What I find problematic about the book, well, at least the first movie based on the first book, is the notion that if you mean well it is okay to break the rules. I have no problem discussing the ethical principles for and against this argument with other adults, or my children when they are older (preferably when they've been in a leadership position) but in the meantime I do not think it is necessary to hold up a character who considers himself outside of the "stupid adults and their stupid rules" as a hero to my young children.
If I'm misrepresenting the book, it is because I haven't read it. I've only seen the first movie.
Of course there are plenty of saints who are rulebreakers, but what is astonishing when the lives of the saints are surveyed is how many of them were obedient and patient to those in authority, even when those in authority seemed almost always foolish, lazy or at least short-sighted.
Whimsy
I believe that I was rather fortunate to have begun to read the books when the fifth book came out. Frankly, by the last book, Harry comes to learn to trust in authority (Dumbledore) even though he learns that that authority hasn't given him all of the information, he doubts the course set before him, and he thinks there might be another way that makes more sense to him. He chooses to obey even though the alternative looks more powerful and makes more sense in terms of earthly considerations. He obeys even though it means sacrifice.
He begins to do this in the sixth book when he obeys Dumbledore's request even though it looks to Harry as though doing so will kill Dumbledore. He trusts Dumbledore's leadership. If I had read the first book all of those years ago, I might not have read the subsequent books and missed the beautiful story of a flawed human being who makes mistakes, but has a good heart that seeks the truth. He doesn't like it when he finds it, sometimes rebels against it, but ultimately embraces it because, in the end, that is all there is.
I shudder to imagine what my life would be like if people decided whether or not they should get to know me based on the things I did when I was 11. I surely hope that people would realize that I was a child that needed to be guided and would do so with wisdom. I have enjoyed "watching" Harry grow up as have my oldest three children.
Thanks J.K. Rowling!
From the time my family started reading the HP books, one of the points we made clear is that prayer is absent in these books.
I've also found it reassuring when an Opus Dei parent I know was given the ok by her OD confessor about letting her kids read the books. For heaven's sake, if THESE guys don't find the books problematic, then why should I?
Nancy
I had a great time at the Defending the Faith Conference last weekend. When are you going to be there again? I'll buy you a beer! (Hey, it ain't a Baptist convention!)
Disclaimer, I am a HP fan, and my daughter is vigorously reading Deathly Hallows (and may be done with it by now.) However, I also see the HP controversy as an "near occasion of sin" argument - but not this example.
I compare it to drinking alcohol. There are many of us who imbibe (or read HP), with complete appreciation of booze and no problem of conscience. (BTW, I do too).
There are those however who have a problem with drinking alcohol, and it leads to many bad things. Again, HP might be the same in that those who have some predisposition to "dabble in magic" may find the catalyst in these books.
So I see the arguments are similar: HP is fine! No, HP is from the Devil! Just replace HP with "booze". In fact you even have your modern day Carrie Nations in regards to the hackers who tried to get people not to read by posting spoilers.
Unlike eating meat devoted to pagan gods, this question may involve more than just a violation of personal conscience.....
OK Mark, so when are we HP fans going to have a post where we can talk about our fandom and discuss the last book at length (as opposed to posts defending HP against Harry-haters)?
I'm very curious to hear your impressions about book 7, easily the best of the series...
Thanks, Mark. You've put into words the way I've handled Harry haters for quite some time now - since your urging led me to read John Granger's book a few years ago & I stopped worrying & began to think Harry was the bomb. I won't judge those who make the choice not to read HP.
"What I find problematic about the book, well, at least the first movie based on the first book, is the notion that if you mean well it is okay to break the rules."
Until very recently, the series was not complete. Now it is & we can view incidents from the early books in light of later volumes. (NO DH spoilers here, I promise! ) As of 1 thrid of the way into Goblet of Fire, Harry & his friends stop breaking rules & doing things that they have been told would result in repremands or expulsion. Why? Because they've matured - they realize it's not worth the risk. I think we all go through this in life, don't we? Even saints have, as you point out, Whimsy. In the remaining volumes, Harry & his friends mature & make the choice not to do evil in hopes that the result will be good. In fact, there are times in the last 3 books that breaking the rules would have helped Harry & company but a conscious choice is made not to.
Also, we here in the US tend not to get the litarary sub-genre JKR is trading in with HP. I've described this in previous posts & on other blogs so forgive me if I repeat myself but I really think this is essential to understanding HP's world. The most well-known example of this is Tom Brown's Schooldays in which a young, working-class boy attends an upper-class British all-boys boarding school & is totally unversed in the ways of such life. He's green, uncouth & selfish, he breaks the rules & gets into trouble, he makes great friends & some enemies but, eventually, he grown in maturity & character to become the model of a gentleman in the traditional Christian model: selfless, honest, brave, etc. Many of these books were used to show young men how to behave. The closest thing we here in the US tend to have is something like Spin & Marty.
Harry & his friends learn from their mistakes & don't repeat them. They actually listen to figures of real authority (Dumbledore, MacGonagle, Hagrid, etc) which is a reminder of something we all should do. Note that in Order of the Phoenix, Harry submits to Umbridge's false authority through detention while doing what is right by forming Dumbledore's Army.
Taken as a whole, it can be said (without giving much of anything away) that the HP series follows the Tom Brown model quite closely, actually. So, as the series progresses, what you describe, Whimsy, becomes a non-issue.
Hm, still not sure what to think of the books ending: Voldemort defeats Harry and goes on to be the running mate of a Texas Governor in 2000.
What? You didn't want spoilers?
mike, I think you mis-read that final chapter . . .
Voldemort reveals himself as a woman who married a Muggle man by the name of Clinton . . .
Wow, that would be a flame-worthy thread.... Religion and politics all swirled up together.....
Some years ago I walked into Barnes & Noble to buy LOTR for my son. I found them shelved with the occult books. I still bought the LOTR books. (I also pointed out to the mgr. that LOTR didn't belong there.)
The most well-known example of this is Tom Brown's Schooldays in which a young, working-class boy attends an upper-class British all-boys boarding school & is totally unversed in the ways of such life.
A slight quibble: Tom Brown wasn't from the working class. He was from the rural gentry.
What I find problematic about the book, well, at least the first movie based on the first book, is the notion that if you mean well it is okay to break the rules.
Also, there is no sense that telling lies is always wrong. Toward the beginning of the last book, our heroes are perfectly ready to lie about one another's ancestry in order to persuade the Ministry that they and their friends possess the wizarding equivalent of "limpeza de sangre." But guess what, folks? Most people out there *don't* believe that lying is always wrong. (For every one who believes that torture is permissible under certain circumstances, to avoid great evil, I'd guess there are 100 who believe that lying is OK. I suspect Rowling is one of them.) You'd better get used to explaining your children (1) what the moral law demands on this issue, and (2) how few see it with the mind of the Church.
Not that I have any reason to think this is the case with the books in question, but it bears mentioning that physical items can manifest something known to exorcists as "demonic infestation."
There are specific elements of occult practice, in particular, which act as sort of dark sacramentals, if you will - small items bound to spells, etc. These are intentionally imbued by the maker with a connection to whatever "power" the item is supposed to have, which can bring with it a demonic attachment.
There is also the possibility that items which are located in a place where individuals are engaging in demonic activity of some sort can become imbued with something. This is the reason why you should always have your house or apartment blessed thoroughly when you first move in, and if possible, enthrone the Sacred Heart there.
The odds of something like a book taking on this character are probably not very good, but it's worth knowing that such things can and do happen under the correct circumstances.
Good point Steve. You probably don't know where those dollar bills you have in your wallet have been. Please send them to me for safekeeping. 
This is what has turned me off of HP and almost anything that Shea and others have to say about HP, lack of charity.
Let us 4 then pursue what leads to peace and to building up one another.
That is from your link, Romans.
What good is it doing with you picking at those you deem as "idiots" or "dunces" or better yet...Katholic Kooks. What good is that?
I really can not believe you changed the "c" to a "k" and if you look at the letter Katholics Kristian Kooks *KKK* really? Even if they were seriously wrong about there assessment of the book, what good is it doing to keep goading and picking?
From the CCC:
Respect for the souls of others: scandal
2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.
2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."86 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep's clothing.87
2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion
(You need to apologize)
Lack of charity?
Hello, Mr. Pot!
Now, who is more likely to drive someone on the edge of Catholic faith away: those who read a book, and find good in it, and can express that-- or those who see a single word and start accusing others of having darkness in their souls and being grave sinners?
Ahem. I seem to recall saying something about "We Christians seem to have a genius for majoring in minors." In the grand scheme of things, Harry is minor. He not worth getting angry about. People are free to dislike the books. They just arent' free to condemn those who do. But neither are those who like them free to condemn those who don't.
Let's all learn to Play Well with Others, shall we (*cough*Sean*cough*simplesinner*cough)
The Management
I have no idea who Sean is.
But I still think, in all fairness, you have brought about some of the bitterness by your picking and poking.
Are we Catholics that disagree?
I believe that line has been crossed.
It is very hard to see that you have done something wrong, and it takes someone of great humility to see that he could be wrong, or could have wronged some people.
What harm would it do for you to apologize? What harm?
To apologize where no wrong is done would be basically LYING to make you feel better and more powerful.
That would be harm-- unless you're too busy quoting other stuff to pay attention to basics?
And thusly wraps up this episode of "A Simple Sinner" and his one man crusade against a book series he hasn't even read. Tune in next week.
"A slight quibble: Tom Brown wasn't from the working class. He was from the rural gentry."
Indeed. Thanks for the correction!
A working class kid would never have been allowed in those schools! I'm gonna need to re-read TBS.
It's interesting that HP touches on class & race discinctions in a similar way that TBS does. While the majority of JKR's characters are white, there are some pivotal characters who are of color: Cho, Kingsley, etc. It's a reflection of modern British society, I guess. Respective to the times each author was writing, I think a great case could be made that JKR is doing what Hughes did regarding society & class. Also, the general character arc for each author's main character is quite similar - but this is due to the charateristics of the genre. There's no concept plagerism going on here as there is with Paolini's Eragon series (which is dreadful). Hughes said that he was interested in more in instructing young boys rather than entertaining. JKR most definitely wants to entertain!
Sorry if I'm going on about this - I just find it fascinating & not many folk are discussing HP in this way. I think it adds to the layers of JKR's work & supports the very realy & intended Christian elements of the series.
11 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
