesn't exist, then he's tilting at windmills. If magic does exist, then
he's claiming that only God is allowed to do it; anyone else doing magic
is therefore evil (or pagan, which he amounts to the same thing.)
Öjevind Lång
>> Harry Potter and the Paganization of Children's Culture
>> By Michael D. O'Brien
>> The realm of human imagination is a God-given gift
>snipped the other 850 lines as the above is a dead giveaway as to the rest of
the idiot's twaddle.
Hardcore religious people without atheists are like ham without eggs.
Öjevind
Sean
>
> >It was these same kind of narrow minded zealots who condemned Socrates
> >to death for "corrupting the youth of Athens" when all he was doing
> >was searching for truth by rational thinking.
>
> Tyrants" who brieftly took over Athens with Spartan backing.
Perhaps all of Hitler's teachers can be blamed too.
> >Well for all we know the Pagan religion was a good idea;
>
> There was more than one, you know.
True, but this thread's title includes "Paganization", and I was
referring to whatever that means to the original author.
Sean
Wolfspawn
> willre...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Tony wrote:
> >
> >>"Ian Patton" <iy...@hyperscribe.ca> wrote in message
> >>news:hJudnZ5Ryc5...@incentre.net...
> >>
> >>>Look, if the conservative Christian community wants to compete with JKR,
> >>>my advice is, write a better book.
> >>
> >>Won't happen. After all, it takes imagination to write.
> >
> >
> > At least two conservative Christians have written better books than
> > Rowling will ever write, Tolkien and Lewis.
>
> This is a matter of opinion, not a universal truth. I don't think I'd
> put her work over Professor Tolkien's, but I would, I'm afraid, put
> them above Narnia.
I don't know. Mr. Lewis was capable of concieving of "bad" characters who
were capable of redemption (Eustace in _Voyage of the Dawn Treader_),
and it remains to be seen if Rowling really cares to look at characters
as more than entertainingly hissable or good simply because they help
Harry. This last volume gave me some hope that she's starting to see Harry
as a bit of a wanker, but until the final chapter we won't know that
she really appreciates the irony of his being such a wanker, though he's
the books' supposed hero. I've seen no indication on Rowling's part that
she has any interest in exploring Dudley an y deeper than she has, for
instance. Dumbledore, the mouth of wisdom, shows no inclination to
pity Dudley either.
Wolfspawn
The formula of almost all the books so far has been "Evertying exists to
help/please/validate Harry". She mixed it up a bit with Sirius dying,
and she's mixed it up a bit more before the final novel, but in books
prior to Sirius's death, there was always a grim misdirection, prior
to miraculous happy validation. Harry's most pessimistic expectations
tended to be confounced by the end of the early novels. I expect that
formula to hold true, and that any depth, introspection into any
evil that might be part of Harry's nature, that has been heretofore
unexamined, will continue to be unexamined. The first book was a
spiteful indulgence or it's readers, and the conclusion of the
series will be similar.
LadySri
literature is the fact that children's literature did not originate as
Christian. Many of the stories and plotlines in children's literature
originate in pre-Christian tradition, and were then Christianized. Even
much of the New Testament is related to pre-Christian literature, and
written in formats used by pre-Christian storytellers. For example, the
careful passion play which is the Gospel of Mark is right out of Greek
mystery cult formats for resurrected heroes.
Besides that, Christianity is not the only religion on the planet, so
many folks don't care if the stories aren't Christian.
Which they are. Harry Potter is very much the messiah tale, with a very
classic formula for the messiah-hero.
So I really don't see the problem.
borromini
> Oh, funny. I think Lewis' Narnia and Rowling's HP books are on par,
> and both are better than LOTR, which I found quite boring.
> The farthest I've gotten in the series is about half way through the
> second
> book. I liked the movies, though. :-)
That's even funnier...
borromini
Christopher Adams
>
> I don't know. Mr. Lewis was capable of concieving of "bad" characters who
> were capable of redemption (Eustace in _Voyage of the Dawn Treader_),
> and it remains to be seen if Rowling really cares to look at characters
> as more than entertainingly hissable or good simply because they help
> Harry. This last volume gave me some hope that she's starting to see
> Harry as a bit of a wanker, but until the final chapter we won't know
> that she really appreciates the irony of his being such a wanker, though
> he's the books' supposed hero. I've seen no indication on Rowling's part
> that she has any interest in exploring Dudley an y deeper than she has,
> for instance. Dumbledore, the mouth of wisdom, shows no inclination to
> pity Dudley either.
What are you on - crack?
Reread the chapter where Dumbledore collects Harry from the Dursley's house,
please. Also consider a certain overhead conversation between a Slytherin and a
ghost late in the novel's proceedings.
--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigeclasslist.html
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/templatelist.html
Berawler: Is there any sanity or light left in this shrivelled husk of a world?
SingingDancingMoose: There was, but we had to trade it in for the internet.
Berawler: That is quite possibly the best response to any question ever.
Christopher Adams
> Cathy Weeks wrote:
>
>> Oh, funny. I think Lewis' Narnia and Rowling's HP books are on par,
>> and both are better than LOTR, which I found quite boring.
>
> Now that's funny...
I think The Lord of the Rings is pretty dreadful, myself. There's a lot to be
said for Tolkien's use of mythological ideas and themes, certainly, and also for
his worldbuilding skills, but his prose is stultifying and his "message", such
as it is, pretty near meaningless as far as I'm concerned.
Suffice to say I might like it more if I thought that what he was writing about
was important . . . and if he'd had someone who could actually *write* do it for
him.
Christopher Adams
> borromini wrote:
>> Cathy Weeks wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, funny. I think Lewis' Narnia and Rowling's HP books are on par,
>>> and both are better than LOTR, which I found quite boring.
>>
>> Now that's funny...
>
> I think The Lord of the Rings is pretty dreadful, myself. There's a lot
> to be said for Tolkien's use of mythological ideas and themes,
> certainly, and also for his worldbuilding skills, but his prose is
> stultifying and his "message", such as it is, pretty near meaningless as
> far as I'm concerned.
> Suffice to say I might like it more if I thought that what he was
> writing about was important . . . and if he'd had someone who could
> actually *write* do it for him.
Also the movies were impressive technical achievements but ultimately flat and
lacking in resonance.
Wolfspawn
> Wolfspawn wrote:
> >
> > I don't know. Mr. Lewis was capable of concieving of "bad" characters who
> > were capable of redemption (Eustace in _Voyage of the Dawn Treader_),
> > and it remains to be seen if Rowling really cares to look at characters
> > as more than entertainingly hissable or good simply because they help
> > Harry. This last volume gave me some hope that she's starting to see
> > Harry as a bit of a wanker, but until the final chapter we won't know
> > that she really appreciates the irony of his being such a wanker, though
> > he's the books' supposed hero. I've seen no indication on Rowling's part
> > that she has any interest in exploring Dudley an y deeper than she has,
> > for instance. Dumbledore, the mouth of wisdom, shows no inclination to
> > pity Dudley either.
>
> What are you on - crack?
>
> Reread the chapter where Dumbledore collects Harry from the Dursley's house,
> please. Also consider a certain overhead conversation between a Slytherin and a
> ghost late in the novel's proceedings.
I don't know. I like the fact that Rowling seems to be on the same page
as me in impatience with Harry by book Six, especially in what I
percieve as an authorial affinity with Snape vs. Harry. I suspect that
this is found depth and complexity, however, or else Rowling is way
more brilliant than I suspected. AS it is, I have to give her Pretty
Clever.
Wolfspawn
Replying to myself: I should say that the conlcusion of the series COULD
be similar, but my feeling that Snape is the true hero of the series
could pan out.
Gene Ward Smith
Sean O'Hara wrote:
> > From a purely literary point of view, in the science fiction
> > department? No you haven't, because the skill level in Lewis' writing
> > is as good as it gets in science fiction.
>
> OotSP is a mediocre Welles pastiche. Perelandra is pretty decent,
> but then the series ends in a bizarre Orwellian anti-science,
> anti-UN plotline.
Writing skill doesn't matter? Anyway, while That Hideous Strength is
hardly pro-science, it has nothing whatever to do with the UN, and the
point of view on Big Brother Lewis presents is exactly that of George
Orwell, so unless that is what you mean by "Orwellian" I'm at a loss.
> And since we're discussing Lewis, Tolkien, and Rowling, it seems
> that the comparison should be to fantasists, in which case Lewis's
> writing isn't all that. Tolkien and Rowling are superior, and I'd
> rank him below Machen, Dunsany, Peake. Even Lovecraft out does him
> when he's on his game.
Dunsany was damned good, but I think Lewis really outdoes the lot of
them as literature in his space trilogy. As for Lovecraft, Lewis' fake
scholarship in Hideous was the kind of thing Lovecraft could only dream
of doing. People underrate these books, because most sf types find the
philosophy behind them singularly unappealing. But the writing is
really quite brilliant, and brilliance, for all the talk of it, does
not happen that often.
Nick J.
just want to address a point I feel hasn't been touched on yet, said
point being that one can admire a writer's skill and storytelling
ability without buying the particulars of their philosophy wholesale,
as it were.
For example, Orson Scott Card is well known for being a devout Mormon,
as well as something of a homophobe, yet I still enjoy and greatly
appreciate Ender's Game to this day, even though I share none of his
personal views.
Basically, I think that while C.S. Lewis may be a great author, his
prowess in literature does not prevent his fans from disagreeing with
his ideologly, nor does it automatically validate any of his beliefs.
Fiction is a wonderful thing, but it certainly doesn't count as proof
of anything, other than the flexibility of the human imagination.
Christopher P. Winter
>Harry Potter and the Paganization of Children's Culture
>
>By Michael D. O'Brien
>
[Tottering edifice of illogic snipped]
I wonder if Mr. O'Brien knows how much, by presenting synopses of the
first four Harry Potter books, he is encouraging the reading of those books
and the rest of the series. Not that many readers of the Catholic journal
where his article first appeared are potential Potter fans. But now it's been
posted to Usenet, and who knows where it will go from here.
I'm not going to get into discussing the religious arguments, because I'm
sure everyone is sick of this thread. Let me just say I think they don't hold
up.
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
> I think The Lord of the Rings is pretty dreadful, myself. There's a
> lot to be said for Tolkien's use of mythological ideas and themes,
> certainly, and also for his worldbuilding skills, but his prose is
> stultifying and his "message", such as it is, pretty near meaningless
> as far as I'm concerned.
Can you give an example of his "stultifying" prose?
> Suffice to say I might like it more if I thought that what he was
> writing about was important . . . and if he'd had someone who could
> actually *write* do it for him.
I think you will find that a lot of people agree that Tolkien _could_
write, and wrote very well. You may have a narrow definition of what you
think good writing is, but I think it is more his style that you have
issue with.
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
Jerry Brown
The surprise twist as to the identity of the principal supporting
character in Niven and Purnelle's Inferno. The Italian one.
Jerry Brown
--
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
SPB
>Harry Potter and the Paganization of Children's Culture
>
>By Michael D. O'Brien
>
>
>
>The realm of human imagination is a God-given gift, a faculty of the
>mind that is intended to expand our understanding by enabling us to
>visualize invisible truths. In the modern era this zone of man's
>interior life has moved to the forefront of his experience. With the
>advent of film, television, and now the near-virtual reality of
>special-effects videos and other electronic entertainment, the screen
>of the imagination is stimulated to a degree (both in quantity and in
>kind) more than at any other period in history. This has prompted a
>continuing debate over what constitutes healthy nourishment of the
>imagination and what degrades it.
>
> <snip>
>
>Michael D. O'Brien, a professional artist and popular novelist, is also
>the author of Landscape with Dragon: The Battle for Your Child's Mind.
>
>
>
>http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=20546
Despite the ridicule the article has attracted, it is a well written
essay - although somewhat dull in places - and coherently argued. But
that does not mean I necessarily agree.
As a Christian myself, I agree with the tenet that God has created man
in His own image, and part of that is to allow man to create imaginary
worlds and universes. I also agree that these worlds and universes
created by peoples' minds reflect, at the very least at a
psychological if not spiritual level, as much about the author as the
created.
To single out Harry Potter books as being damnable is very narrow.
May I remind you that the recognized Christian church, until late last
century (both Catholics and Protestants) held the writings of the
Ancient Greeks, in high esteem. But when we examine these writings
what are confronted with? A pantheon of gods (breaking the first
commandment) who behave like the worst of humans. We have bestiality
(Zeus, as a swan, impregnating Leda); transformation and marriage of
the creator to the created (Pygmalion, the Cyrprian King, and
Galatea); incest (Oedipus and Antigony); the idea that a boy should
have a relationship with a man who is not in love with him (Plato's
Phaedrus); adultery, kidnapping and war (The Iliad) etc.
In some of these tales there is no redemption; there is no higher
good. We are left with a foul taste upon our moral palate. Yet I do
not see the Christian church saying that we should ban Ovid's
Metamorphosis; Oedipus Rex by Sophocles; Homer's Iliad...
I think the tales that Christians should enjoy are those where the
hero has to make moral choices between what is right and what is wrong
- or even what is right and what is easy. These tales, like the
Grecian myths or Tolkien's LoTR, or Harry Potter (!), remind us, like
parables, of what we ought to do. In that sense I think HP is
instructive as there is a clear Evil that is not redeemable
(Voldemort) and a clear good (Dumbledore); and the choices that the
characters between them make. Very much like Frodo's choices, or the
Magician's nephew's choices.
My 2 pence.
SPB