(sigh...)

The Chesterton society has enjoyed a rollicking Rowling debate over Harry Potter.

I agree with Dawn's friend, "Dr. Thursday": the Bible prohibits us from practicing witchcraft and casting spells in the real world. THE BIBLE DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE BEHAVIOR OF LITERARY CHARACTERS.

Many of my favorite Christian books feature pagan gods and magic-using characters. Most notably:
Death of Arthur - Thomas Mallory
Chronicles of Narnia - CS Lewis
Lord of the Rings - JRR Tolkien
(not to mention the biblical Book of Tobit.)

Did anyone else enjoy "Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle's Magic" when you were a kid?

The tale of Harry Potter uses a common fantasy device: Suppose that God did allow us to use "magic" in the same way that He allows us to use technology... How would good and evil play out in such a world?

It seems a fine basis for a story. The main characters show heroic courage and self-sacrifice. I had no moral fear of sharing this characters with my kids. And no one in my family was ever tempted to indulge in the occult.
Del | 08.24.07 - 2:55 pm | #

If you read the O'Brien article, you will see that his main issue is not the use of magic (although he has a valid point when he mentions in passing, "We might also consider for a moment the fact that no sane parents would give their children books which portrayed a set of "good" pimps and prostitutes valiantly fighting a set of "bad" pimps and prostitutes, and using the sexual acts of prostitution as the thrilling dynamic of the story."), but that he has much bigger fish to fry.
Scott W. | Homepage | 08.24.07 - 3:19 pm | #

Yes. My oldest boy is into it, the younger ones to a degree (he is because he bears an uncanny resemblance to the main character). But he likes it. He has read the books several times, and concedes that there are more Christian elements in the later ones than the beginning. He cautions that a lot of it is how you look at it. I take his word. By and large, to me it's about as threatening as Star Wars. It is what it is: a children's book with one really good marketing division behind it. Those who hear whispers of Satan have gone a bit far, IMHO. I also think those who have tried to christen it an inspired text by St. Rowling have gone overboard the other way. Of course they make for fun reading, sometimes more fun than the books.
Dave G. | 08.24.07 - 3:28 pm | #

This is so bizarre. How can Christians be such idiots?

IT'S FICTION, Mr. O'Brien. FICTION.

Get a clue.

Warren
warren | Homepage | 08.24.07 - 3:51 pm | #

Sean Dailey of Gilbert Magazine has a sharp rebuttal to Michael O'Brien at his blog
http://theblueboar.blogspot.com/ Look under Tuesday, August 21st, "Harry Potter and the Completely Unhinged Canadian Writer."
Chris Chan | 08.24.07 - 4:07 pm | #

Why don't we admit the possibility that both Grossman and O'Brian are both wrong and that God is very much in the Potter series; in fact, innate and absolutely essential?
Gene Parr | 08.24.07 - 5:23 pm | #

I particularly find the comment about "pimps and whores" goes beyond the pale.

I am deeply ashamed that Mr. O'Brien is my countryman, apparently he's canadian.

And I'm upset that the web site "LifeSite", which is an ANTI-ABORTION activism website, would subject itself to (well deserved) ridicule that undermines its own editorial credibility, with religious Christians, and with secular people, at the same time.

What is Mr. O'Brien? A fear-mongering moron.

Warren
warren | Homepage | 08.24.07 - 5:32 pm | #

My message to people who write articles like that:

Yes, let's all hop on the bandwagon of Harry-hate,(Which couldn't be more obviously Christian except by sticking in Aslan or something) while COMPLETELY IGNORING Phillip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" series which ACTUALLY HAS a "death of god" scene in it.
Rhys | Homepage | 08.24.07 - 5:36 pm | #

Here is the text of a letter I sent to the National Catholic Register earlier this week. (They have printed favorable reviews of the Potter series from a LITERARY perspective and are open to the debate.)

Much Ado About Harry

To the Editor:

Just yesterday, I read the on-line version of Carl E. Olson's essay "Stuck in the Middle with Harry." I enjoyed it so much, I forwarded it to my brother. http://ncregister.com/site/article/3443

Today, I received the corresponding August 19 edition of the Register in the mail and came across [KD's letter] to the editor under the headline "The Devil and Harry Potter."
http://ncregister.com/site/article/3434

Up until a week ago, I had never read a Harry Potter book. I'd heard all the hype and all the pros and cons, but I had never had the time to actually read one book in the series about the boy wizard.

Two weeks ago, I picked up a paperback edition
of the first Potter book, "Harry Potter and The Sorcerer's Stone." I finished it in a day and quickly bought the second book. I am now
about to start reading the third installation.

I am a daily communicant, and I have run youth groups and given youth retreats. I have been a Confirmation coordinator, and I am a stickler about Catholic doctrine and fidelity to the Holy Father. So when I say that I cannot find the "evil" in the Harry Potter, I am not saying it as someone who knows nothing about their faith.

I confess one of the reasons I started the Potter series was to see what all the fuss was about - on both sides of the debate. To this point, I fail to see how Harry and his friends unlock the doors to satanic arts. I may discover it in later editions, but so far I find myself enjoying the antics of the Hogwarts crowd, and I stand
in amazement at J.K. Rowling for coming up with such lively and - yes - distinctly good and evil characters.

At its core, the Potter series is no more than the age old story of good versus evil - a story we as Catholics know well in our faith life. It is as well a story we have seen brought to life in other
popular books and movies including the Chronicles of Narnia, The Lord of the Rings, E.T. and Star Wars.

But in all things, abuses occur. Those who have children who are Potter fans must put Harry and the gang into a Christian perspective.

I do take issue with Ms. Donovan when she says that Father Amorth, the chief exorcist in Rome, claims there is no distinction in the Potter books between black and white magic. It has been my great relief in both the first and second books to find that Harry is encouraged to study well the "dark arts" for the express purpose of knowing how to combat them as he uses his own magic powers for good.

I sincerely hope Ms. Donovan has taken the time to at least read the first Potter book. She may be surprised to find that the hype against Harry is a tempest in a teapot, while at the same time
hanging on to the edge of her seat to see how the boy wizard battles against the bad guys.

Sincerely.

It's been a very long time since any book has made me sit on the edge of my seat the way these books do. They are great fun.

I'm about to start the fourth book.
June | 08.24.07 - 6:40 pm | #

My kids aren't into the Harry Potter books, which is fine with me -- they can read them later, if they want, and avoid all the hype.

I made the point on another blog last month that while the Bible forbids engaging in witchcraft and sorcery, it does NOT forbid reading about them. And a Christian mother argued, "I don't think the reading versus doing argument is valid in any sense. That's like saying watching child porn is different than actually having sex with a child...obviously a very flawed point of view."

Isn't it funny how the sex comparisons keep creeping in everywhere?

I answered that watching child porn IS in fact VERY different from actually having sex with a child, from a logistical (if not moral) point of view. Moreover, people are interested in watching child porn for only one reason -- their (twisted, by any measure) motivation is the same: whether they're watching or actively engaging in it, they WANT to be actively engaging in it.

However, most people can read books and watch films about people sinning in all kinds of ways, without longing to be up there on the page or the screen themselves.

... no sane parents would give their children books which portrayed a set of 'good' pimps and prostitutes valiantly fighting a set of 'bad' pimps and prostitutes, and using the sexual acts of prostitution as the thrilling dynamic of the story.

Does anyone remember the movie, "Risky Business?" I loved that movie when I was a kid!
L. | Homepage | 08.24.07 - 6:54 pm | #

I've participated in several of these HP debates over the past couple of years and am of the view that the books are basically ok, in part because their constant theme is sacrficial love. I think Michael O'Brien is mistaken, but I also think the questions he raises are worth considering, and I think it's unfair to vilify him. I've known of his own work and respected it for many years. He's not an idiot, anti-intellectual, or anti-art. Go to the main page of his site here and take a look at some of his art.
Maclin Horton | Homepage | 08.24.07 - 6:56 pm | #

Dawn, just out of curiosity, where do you stand on the whole Harry Potter issue?
L. | Homepage | 08.24.07 - 6:58 pm | #

Walker Percy, a fine doctor, novelist, and Catholic convert, said that the novelist must be sly, not overt and ostensible, but surreptitious about religious themes and structures (okay, I'm paraphrasing).

When Rowling has the hint of "winged boars" on the gates of Hogwarts (SHOUT: this will happen when ...), the protagonist living in Gryffondor (remember your Dante, at the top of Mount Purgatorio, what was the Christ figure?), and when he sacrifices himself before Voldemort's curse and ends up at (/on) "King's Cross" station, how much more obvious can she be?
Athos | Homepage | 08.24.07 - 7:13 pm | #

And how are O'Brien's boring freaky novels selling these days?
Seraphic Single | Homepage | 08.24.07 - 7:15 pm | #

Well, maybe that is a bit harsh. But COME ON!!!
Seraphic Single | Homepage | 08.24.07 - 7:24 pm | #

Why Fundamentalists should not read fiction, is my response. My dear friend, a nun, was absolutely horrified when she saw my Harry Potter books. I asked her to defend other good literature that she likes with similar themes and she couldn't.

Also, do these people start freaking out when their children begin to have imaginary friends? My 2 year old talks to imaginary people all the time on the phone. Do I think it is somewhat mental or demonic? Give me a break!

I don't know any good lit about pimps, but I will definitely let my kids read Crime and Punishment which features one of my all time favorite literary characters; The Good Prostitute.
Radical Catholic Mom | Homepage | 08.24.07 - 7:33 pm | #

Though you have to admit, it's worth giving thanks over. After all, most of the world throughout most of history has struggled just to get by day to day. That we can stop and expend so much energy and time over discussing the merits of a children’s book series reminds me of how thankful I am I live in such comfort and affluence. For I am sure I would do a miserable job in a world where survival was the order of each day.
Dave G. | 08.24.07 - 8:20 pm | #

Dawn, just out of curiosity, where do you stand on the whole Harry Potter issue?

I tried reading the first book and was put off by what I perceived as superficiality. The tone is far different than that of the Narnia books I love.

The first two movies appear likewise superficial to me. While I agree that they're not as blatantly anti-theistic as Philip Pullman's works, I could not find God in them -- only lots of witchcraft.

Regarding the assertion that the Potter books display sacrificial love, the ending of O'Brien's article expresses my own feelings based on what I know of the books:

Genuine freedom is possible only where there is genuine love. And genuine love is not possible without truth. As Tolkien once pointed out in his essay on fantasy literature, the writer who hopes to feed the imagination in a healthy way must remain faithful to the moral order of the real universe, regardless of how fantastic the details of the fictional world may be. The Natural Law which God has written into our beings cannot be entirely eradicated, but it can be gravely deformed, leading to distortion of consciousness and conscience, and hence our actions.

Healthy fiction, no matter how wildly it may depart from the material order, teaches us to love ourselves in a wholesome manner, by loving our neighbor. Indeed, even by loving our enemies - at least by trying to learn to love them, and by believing that it is right to do so. With grace this is possible. But selective love (coupled with selective hatred) does not lead to freedom. It is the feelings of love without the substance of love, the feelings of freedom without the foundations of freedom.

If God is the absent father - or the father who perhaps never existed - the hero and his readers are left only with such emotions, their hooked loyalties, their love of the self's insatiable appetites, which they feel cannot be denied without a killing curse of self-annihilation. That is why so many people cling fiercely to the "values" in the Potter books while ignoring the interwoven undermining of those very values. That is why the defenders of Potterworld exhibit such adamancy, frequently outrage, against critics. According to their perceptions, the critics of Potterworld are the enemies of freedom and identity.

Just as the rhetoric about freedom and democracy increases as the real thing declines, so too the rhetoric about "values" increases as the more real thing - that is, truth and virtue - declines. What will it take to awaken the dreaming slave from his delusion?
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.24.07 - 8:48 pm | #

I think some of the anger may actually stem from the attack on a book that hundred of thousands of innocent children enjoy. And Christians may also feel angry because critics like O'Brien (who writes fiction about the Apocalypse, which I don't find as healthy as Rowlings' magicked-up school stories)play into anti-Christians' characterizations of us as fanatical kill-joys. The Taliban hate kites; do Christians hate Harry Potter? Some of our western disdain for religious fascists gets thrown at the much less dangerous Christians.

One might argue that Jane Austen, who became increasingly prayerful and Evangelical towards the end of her life, treated the Church of England and church-going irreverently. The Church is seen primarily as a respectable and lucrative career for younger sons. One clergyman, Mr Collins, is a buffoon. Short of Marianne Dashwood shouting, "Good God, Willoughby", there isn't much mention of God in Jane Austen's novels. Yet can anyone argue that they are bad for children?

The first Harry Potter novels are not entirely gripping because they are for young children. As children's fiction go, they are pretty good. Yes, they lack the charm of the Narnia stories (which wikipedia tells me O'Brien has also condemned), but they are very literate, if a little over-concerned with shopping. Rowling's greatest strength is creating vivid characters and creatures.

The oddest thing about O'Brien's condemnation is his suggestion that the book trumpets "God the absent father--or the father who perhaps never existed." This is very strange, for Harry longs for his father, he is told he is the very image of his father (save for his mother's green eyes), and he is befriended by the friends of his father. He loves his godfather and he constantly needs the help of his father figure, his school principal. Harry also longs for people who have passed over into another world. Not much is said about the realm where Harry's loved ones now reside; I think Rowling keeps a reverent (yes, reverent)silence about that.

Many critics have suggested that Harry is a Christ-figure; I wouldn't discount that. One could even make a Trinitarian argument... Well, for the first Two Persons anyway. (I suppose one could argue that Harry's Patronus, which springs from his love for his father, might represent the Holy Spirit....)

Some people would consider it sacrilegious to mix the sacred and the secular. So many novels, and so many children's series (like Oz books, Nancy Drew, the Hardy Boys) do not mention God at all. Others include God in a way that might surprise us, when we look at them anew through adult eyes. Anne of Green Gables was a Presbyterian, but she had some interesting theological fancies, and her creator Lucy Maud Montgomery was something of a spiritualist in real life. Louisa May Alcott mentions "our heavenly Father," but I was greatly surprised to discover later that she was a Unitarian, not really a Christian at all, as Catholics define Christianity. Her father believed that he himself was one of the greatest men who ever lived, the equal of Jesus Christ. Yet for all that I wouldn't rob children of the great pleasure of reading "Little Women", "Little Men" and "Eight Cousins."
Seraphic Single | Homepage | 08.24.07 - 9:31 pm | #

I do note that he is dead on the money on Dumbledore's death; while Snape's personal guilt

Still read the entire series and intend to read it end to end as soon as I retrieve the last volume from my parents' house.

On Austen -- I note that her books refer to God twice. Both in Persusion, once when writing of Mrs. Smith's ability to endure her losses, and once when thinking that breaking off her engagement "mistrusted Providence". As opposed to those books actually featuring clergymen. . . .
Mary | 08.24.07 - 9:51 pm | #

Hmmm. I never made it through the first book, either -- but to be fair, I didn't give it much of a chance, and might check it out again someday.

I read most non-fiction in my very limited free time. But when I do read any work of fiction, "finding God" isn't necessarily one of my aims -- nor am I necessarily disappointed if I don't find Him anywhere in a book, nor do I insist that my children read only books that promote Christian ideals. But that's just me.
L. | Homepage | 08.24.07 - 9:53 pm | #

Oops. Didn't finish my thought

I do note that he is dead on the money on Dumbledore's death; while Snape's personal guilt might be mitigiated by the circumstances, the act was objectively wrong.
Mary | 08.24.07 - 9:54 pm | #

Dawn, I wonder why you would want to read fiction when all one really needs is the Bible, right?
Radical Catholic Mom | Homepage | 08.24.07 - 10:00 pm | #

My daughter attends a Catholic school, and last year her 4th grade teacher used the Harry Potter series all throughout the curriculum. I have read enough of the books not to be that concerned with it, I see Christian symbolism throughout. However, several parents were concerned and went to the Religion teacher when they heard that the kids were "casting spells" on each other at recess. I assume much consultation went on with the administration, because shortly thereafter her teacher announced they could no longer use Harry Potter in the classroom. My daughter and her friends were downright angry at the parents who complained, and while I disagreed with them, I told my daughter that I respected their opinion and their concern for the spiritual welfare of the kids. That concern is one of the main reasons that I want her in a Catholic school, even though we are Episcopalian. People of devout faith are on both sides of this issue, and I think we need to consciously restrain ourselves from demonizing one side or the other.
Janet | 08.24.07 - 10:29 pm | #

Oooh. Did the spells work?
Seraphic Single | Homepage | 08.24.07 - 10:33 pm | #

Off the topic of HP (since I've had no desire to read any of the books), but on the topic generally of literature and God --

I wonder if it would scandalize Mr. O'Brien to know that a book such as Slaughterhouse-Five influenced me quite a bit and gave me great insights into the Christian faith.

So, I don't doubt that some people have read HP and have had it actually strengthen their faith, not detract from it.
Bender | Homepage | 08.24.07 - 11:26 pm | #

Maybe people just like to read to be entertained by a good story and interesting characters. Not everything has to be about religion. Fun is good, too! I've never read any of the Potter books, but I've enjoyed the movies. I'd hate to hear what people think of one of my favorite shows, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," or the comic book "Fallen Angel."
Neil C | 08.25.07 - 1:14 am | #

Dawn, I wonder why you would want to read fiction when all one really needs is the Bible, right?

Radical Catholic Mom, I'm surprised that my criticizing a book series you like would cause you to respond as though I had insulted you personally. I would not have expected that of you.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.25.07 - 1:23 am | #

Hmm. The Oz books, esp. Wizard of Oz, are in fact actively atheistic (the Emerald City isn't really Emerald; and the Wizard is a charlatan behind a curtain), but few people seem to notice.

I said in another web debate (Mr Horton's website perhaps?) that while the HP books seem innocent in themselves, at least to me, I'm a little concerned that today's children, not being brought up as Christians or even as sound atheists, might take the magic more seriously than children 40 years ago would have done.

As a child I read not just Narnia and LOTR, but Alan Garner's The Moon of Gomrath (very wild and pagan, with some of its lore based on Graves's The White Goddess), and Lucy Boston's books (Christian with magic and time travel mixed in) and all they did to me was awaken an interest in the past and in pagan religion as an historical artifact.

Children today are raised in a different atmosphere. Susan Cooper's Dark is Rising series actually contains scenes in which Christianity is explicitly powerless against magic. Will those who read these things be encouraged to develop an unwholesome interest in magic? I don't know.
alias clio | Homepage | 08.25.07 - 1:49 am | #

Count me in with the fans. I just finished the 7th book, and I have to admit, I couldn't put it down. Reading the climactic battle scene at the end was like watching a season finale episode of "24".

I think O'Brien's analysis of the series misses the point in a few places:

We might ponder a little the fact that the central metaphor and plot engines of the series are activities (witchcraft and sorcery) absolutely prohibited by God.

As Del pointed out, many other books and movies have featured "good" witches and wizards that no one has complained about. My 3-year-old niece's favorite movie is "The Wizard Of Oz". Then there are Gandalf The Grey (LOTR), the Deep Magic that rules over Narnia, Cinderella's fairy godmother, and all the assorted ghosts, fairies, and magic potions that appear in the works of Shakespeare. Even The Force in Star Wars could be seen as a kind of magic, couldn't it?

It is a cornucopia of other false messages ... no one can really be trusted, except those whom you feel comfortable with.

Several key plot points in the series involve characters who are forced to trust others with whom they are the least comfortable. Snape has to interact with the other members of the Order, who don't like him. Harry has to learn to treat an unfriendly elf with respect. And in book 7, Harry has to make the decision to trust Dumbledore, even though he doesn't understand all the pieces to the plan Dumbledore has left for him -- a situation that I've often thought reflects our own relationship with God, who asks us to trust Him even when we don't comprehend His ways.

Conservative people are bad, anti-magic dogmatists are really bad and deserve whatever punishment they get ... The ultimate cause of evil is rejection of magic.

No, the ultimate cause of evil is lusting for power over others, as Voldemort does. The Death Eaters don't reject magic. They reject the idea that all people deserve respect.

Killing others is justified if you are good and they are bad.

Harry never thought so, or he wouldn't have spared the life of Peter Pettigrew at the end of book 3.

He even rescues his old tormentor Draco ... as the critic David Haddon points out, "Harry has fulfilled Rowling's stated belief that children are 'innately good', without need of repentance or redemption."

But Harry and Dumbledore help save Draco precisely to give him a chance at repentance and redemption. That doesn't make Draco sinless, it just means he deserves the opportunity to change. Think of the Church's view about the death penalty and what it means about people on death row.

I think that it is quite possible to find God in the Harry Potter novels. Even if J.K. Rowling does not explicitly write Him in as a character or include scenes of Harry praying in a church, to me the broader themes of the series revolve around our dealings with God and each other.

And I've always found it ironic that the Christmas scenes feature the residents of Hogwarts singing real Christmas carols like "O Come All Ye Faithful". That's more tolerance for Christianity than most of our schools show in the real world. At least Ron Weasley's parents didn't threaten to sue anyone.
R.F. | 08.25.07 - 2:50 am | #

Just one more quick comment and then I'll go to sleep. I promise.

About Snape AK'ing a dying Dumbledore in book 6: I see people's concern about this being akin to "assisted suicide" or "mercy killing". But within the context of the story, Dumbledore didn't ask Snape to kill him in order to spare him the pain of his sickness or because his life wasn't worth living. He did it because as long as he was going to die anyway, he wanted his death to serve a purpose: to prevent Draco from having to commit murder. I don't know if that makes the act morally justified, but I don't think it's in the same category as Dr. Kevorkian or "Million Dollar Baby".
R.F. | 08.25.07 - 3:08 am | #

I'm continually surprised, as one with a blandly neutral view on the subject, of the venomous ad hominem attacks on O'Brien for stating his opinion on a children's book. Arguing, yes, good stuff too (I really liked some of what Sandra Miesel has had to say on the subject). But the hatred his criticism has inspired is really ugly and ungodly.

I've really enjoyed the HP movies, and the books not-so-much. For what it's worth.
JV | Homepage | 08.25.07 - 3:08 am | #

The article is called "Harry Potter and the Death of God"? and people wonder why good Catholic and Christian fans are completely baffled and angry? The title is deliberately inflammatory.

"The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."
maiki | 08.25.07 - 4:23 am | #

Both Mr. Grossman and Mr. O'Brien might want to take an interpretive literature class because they completely miss the mark on the Harry Potter novels. I found the Christian symbolism and values in the last book blatantly obvious but other people who approach the books with an agenda can only see what they think they already know.

And as for O'Brien's questions of "And isn't it all about love?' Yes, in a sense it is. But what kind of love? What kind of sacrifice? And for what purpose?"

It's the same kind of love, sacrifice and purpose for which Jesus laid down his life.
Tony Rossi | Homepage | 08.25.07 - 8:51 am | #

Growing up, I was entranced by the tales of the Arthurian saga. The tales were full of enchantments, potions, spells, ladies of the Lake, and the like. Were these stories bad? Should they have been prohibited as dangerous to my young moral character? Merlin, by the way, is stated to be a son of the devil, although he was very helpful to King Arthur.
Bud | 08.25.07 - 9:36 am | #

About Snape AK'ing a dying Dumbledore in book 6: I see people's concern about this being akin to "assisted suicide" or "mercy killing". But within the context of the story, Dumbledore didn't ask Snape to kill him in order to spare him the pain of his sickness or because his life wasn't worth living. He did it because as long as he was going to die anyway, he wanted his death to serve a purpose: to prevent Draco from having to commit murder. I don't know if that makes the act morally justified, but I don't think it's in the same category as Dr. Kevorkian or "Million Dollar Baby".

This is why Snape's personal guilt differs from those acts. His intentions were good, and his circumstances included a lot of pressure from a man whose judgment he trusted.

However, objectively the act was the same: the killing of an innocent. Because all of the good effects Snape desired were the consequences of that killing, it can not fall under the rule of double effect.
Mary | 08.25.07 - 10:32 am | #

Even The Force in Star Wars could be seen as a kind of magic, couldn't it?

Indeed. Although I'm no expert in such matters, the idea of The Force and the Dark Side is very similar to such heresies and psuedo-religions as Manichæism and Zoroastrian Dualism, which St. Augustine and others battled. Indeed, the idea of Evil existing as an independent entity in counterbalance to Good as strongly taken root in the social consciousness, far more than any book about wizards and magic could ever hope to do.
Bender | Homepage | 08.25.07 - 11:20 am | #

Dawn,
Whoa! I did not mean for this to be personal and I am sorry that is how it came across. I should have written more information with that question.
This is a question that came up in my lit courses while in the University. Why do we read fiction, especially fiction that may be morally problematic? And since I was at a good Catholic university, the question came up why read fiction at all since the Bible is the very word of God? I think that is a valid question, especially in light of many peoples' worries (not just your own) that the Harry Potter series will lead children to Satan. If all literature is to lead me to God, I suppose I could no longer read Yeats (he didn't believe in God, only art and beauty), Auden (his Christianity was suspect), and really, the list can continue on.

And since Harry Potter is a children's series, I would probably have to trash most of my daughter's books since they don't talk about God or lead to God (well, most of them anyway). Most of them are about animals that talk, or crazy things like a dancing caribou on top of a mountain, which we know cannot happen. And what is the purpose of having a caribou that dances? If I were to analyze most of my daughter's books, they would all have serious issues with them. And none would lead to a higher truth. For me, I teach her about Jesus,Mary, and Joseph, but I also let her dabble with fantasy.

I think there has to be a balance. If that is true for my child, isn't it true for adults, too? Or do we outgrow fantasy as we age and must only read non-fictional types of fiction?
Radical Catholic Mom | Homepage | 08.25.07 - 11:26 am | #

P.S. And I hope that my tone is not snarky and if it is, I am sorry that is not my intent.
Radical Catholic Mom | Homepage | 08.25.07 - 11:26 am | #

One of the problems with the witchcraft-is-bad argument against the Harry Potter books is that these critics seem to be saying that they think that the "magic" in the book is real and can actually work, and therefore dangerous to children. But there is no such thing as "magic" and "witchcraft" per se -- no matter what some neo-pagans believe. And the idea that the hacked-together "spells" and so on in the book could work even from an occultist believer viewpoint is laughable.

The danger, of course, is psychological (and, if you will, spiritual), in that an impressionable and none-too-bright child might think he can actually cast a spell on someone and somehow hurt himself; or that he may decide that "being a wizard" is more fun than being a good Christian child. But this sort of thing is rare. Most children know quite well the difference between fantasy and reality -- often much better than adults do. After all, most followers of the so-called "Jedi Religion" based on the Star Wars movies are adults. No kid I've ever met would be taken in by such foolery.
Andrea Harris | Homepage | 08.25.07 - 11:40 am | #

Also, to Dawn's criticism of the books -- the first one -- as being too superficial. Well... the first book was her first, and it could be that the writing gave that impression, though I would rather categorize it as "breezy." Also her writing style is not particularly noteworthy -- at best it's merely workmanlike. I do think as the books go on she gets more and more serious -- she may have started out merely wanting to write a fun story about a kid in wizard school, and later more serious themes came in. My own opinion is that the third book, Wizard of Azkaban, is the best, from a writing standpoint. the three books after that are simply too spready, and really needed tightening up and editing -- though they are page-turners. I haven't read the last book.

As for the comparison to the Narnia books -- this may be heresy, but I find the Narnia books to be an uneven collection, and rather lightweight, at least compared to other works of fantasy like Lord of the Rings. I enjoy them, but I don't reread them as much, and I find that they are more dated than LOTR. Will the Potter books date well or will they seem as anachronistic to future generations?

The fantasy genre, such as it is, that I find much more troubling and even dangerous, is the Left Behind series and that ilk. Now if you want bad writing and superficial characteristics, these books -- or at least the first of the series, which is all I could bring myself to read -- will give these to you in spades. For one thing, it starts too far forward in dramatic time, leading the main characters to all go into extended flashbacks that stop the book dead in its tracks again and again. A straight chronological build up would be better... But more important is the fact that the authors really believe their fantastic goings on can really happen. When did the idea of "metaphor" become un-Christian?
Andrea Harris | Homepage | 08.25.07 - 11:55 am | #

The "she" I was referring to in my first paragraph in the second comment is J.K. Rowling, and in the third paragraph I should have said "fantasy series" not "fantasy genre."
Andrea Harris | Homepage | 08.25.07 - 11:57 am | #

A recent Lifesite did take time off from denouncing the Potter Menace to note that Pullman's REAL anti-Christian propaganda is coming to A Theater Near You.

It also whines about "vicious attacks" by Rowling defenders. My favorite "vicious attack" quoted came from someone who said "I do not see a gnostic view in the books, and I know because I am a gnostic."
Will | Homepage | 08.25.07 - 11:58 am | #

I wonder if any of the alarmists have even noticed Norman Bridwell's "Witch Next Door" books? Or "The Worst Witch"?
Will | Homepage | 08.25.07 - 12:01 pm | #

Apology accepted, RCM.

In answer to your question, I'd side with Caryl Matrisciana, who made a film (which I haven't seen) against the Potter books. Asked the difference between the Potter books and the works of Lewis and Tolkien, she said, "The Christian classic fantasies are not generally confusingly set in the real world as many of Harry's themes are in a boarding school where children are being taught the actual reality of an occult religion through JK Rowlings deep knowledge of Greek, Roman mythology, folklore, philosophies, and pagan religions."

Read the whole interview with Matrisciana, and also Randy Alcorn's "Why I'm Leery of Harry Potter."

The issue is not whether the spells work, but whether they succeed in giving children and adults an interest in pagan beliefs. The books may be a good read, and they may have redeeming qualities, but I'm not convinced they're a positive force in children's lives.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.25.07 - 12:02 pm | #

But, to continue this interesting discussion, my mother has an old reader from the 1950s that is composed of tales of old mythologies: Greek, Roman and Norse. These, with the Bible, form the backdrop of Western culture. Tolkien could not have written "The Lord of the Rings" if he had not known of Odin, Thor and the gang.

I really don't think children are going to pick up pagan superstitions from Harry Potter. The superstitions they are more likely to pick up are from their grandmothers practising folk traditions against the "evil eye" and goodness knows what else. As for children shouting spells at each other in the schoolyard, to this day, I clank rings with a sibling or friend and say, "Wondertwin powers, activate! Form of an eagle!" I got that from TV. Noone would be have been more surprised than I if I had suddenly taken on the form of an eagle, even when I was six.

The problem with condemning the Harry Potter books is that it discredits Christian pundits when we take aim at children's literature that really is unhealthy: books like "The Rainbow Party" and other salacious crap. And it sets limits on the HEALTHY development of children's imaginations.

I agree with Andrea that fictional series about the Apocalyse are worse material for children than the Potter books. Michael O'Brien himself writes such a series.
Seraphic Single | Homepage | 08.25.07 - 12:47 pm | #

O'brien's aren't novels aren't intended for children.
JV | Homepage | 08.25.07 - 1:09 pm | #

Do you see this painting?
Sure, he calls it an angel, but that's just what he'd like you to believe. You know what it REALLY symbolizes? Everyone knows an angel is white and has wings and a halo, but this one is red - the color of the devil - and look, it has fire for a tail. So it really is a demon. And it's holding a piece of the moon - see he's promoting pagan worship and that figure is lying down is lying in wait for your soul; that's not a crook behind him, that's HIS tail...another demon, see? And if you look real close, those spotty things in the background are really the eyes of satan and are watching you.

So after he charges you $3K for one of his, ah, "religious works of art", you end up hanging a gateway to hell over your couch.
callingDr.Bombay | 08.25.07 - 2:07 pm | #

calling Dr.Bombay, you just offered at least two logical fallacies for the price of one, combining ad hominem and red herring — but have made no valid argument against O'Brien's points.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.25.07 - 2:14 pm | #

Actually, make that three logical fallacies. I missed the straw man.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.25.07 - 2:16 pm | #

I don't have a big stake in this, and I shared Dawn's view (8/24-8:48pm above) of the literary quality of the first book. (Although the prose never gets much better, the matter becomes increasingly more substantial as the series progresses.) But in Michael O'Brien's views quoted in the same post, I just don't recognize the books I read.

Here is the post on my blog that alias clio referred to. The post is negligible but there are some good observations in the comments. Dave G. (same as above?) made an obvious but little-heard point: that the possible bad influence of HP is nothing compared to ordinary tv, music, movies, and our general climate.

I'd like to draw attention to clio's remark about the Wizard of Oz. Beloved classic or not, I think it is a vastly more poisonous influence than even my worst case view of Harry Potter. I never liked the W. of O. as a child, and I realized later that it was partly because of its explicit and convincing materialism. It's like an icicle to the soul.

Another note: yes, it's possible that HP could lead an ungrounded soul into experimenting with magic. But, folks, that's true of The Lord of the Rings, too. Look around on the web for a while and you'll find all sorts of "magick"-loving folk who think Tolkien was one of them.
Maclin Horton | Homepage | 08.25.07 - 3:01 pm | #

I don't have a dog in the race with regard to "The Wizard of Oz." Just don't knock my "Peter Pan." :^O
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.25.07 - 3:04 pm | #

While I cannot comment on Harry Potter in as detail as others nor can I comment on the Deep Magic that exists in Lewis Narnia books I can state quite emphatically that the "magic" in LOTR is vastly different from the type in the Harry Potter series. The attempt to seek power regardless of reason is by its nature a corrupting act. The Ring of Power is magic and any other form of "unnatural manipulation of nature" is by its nature corrupting. The good characters who also happen to be wise recognize this (Gandalf and Gladriel are both tempted but know what would happen if they were to take the ring). "Good" magic is not magic. Gandalf is not a "wizard" but a lesser servant of the Valar, akin to angels. The power he exerts is bestowed on him by the One, Eru, creator of all creation. The elves also possess power bestowed on them by the One. And the instances of "good" magic are not subvertive, but enabling for the good characters to perform moral actions and prevail over evil beyond their power. Sam's encounter with the Wood elves illustrates this point when he asks to see "elf magic" They don't understand the question.

Comparisons between the magic of LOTR and HP are misguided at best. Tolkien himself said he would have drawn sharper distinctions between "magic" and the power he was describing (grace) more clearly if he could have forseen the misinterpretation.
Colin Gormley | 08.25.07 - 3:42 pm | #

Some commenters should warn that there are SPOILERS in their posts (for the sake of those still reading the series)!
June | 08.25.07 - 3:47 pm | #

Thanks, Dawn. Your post has me thinking and I will have to write about this on my own blog.
Radical Catholic Mom | Homepage | 08.25.07 - 3:54 pm | #

Maybe I should have pointed out exactly what I was attempting to do: do to O'Brien what he does to Rowling. Which is, completely twist the intent of the artist into the worst possible light - even though both artists have publicly stated they are Christians. If O'Brien paints what plainly looks like a devil to many of us, and calls it an angel, it would be wrong to accuse him of leading people down a dark path all because of his corrupted symbolism.
Calumny is wrong no matter who does it.
callingDr.Bombay | 08.25.07 - 3:55 pm | #

Much as I am enjoying the series, Dawn is correct in commenting that the first book (and perhaps through the third) is superficial.

I started reading the first book a few years ago and put it down for the same reason.

Now that I'm about to begin the fourth book, it will be interesting to see how the substance changes, as mentioned by Maclin. (Although what is up with that 'icicle to the soul' comment he made about The Wizard of Oz? Yikes!).

Perhaps, as adult readers, it's just a matter of where you are at the time you pick them up. Having just come off a strenuous time in my life, Harry and his pals have lifted my spirits (no pun intended) a bit.

Off to The Goblet of Fire!
June | 08.25.07 - 4:03 pm | #

The issue is not whether the spells work, but whether they succeed in giving children and adults an interest in pagan beliefs.

There is nothing inherently wrong, or sinful, about an "interest in pagan beliefs," or any other non-Christian beliefs.
L. | Homepage | 08.25.07 - 4:12 pm | #

Winged boars, winged boars, winged boars!
The whole discussion delights yet bores
For Rowling means it all a pubescent high,
A tale 'twill happen when pigs do fly.

But the magic that Dawn dispells in Chaste most Thrilling
Is one that folk practice with pigs aswilling
And none will find the way to Joy
Save in chastity, fidelity, and love most coy
Athos | Homepage | 08.25.07 - 4:14 pm | #

The issue is not whether the spells work, but whether they succeed in giving children and adults an interest in pagan beliefs.

There is nothing inherently wrong, or sinful, about an "interest in pagan beliefs," or any other non-Christian beliefs.>>>

If a person is comforted by those beliefs and leads a good life, that's true. Many non-Christians can say the same about Christian beliefs.
Neil C | 08.25.07 - 4:53 pm | #

Well, ok, June, "icicle to the soul" may be overdoing it a bit. But the ending of the Wizard always felt like a huge crash to me. We're being told that all this wonderful enchanting stuff--everything that made the story interesting--is bogus. First the Wiz himself is bogus within the context of Oz, then Oz itself turns out to be bogus. The naturalistic this-world-is-all-there-is implication seems pretty clear to me.

Dawn, I haven't seen Peter Pan in many, many years (and never read it), but I don't remember having any similar feelings about it. I think I sort of had a crush on Wendy. :-)

I also remember, seeing the Disney version as an adult with my children, thinking it was really weird that they made Tinkerbell sexy.
Maclin Horton | Homepage | 08.25.07 - 5:42 pm | #

Ah, Maclin, I see.

Yeah, the icicle reference was a bit over the top (although poetic), but I see the point you wanted to make.
June | 08.25.07 - 6:00 pm | #

I have enjoyed some of the Potter books, and for various reasons, I became somewhat of an aficionado - even though I had some misgivings. The number one reason I apologized for the books was the fierce loyalty Rowling instilled in her characters. Even though I was very disappointed in her for throwing up over it in the final book - it is one good thing about them.

I agree with others that these books have nothing close to the value of the Narnia books. I would have remained relatively positive toward them if not for the worst thing she did. By making the murder of Dumbledore an act of consequentialism (the end justifies the means), she made that a very evil lesson indeed to be teaching our children. The lesson is futher supported by the disobedience of earlier books (the end justifies the disobedience) and by the fact that Harry started to use the unforgivable curses. (If there is anything objectively evil in Rowlings books - they are the unforgivable curses. Rowling did nothing to show that Harry's unforgivable means were not justified by the ends.)

Before reading book seven, I made excuses for the disobedience. It wasn't clearly a matter of consequentialism, and there is some need for a healthy perspective of rules. But the larger work puts it into a consequentialist context, which kind of spoils it for me - my defenses have been revealed to be lame.

Other issues were concerning, but not enough to call for book burnings, and not enough to completely rob me of enjoying them. On the other hand, I always considered them to be legitimate concerns, and it amazed me how the Harry Potter cult would malign people for having concerns.

The polarism over these childrens' books has always seemed quite ridiculous to me. Before HP, I would have found it hard imagining adults getting up in arms about "inflammatory" remarks about a mere book about a boy wizard. I would sooner imagine an adult getting up in arms about someone calling their favorite teddy bear "goofy lookin'." Of course, I should have seen it coming after the Cabbage Patch fiasco.

The occult practices and the Harry Potter tea reading sets that were for sale were particularly bothersome. But I made excuses for them in the past - right or wrong. With the obvious consequentialism, I now find little motivation to be a Rowling apologist.

I really doubt that Rowling intended to teach consequentialism to the children of the world, by the way. But it does teach it nonetheless.

Maybe some of you think I'm making a big deal out of this, but consequentialism is what brought us Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (There is quite a discussion about it going on at WWWtW.) "The ends justify the means" thinking can lead us to unimaginable evil. Rowling has now become a force in spreading that evil.

Also, by the way, without consideration to consequentialism, I really thought her final book was quite poorly written. It was the least of the seven. But that's not really relevant to the discussion at hand.
Silly Interloper | 08.25.07 - 6:38 pm | #

There is nothing inherently wrong, or sinful, about an "interest in pagan beliefs," or any other non-Christian beliefs.

If pagan beliefs lead children away from truth and away from the Sacraments - it is certainly a bad thing.

Granted - people who do not believe in the truths and the Sacraments (or pluralisitically oriented people) aren't going to see it as such. Nor do I expect athletes who reject the virtues of natural training and the harm of steroids to see anything wrong with leading athletes away from natural training and getting them involved in steriods.
Silly Interloper | 08.25.07 - 6:49 pm | #

Hee, hee -- comparing paganism and pluralism to steroid use -- love it!

Don't ever change, Silly Interloper. The world is a much merrier place with you in it. :)
L. | Homepage | 08.25.07 - 7:22 pm | #

Well, I read Thor comics and it didn't make me worship the Norse Gods. :)
Neil C | 08.25.07 - 8:48 pm | #

Dawn, Caryl Matrisciana seems to have another mistaken take on the Potter novels: there is no teaching of "magic" as some sort of "religion." It's quite clear that "magic" is a skill, akin to musical talent or athletic prowess. There is no worshipping of strange gods and the ceremonies (such as the Sorting Hat thing) are clearly based on the sort of things they do in schools, such as graduation and award ceremonies. The moral basis of the society in the books is the same Western, Judeo-Christian morality that our real society is based on. Of course Rowlings doesn't spell that out -- probably because the British hate talking about religion, they call it "God-bothering." They may believe in God, and even go to church, but the idea of actually talking about religion -- or introducing it openly in a children's book -- is a no-no.

And I really don't think the "real world" setting of a boarding school populated by magical creatures like centaurs and the like will "confuse" children. It seems to be adults who are confused. I repeat, normal children have no trouble separating fantasy from reality.
Andrea Harris | Homepage | 08.25.07 - 9:54 pm | #

By the way, no less a personage than C.S. Lewis spoke out in favor of fantasy for children and adults, and he didn't say a word about whether it was "good Christian fantasy" or not. (In fact, Norse mythology was his favorite, before and after he became a Christian.) He thought that many so-called "realistic" stories were in fact a lot more dangerous to children, because they tempted children to think that the adventures in those stories (and the rewards the characters received) could be attained, because after all, everything was "real."
Andrea Harris | Homepage | 08.25.07 - 10:01 pm | #

If pagan beliefs lead children away from truth and away from the Sacraments - it is certainly a bad thing.

What about those who never were able to believe in the Sacraments but then discovered things that made sense to them in pagan beliefs? Oftentimes the teachings of varying religions don't vary that much at all (as Dawn pointed out this week in blog entries).
Terezia | 08.25.07 - 11:25 pm | #

Hee, hee -- comparing paganism and pluralism to steroid use -- love it!

If the only thing my post accomplished was to give you a moment of fun, L - it was well worth it. :)
Silly Interloper | 08.25.07 - 11:28 pm | #

What about those who never were able to believe in the Sacraments but then discovered things that made sense to them in pagan beliefs?

It seems to me in that case that paganism would not be pulling them away from the Sacraments - so it does not fit in my "if" statement for the part regarding Sacraments. However, if paganism pulls them from the truth, it still isn't a good thing.

Additionally, I am not thinking in terms of just the here and now, and an interest in paganism might prevent someone from finding the truth and reaching the Sacraments in the long run, so it is still probably not a good thing.

That being said, it is within the realm of possibilities that someone who has no hope of getting to the truth and of benefitting from the Sacraments may benefit from something good within pagan religions. In fact, I presume that God works that way sometimes. I also presume God might use pagan religions to work on the heart of someone while He is preparing them to turn toward Christianity and the Sacraments.

Let's be clear though - that is depending upon God's actions. God could make something good come out of self-mutilation. That doesn't mean self-mutilation is good, and it certainly doesn't mean being indifferent to self-mutilation is a good idea.

Oftentimes the teachings of varying religions don't vary that much at all (as Dawn pointed out this week in blog entries).

I believe Catholicism from early on has recognized sources of wisdom that did not spring from within Catholicism itself.
Silly Interloper | 08.25.07 - 11:48 pm | #

Late to the discussion--helping my brother move his family into their new house this weekend--but. . . wow. This kind of hysteria is what made me cancel my subscription to Envoy years ago. I hope to have some fantasy novels published someday and maybe if I'm lucky I'll get denounced too, even though the characters see magic as just another gift from their benevolent god.
Kate P | 08.25.07 - 11:56 pm | #

To clarify, I was referring the the Wizard of Oz series: Ozma of Oz, The Scarecrow of Oz, etc. I am not sure how the series would be an icicle to the soul. Although the Wizard in the first book (who is not supposed to be God, by the way: the original WoOz was a political allegory about, among other things, the gold standard) doesn't do "real" magic, he learns it later from Glenda the Good.

I didn't think the Harry Potter series would have a lasting importance, but because there is so much anguish and debate over it, I suspect the opposite now.

I agree with the commentator who says that current pop culture is far more devastating for children than the Harry Potter books. My personal feeling is that there is nothing worse out there than hip hop/rap lyrics, and I refuse ever to listen to them, to the extent of asking friends to change the channel on the radio, etc. Any song as debasing as "My Humps", for example, should not be on public airwaves. (And kudos to Alanis Morrisette for sending it up.)
Seraphic Single | Homepage | 08.26.07 - 8:40 am | #

Silly Interloper,

Turns out there are some beliefs we have in common. Thanks for the reply.
Terezia | 08.26.07 - 1:28 pm | #

Very interesting.

Its hard to take a book and decide what in it will make which readers interested in what things in the real world.

This is why I haven't really put myself on either side of the argument, because I'm sure that for some people, HP would lead to an interest in other depictions/ real-world attempts at sorcery. But then what of the people who read it, appreciate the supposedly (sorry, I quit reading out of boredom at bk. 3 so I don't know) Christian themes in it, and use it to reinforce their original ideas about the virtues, etc?

This whole thing raises a lot of questions that I'm not sure how to answer (which could even start from "what is art"): Does a good story have to take place in a particular moral universe, or in at least something somehow analogous to ours? Or does it matter? And where, in literature, is the fine line between meaningless babble and (even well intentioned) propaganda? I'm not sure I know.
km | 08.26.07 - 5:05 pm | #

NO KIDDING!! Brilliant comparison to the pimps and prostitutes. Lies and deception are what they are no matter how you package it. Harry Potter is one of the magnificent lies of our time that has been used to brainwash our youth and cleverly seduce them further into believing that we are self-reliant, can have our own power, and that our own "love" (if you want to call it that) can conquer all. When, in fact, the only infinite and truly powerful love that ever was, is, or every will be is the love of Christ. He alone is God. Any attempt to make ourselves "gods" is nothing more than a lie from Satan; and he couldn't be more pleased.
Melissa | 08.26.07 - 10:41 pm | #

Dawn, I have read the Potter books several times each, and have read all but the last one out loud to my children an additional 4 or 5 times each. I know them inside and out and I can assure you that they are, on the whole (and "on the whole" doesn't mean on average, it means you have to treat the entire series as a single 7-volume work), morally praiseworthy. I really don't want to go through the tedious task of refuting all the silly arguments against these books, because you will see for yourself how silly and ill-informed they are when you read the books (which I strongly recommend).

The critics have entirely missed the overwhelmingly central theme of the books, which is self-sacrificing love being the only way of overcoming death. The Christian overtones and resonances, by the end of book 7, are impossible for any serious reader to miss.

There is only one criticism I have seen of the series that has any significant validity -- involving Dumbledore's death and Harry's use of "unforgivable curses". (SPOILER ALERT -- NEXT 2 PARAGRAPHS)

In the first of these, the consequentialism of Snape's act is mitigated as strongly as it possibly could be, because Dumbledore was (as only Snape knew) already dying, and Dumbledore's willing of his own death was not a suicide but a sacrifice -- it is like a mortally wounded soldier in the middle of an enemy ambush calling in an airstrike on his own position, which will kill him but also accomplish a key military goal.

In the second, one justification is again that "there is a war on", and the other is self-defense, but there is one flaw which I wish Rowling had fixed -- although three of the people Harry uses an "unforgivable curse" on were trying to kill him and he was defending himself, the fourth was a neutral bystander, and Harry's act was the equivalent of temporarily kidnaping a noncombatant to prevent a "special forces" mission from being discovered -- arguably a war crime (though, I just realized, prefigured in book 1 when Hermione temporarily petrifies her friend Neville so he won't ignorantly prevent them from thwarting the evil wizard). That Harry did not pay *directly* for this sin is an exception to the usual pattern of the plot (usually the good characters regret any wrong acts and also suffer appropriate consequences) and is therefore a literary blemish, but in the larger context of Harry's overall behavior and character growth, any consequentialist implication of this passage is overwhelmed by the main theme of self-sacrifice (there are many other incidents where Harry avoids an action that would have otherwise desirable consequences because it would be unfair to an innocent bystander).
Joseph | 08.27.07 - 4:22 am | #

In real life as in fiction, not every bad act is immediately repaid with bad consequences; and not everything done by even the most respected persons will be good or well-judged. It is the part of the writer to include this pattern of life if it is useful to the tale; and it is the reader's part to notice and understand it without the application of blunt instruments.

*Lewis moment*

What do they teach them in these schools?
Maureen | 08.27.07 - 6:41 am | #

…morally praiseworthy.

If by morally praiseworthy you mean there are things within it to be found that are praiseworthy, then one can agree without difficulty. However, as a whole, there isn't anything all that especially praiseworthy about the opus. After all, you can find themes of self-sacrifice for love in an abundance of other books, and although that is generally a good theme, it neither earns them a spot on the "good morality books" shelf, nor does it remove them from the greater moral context.

Remember - before this last book, I would defend them. But even before I would get confused as to why people seem determined to aggrandize them as some great moral literature. They simply aren't. They don't come close. They are mostly superficial fluff as far as morality goes. When you overstate the morality, you really mostly just distract from the good and redeeming factors that are more "worthy" of attention.

In the first of these, the consequentialism of Snape's act is mitigated as strongly as it possibly could be, because Dumbledore was (as only Snape knew) already dying, and Dumbledore's willing of his own death was not a suicide but a sacrifice - it is like a mortally wounded soldier in the middle of an enemy ambush calling in an airstrike on his own position, which will kill him but also accomplish a key military goal.

This and the other "mitigations" simply make it worse. Now, not only is she teaching our children that consequentialism is well and good - she is also teaching them how to find "mitigations" and rationalizations for terrible sin - actual *murder* in this case. "Hey, kids…If you rationalize hard enough - you get to commit murder!"

If you find yourself on the side that tries to justify a suicide/murder pact - there's something wrong.

Likewise with the unforgivable curses. Find (make up) a good enough reason - and you get to do the unforgivable, kids!

Besides - if I were an author who set out to write something evil, I would make sure to have a strong theme of self-sacrifice. I'm sure I could sucker in a lot of people that way.

…but in the larger context of Harry's overall behavior and character growth, any consequentialist implication of this passage is overwhelmed by the main theme of self-sacrifice

I'm sorry, but that's just bosh. Yes, self-sacrifice is a good theme, and I give the books credit where credit is due. (I personally think that the fierce loyalty - until she threw up on it in book 7 - was a much stronger theme than the self-sacrifice.) But the self-sacrifice theme doesn't "overwhelm" anything, and it certainly can't be said to carry more efficacy than the consequentialism.

I don't blame you for liking the books, Joseph. They have their charm, and I expected to lean positively toward them in the end. But the bad now far outweighs the good. For reasons much different than I expected - they have become *evil* influences for kids (and for adults for that matter - they have the adults making excuses for murder/suicide pacts on this very thread), and I'm not going to mitigate that just because I mostly enjoyed them.
Silly Interloper | 08.27.07 - 10:57 am | #

In real life as in fiction, not every bad act is immediately repaid with bad consequences; and not everything done by even the most respected persons will be good or well-judged.

Sure. But she didn't deal with them *at all*.

Having been educated by Lewis more than any schooling I've had, I'm quite certain he would disapprove.
Silly Interloper | 08.27.07 - 10:59 am | #

In my first example, the "mitigation" does not justify the act, but my military analogy does.

In my second example, it is never established in the book that "unforgivable curses" are in fact sinful when used in self-defense or a just war. Harry certainly should have repented of the one use of the Imperius Curse against someone who was not trying to kill him, and I identified that flaw, but it does not invalidate the whole book.

Didn't you get that the whole point of the Grindelwald subplot was to REJECT consequentialism? "The Greater Good" does NOT justify wrong actions, and Dumbledore learned this lesson very painfully -- and Harry also comes to accept this before the end of the book. Rejecting the justification "for the greater good" couldn't be more explicitly anti-consequentialist; it's too bad Rowling's treatment of this issue was not perfectly consistent, but I can't possibly agree that her real agenda was consequentialist.
Joseph | 08.27.07 - 11:49 am | #

...but I can't possibly agree that her real agenda was consequentialist.

I said from the start that I did not think Rowling *intended* to teach consequentialism. That doesn't change the fact that her books *do* teach it.

As far as I can tell, all you are saying about the military analogy is that it doesn't actually apply to the case at hand. (I agree - it doesn't apply.)

Didn't you get that the whole point of the Grindelwald subplot was to REJECT consequentialism?

It is not at all clear that that is what Rowling intended - I doubt she thought about consequentialism at all. (If she did - it reflects much worse upon her.) The Grindelwald thing seemed mostly just an admonition against a tyranny that makes specious claims of "the greater good," and it seems to fall much more in line with her themes regarding diversity than anything else. As far as I can tell, it doesn't address consequentialism at all. (And one hint about that is that it doesn't address anything "explicitly" at all.)

The proof, to me, is that she has no qualms with the evil acts for the sake of Harry's ends. If she was rejecting consequentialism (if she even knows what it is), she would not have relied upon it to justify her characters' actions.

Regardless of that - even if she intended to reject consequentialism in this ambiguous "greater good" thing - what she **actually did** quite explicitly in the book was to teach consequentialism, and to teach it to the point of a **suicide/murder pact**.

It is abjectly egregious that she did so, and I think that justifying suicide and murder through consequentialism far outweighs any possibility that she *might* have been thinking about rejecting it in some other context.

Again, the fact that you - who I presume to be a good Christian - are in fact *defending* books that promote the justification of a murder/suicide pact simply affirms my belief that the net result of these books is *evil*. If they affect our adults this much - how much are they affecting our kids?
Silly Interloper | 08.27.07 - 12:35 pm | #

Again, the fact that you - who I presume to be a good Christian - are in fact *defending* books that promote the justification of a murder/suicide pact simply affirms my belief that the net result of these books is *evil*. If they affect our adults this much - how much are they affecting our kids?

Powerful point, SI.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.27.07 - 12:36 pm | #

This is great stuff, and makes me wish I'd discovered the thread on Friday...

FWIW I enjoyed the books, saw what Rowling was trying for, agree that she didn't always get there, and would put them below Tolkien and Lewis as far as their skill and their moral worth. I cover it as briefly as possible to go back to a larger point - one Kate P was kind enough to already bring up -

We are told in Scripture to be both harmless as doves and wise as serpents. In this case, this means casting morality into strange and fantastic tales, so that the reader will (hopefully) see that, no matter how fantastic the world or unlikely the situation, right and wrong are universal, and not beyond the grasp of anyone. When Rowling errs thematically it is usually the error Interloper notes: letting certain evils stand unchallenged.

Like Kate, I write fantasy tales; I hope that they will be well-received publicly as they have so far been among my friends. But I doubt that a general audience would be pleased if my main character strode into the room and announced, "THUS SAITH THE LORD OF HOSTS!" Half the crowd would leave; the other half would stay only because they thought they were about to hear something they already approved. Nobody would profit.

Now, in anime, characters will often start saying things like that. There are quite open discussions of religious themes, and one series in particular debates the nature of God while smacking it out in what are literally "machina ex deus," the chariots of the gods - the fight between the protagonist, who thinks of it as gift to defend the weak, and the antagonists who seek to rule through them. (Yup, giant robots in anime, what a shock!) I suspect, however, that this is in many ways just what Kate and I are thinking of. To a Japanese audience it's quite likely that Christianity is as nearly exotic as Asgard or Narnia is to us - at any rate, exotic enough so that the open question doesn't instantly raise the hackles it does here.

It's like Chesterton said at the beginning of "The Everlasting Man," the next best thing to being at home in Christianity is to be so far away as to see it as if for the first time. Fantasy can give us that gift if handled properly.
nightfly | Homepage | 08.27.07 - 2:00 pm | #

The Silly Interloper interloped as follows:
Regardless of that - even if she intended to reject consequentialism in this ambiguous "greater good" thing - what she **actually did** quite explicitly in the book was to teach consequentialism, and to teach it to the point of a **suicide/murder pact**.

I'm not totally comfortable with the Snape/Dumbledore pact, but I don't think I have the same understanding of it as you do. When the pact was formed, Dumbledore was the master of the Elder Wand. The Elder Wand's powers would only pass to a new master if that person could defeat Dumbledore. Therefore, Dumbledore's goal was to die a natural death and break the Wand's cycle of ownership.

Sadly, the curse into which Dumbledore blundered made his goal a moot point. Worse yet, then it became clear that Draco Malfoy had been tasked to kill him. Dumbledore was not going to die a natural death. The only question at hand was: Who was going to kill him and become the new master of the Elder Wand? Draco Malfoy, a mere boy who would be swiftly killed by Voldemort? Or Snape, who was tricky and wily enough to stand at least a little bit of a chance?

The importance of the Elder Wand in Dumbledore's decision (and the moral calculus that surrounded it) cannot be ignored. Without the Elder Wand, then I would agree with your point. Dumbledore's death at Snape's hands would be no more than common euthanasia and utterly immoral. However, the presence of the Elder Wand made Dumbledore's death into a military sacrifice, just as Joseph was trying to tell you.

A soldier calls an airstrike on his own position to destroy a vital enemy target. Is the soldier committing the sin of suicide? Furthermore, assume that the pilot knows he is raining death and destruction onto his own comrade-in-arms; does that make him a murderer? In both cases, I'd say no, the soldier (and the pilot) are making one of the hard choices that sometimes arise during war. It isn't nice, but I don't think it's necessarily immoral either.

(No more immoral than anything else that happens during war, but that's another topic altogether.)

Snape's killing of Dumbledore was the same as the pilot's airstrike. He killed a comrade-in-arms to prevent an enemy from gaining a powerful asset. By doing so, he put himself at enormous risk ... and eventually was killed for it.
Naaman | 08.27.07 - 2:01 pm | #

Thanks, Dawn. I get lucky sometimes.

But what's more - If I am right that the net result of the Harry Potter books is evil, that probably means that everything good in the books is simply seduction into that evil.
Silly Interloper | 08.27.07 - 2:03 pm | #

Naaman, the suicide/murder pact was premeditated. (Even if it wasn't, it would still be wrong.) It's as if you are telling us we can abort the child as long as we knew someone else was going to anyway. It's really, really bad rationalization.

No matter how much you try to compare it with military conditions, you still have a suicide/murder pact - and you are still trying to justify it with your rationalizations. (A suicide/murder pact would also be immoral in whatever military scenario you cook up.)

Adding your voice to those who want to *defend* books that promote the justification of a murder/suicide pact simply adds power to my belief that the net result of these books is *evil*. The more who defend it - the more my fears are verified.
Silly Interloper | 08.27.07 - 2:31 pm | #

When Rowling errs thematically it is usually the error Interloper notes: letting certain evils stand unchallenged.

Well - I'm going to nitpick a little here, but in the interest of clarity, not to pick on you, nightfly.

I don't think you are technically dealing with a "thematic" error. A thematic error probably means something that departs from the theme while intending to deal with it.

These are *moral* errors.

As far as simply letting evil things go unchallenged, I think it goes farther than that. It is a demonstration of evil as if it were good (or at least "okay"). It is a lie (whether she intended it to be, or not), and the message the kids are going to walk away with is: The ends do justify the means -- including things as horrible as a suicide/murder pact.

The *heroes* of our children - the characters they respect and love - are consequetialists. Clearly so.
Silly Interloper | 08.27.07 - 2:43 pm | #

I wrote: (A suicide/murder pact would also be immoral in whatever military scenario you cook up.)

By the way - there are probably several nuances in the military scenarios under discussion that *do not* exist in the HP example. However, if you reveal all the nuances, and the military scenario in question still contains a suicide/murder pact -- it's still immoral, and it's certainly not something we want our children to learn.
Silly Interloper | 08.27.07 - 2:45 pm | #

S.I.:
You haven't really shown what's wrong with the military analogy Naaman and I are using, you've just said that since it involves suicide it is immoral. Haven't you ever heard of a military "suicide mission"? That's one where the death of the soldier carrying it out is likely if not certain, but such missions are not inherently immoral.
Joseph | 08.27.07 - 5:11 pm | #

Joseph,
I didn't have to deal with the analogy because it isn't relevant. There are nuances about the bombing that are not present in the murder/suicide of Dumbledore. For example, bombing the enemy with the soldier in the area is not a direct attack upon the soldier, and there is possibility for him to escape--especially if he knows it's coming. There are other nuances as well that would make it worth thinking through with a lot more depth. It could be a long discussion in itself.

However -- these nuances do not apply to the direct murder/suicide of Dumbledore, and the murder/suicide is unambiguous and explicit. I don't have to deal with your analogy to understand this. I can also understand that if your analogy stripped to its basics and with all nuances clarified is murder/suicide by the soldier(s) -- it is immoral. So, you have your answer --if it plays out as murder suicide, it's wrong, if it doesn't play out as murder/suicide it isn't wrong **for those reasons**. (It might be wrong for *other* reasons.)

If a suicide mission is inherently suicidal (such as a kamikazee), it is immoral. The vast majority of the "suicide" missions are not inherently "suicide" missions because the soldiers may succeed in survival, and they virtually always intend to survive. High risk of death does not equal suicide.

What I see here is a desperate fishing trip to find some military comparison that can justify a murder/suicide pact in a children's book. It can't be done. If you find a scenario that matches the Potter one - it will reveal to us that the military scenario is immoral, not that the Potter scenario is "okay" after all. My best favor to you is to derail this military analogy approach, because it is only encouraging you to avoid what is *actually there* in the books: A premeditated suicide/murder pact explicitly intended as a suicide/murder pact.

It amazes me how tenaciously good Christians defend that. The seduction must be powerful, indeed.
Silly Interloper | 08.27.07 - 5:38 pm | #

You still haven't addressed my point. A mortally wounded soldier calling in an airstrike on his own position is *asking his fellow soldier to drop a bomb directly on his coordinates, which they both know will kill him*. The analogy seems correct. Dumbledore did not make a "murder/suicide pact" with Snape, because if events had played out differently that scenario need not have come to pass. Their planning for that contingency was essentially the same as the soldier on the dangerous mission planning with his unit to have a bomber ready on call whether or not the soldier, having encountered the enemy, would be able to escape.

I resent your criticism of my "tenaciousness" -- I have already admitted that ONE of Harry's wrong actions is improperly given implicit support by the author (an action which has not been criticized by any other commentator to my knowledge, but which I was "un-seduced" enough to notice!), but I just don't see why my analogy fails to apply in the case of the Dumbledore/Snape plan. The bombardier's action is indeed a *direct* killing of the soldier, since the bomb is dropped directly on the soldier's coordinates -- that his enemy captors are in the vicinity and are also likely to be casualties is the justification, but it's still a direct killing.

If I thought that that particular military scenario was wrong, I would have to agree with you; but you need to pass judgment on that particular clearly described scenario, which you have been avoiding.

Your condemnation of kamikazi attacks as wrong simply because they were kamikazi attacks fails to take into account that the suicide bombers were acting on the unjust side of that war. Suppose the only way to stop an enemy bomber flying toward your city is to ram it with your own plane, ensuring destruction for both yourself and the bomber; is that "suicide", and is it justified?
Joseph | 08.27.07 - 6:47 pm | #

You still haven't addressed my point.

Yes, I have. (But I spell it out even more below.)

If I thought that that particular military scenario was wrong, I would have to agree with you; but you need to pass judgment on that particular clearly described scenario, which you have been avoiding.

Ahem. Telling you that I have not figured out every variable to a scenario and have not thought it through completely is not the same thing as avoiding your challenge, sir. Additionally, it wasn't necessary, and you had not demonstrated that it was necessary.

If you state it explicitly that the bombers (or he who gives the orders) and the soldier have an understanding that they will obliterate a piece of ground upon which the soldier stands -- assuming there are no other nuances, which I don't at this point -- it is probably immoral.

What is annoying here is that you didn't have to put me to the question again. I said explicitly: "So, you have your answer --if it plays out as murder/suicide, it's wrong, if it doesn't play out as murder/suicide it isn't wrong **for those reasons**." Therefore, if you pound it into a shape where it can only be a suicide/murder pact (a dubious notion in itself) -- it is immoral. The question was already answered for you, but instead of accepting the answer, you tell me I'm avoiding the question. If you aren't going to take me seriously -- I don't see any point in having an extended discussion explaining to you ad nauseum that you should take me seriously.

Again -- I'm not 100% positive we have worked out the nuances of your military situation, but my answer and the fact that I have addressed your point should be obvious to you now. But it is also obvious (at least to me) that you are simply trying to push the military scenarios as far as you can get them to see if you can justify a suicide/murder agreement, so that you can use that analogy to justify the much more obvious suicide/murder pact of Dumbledore and Snape. You are searching for opportunities to be a consequentialist.

The fact that the pact in HP was contingent, as you point out, is beside the point. The pact was there, and it played out. The fact that he was near death does not change the fact that it was murder.

A kamikazi attack is immoral regardless of which side it is on, and regardless of whether or not your side is just. If you in your plane intentionally choose to engage in a suicidal attack (as opposed to doing his best to knock the other plane out of the air without committing suicide), then it is immoral.

But again -- the Dumbledore and Snape suicide/murder pact is far more obvious, and much less difficult to figure out. You are, in point of fact, doing your best to justify a suicide/murder pact.
Silly Interloper | 08.27.07 - 7:58 pm | #

Righty-ho. Well, let's wait a few years and then start counting the number of kids who grow up to euthanize their former teachers or current bosses. Then we'll ask them what role, if any, Harry Potter or J.K. Rowlings had to play in their decision.

While we are at it, let us create in advance a "control group" of soldiers who put horribly wounded friends out of their agony on the battlefield. (We'll leave out any who have read the Harry Potter books.)
Seraphic Single | Homepage | 08.27.07 - 10:03 pm | #

Ah. I see Seraphic Single is of the mind that reading has no effect on an individual, and that children are never influenced by what they read.

Hm. As dubious as the implication is, I don't think the open sarcasm helps it any.

(And, if I misinterpreted you, I apologize, but that's bound to happen when you throw around unsubstantive sarcasm.)
Silly Interloper | 08.27.07 - 10:16 pm | #

SI - I accept your picked nit, and don't mind at all. My distinction was meant to specifically distinguish the error from mere flaws in the writing; well-written yet wrong as compared to clunky but correct. In doing so I made a clunker myself - "moral" is a better word than "thematic." ("The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and lightning bug." -Mark Twain)

Again, I'm learning by watching; probably moreso by not having shoved my oar in while it has been happening.

Just in passing, I note that, when Dumbledore first suggested that Snape wanted to die at his hand, it was specifically to spare Draco the crime. Snape's reaction was immediate: "And what of the damage to MY soul?" (I always liked Severus.) Snape was always the hardest on Harry's rulebreaking ways, as well.

The other thing that has to be mentioned: if Dumbledore's intent was rather to ensure that the Elder Wand would not fall to Draco, then he failed spectacularly, since he let Draco disarm him and thus become the new master of the Elder Wand. The consequence is, Snape becomes a target needlessly because he has killed Dumbledore and thus Lord Thingy is fooled into killing him to master the wand.

That's bad enough if Dumbledore simply screwed up, but it seems about certain that he knew that just being defeated in a duel would make Draco the new master - for he defeated Grindlewald without killing him, and became the Wand's master. And yet he didn't GIVE the wand to Draco (which wouldn't work). It seems much more likely that the otherwise admirable old gent totally hosed Snape by intentionally making him Lord Thingy's target, simply trusting that Thingy would either NOT find out or would NOT be able to kill Snape. It's a horrible risk to take, especially since he could never have arranged for Harry to disarm Draco and thus become the Wand's true owner.

This means (to me) that Rowling didn't close up a major plot hole, or that she didn't think through the ramifications of Dumbledore's strategy. The plot hole problem was what chiefly bugged me when I read book 7 (I had decided at the end of book 6 that Snape had been following Dumbledore's orders); the moral aspect of it was troubling, but I confess that I mentally edited it. I presumed that Dumbledore had wished not to be a danger to the others due to the curse and that Snape was protecting the school, unaware at the moment that Dumbledore had been disarmed. (Habit of mine, I'm afraid - I rewrite stuff that doesn't make any sense to me.)

That raised another question in my mind, too, that Rowling seems to have overlooked completely. If Draco disarms Dumbledore, and flees immediately with Snape - how is the Elder Wand returned and buried with Dumbledore? If Snape took it and returned it, then he WAS the master of the Wand. I think that Rowling needed Draco to "win" the Wand AND needed Lord Thingy not to have to win it himself, and forgot to resolve the difference.

And in any case, Snape could have stunned or disarmed, so I'm splitting unicorn hairs here.
Nightfly | Homepage | 08.28.07 - 12:26 am | #

Just in passing, I note that, when Dumbledore first suggested that Snape wanted to die at his hand, it was specifically to spare Draco the crime.

Clunker #2 - and boy is it a doozy.

That should read, "...when Dumbledore first suggested TO Snape THAT HE wanted to die at his hand,..."

Preview is my friend!
Nightfly | Homepage | 08.28.07 - 12:29 am | #

S.I., I think your basic error is failure to distinguish war from other situations in which killing occurs. You reveal this by your reaction to my example of a bomber plane about to rain death and destruction on a city, which is thwarted by a defensive plane "suicidally" ramming it.

There are many other examples in war of a soldier intentionally taking an action which results in his own death, in order to save his comrades or destroy the enemy. Soldiers often receive posthumous medals of honor for such actions. It is the difference between suicide and martyrdom. Your view that such actions are always immoral, even when one is fighting a "just war", seems to deny the possibility of self-sacrifice in a military context.

I am not saying that this is exactly the situation with Dumbledore and Snape; rather, I am trying to establish your moral ground rules by pushing the military analogy. If you accept that SOMETIMES it is legitimate to sacrifice one's own life to achieve a military objective, THEN we can discuss whether the particular case of Dumbledore and Snape falls into that category -- in my opinion it does, but that is a very "close question".

However, we will never be able to come to agreement on whether the distinctions between the Dumbledore/Snape case and the "mortally wounded soldier calling in an airstrike case" are critical, if you don't think that self-sacrifice in a military context is ever legitimate. (And it is self-sacrifice that is the issue, whether Snape was right to kill Dumbledore depends on whether Dumbledore was right to sacrifice himself, because if it was right for Dumbledore to do it it was right for Snape to help him.)
Joseph | 08.28.07 - 12:41 am | #

Nightfly, you missed a point -- When Draco disarmed Dumbledore the wand flew over the battlement and down to the ground, in the same place Dumbledore's body fell a few minutes later, out of the reach of the Death Eaters. There were several other reasons Dumbledore thought it was a military necessity for Snape to kill him at that point, even though the wand was no longer at issue.
Joseph | 08.28.07 - 12:46 am | #

Again, the fact that you - who I presume to be a good Christian - are in fact *defending* books that promote the justification of a murder/suicide pact simply affirms my belief that the net result of these books is *evil*. If they affect our adults this much - how much are they affecting our kids?

Now that isn't so Silly. Game, set, and match.

Folks: in no case in wartime is it ever morally licit for a soldier to intentionally and directly kill his fellow solders on the same side. That's not OK, ever.

Silly's point about the lengths adults are going through to justify this is unanswerable. The best answer would be "yes, but I'll talk to my kids about how that and Harry using the unforgivable curses was wrong". That might make Silly's contentions about the consequentialist influence here have less punch. But the kiddies aren't just going to learn moral consequentialism from Rowling. They are going to learn it from all the adults defending Rowling.
Zippy | Homepage | 08.28.07 - 1:18 am | #

Also, even if we presume that Snape is not intentionally killing Dumbledore (which I understand from Silly's description to be dubious), the act is still evil under the principle of double-effect. In double-effect it can be OK for an act to have both good and bad effects, as long as the bad effect isn't intended (and other criteria are met). But the bad effect cannot be the cause of the good effect: we may not use evil means to achieve a good end. If I understand correctly, and Dumbledore's death caused the desired effect on the wand, was a means to achieve the desired end, then this case slam-dunk fails the double-effect test.

Consequentialism, period.
Zippy | Homepage | 08.28.07 - 1:50 am | #

Zippy:
1) "Not OK ever" means that in my example, the bomber pilot should not drop the bomb on the coordinates his mortally wounded comrade has called in, because it will directly kill the comrade as well as the enemy. "Not OK ever" means that even if a soldier may sacrifice himself to accomplish a mission or save comrades, no other soldier on the same side may take action cooperating with this. If you are correct, that means I am wrong about Dumbledore and Snape; but it also means that the traditions of honor our military cherishes are wrong, since soldiers have been honored many times for such acts.

2) You're not applying the double effect test to the right facts. The effect of Dumbledore's death on the wand was not relevant at that point. What was relevant was that Draco would be saved, and that Snape would not be exposed as a double agent, preserving hi ability to help Harry defeat Voldemort. Those were not direct consequences of Dumbledore's death, the bad effect was not the cause of the good effect.
Joseph | 08.28.07 - 2:25 am | #

Joseph, I will deal with this more tomorrow, but I will make one clarification right now.

It is a *fact* that Dumbledore and Snape had an agreement that at some point Snape would kill him. First of all it was for the purpose of saving the boy from the wrath of Voldemort--not to save Draco's soul. The assumption was that the boy would fail in killing Dumbledore. Later it was revealed that there was another purpose--to pass the wand on to Snape. (Held back, no doubt, for dramatic revelation--but an intended and planned purpose nonetheless.) All three of these things - saving him from V's wrath, saving his soul, and passing the wand to Snape (as well as preserving Snapes allegiances) - were in fact *caused* by the murder, thereby failing the double-effect test.

As it actually played out, Draco did, indeed, fail to carry out the murder--the boy didn't have it in him. Snape stepped in and killed Dumbledore after it was already established that Draco wasn't gettin' there. So it seems the immediate purpose at the scene was either to save Draco, to get Snape the wand, or both.

Whatever the case, the murder/suicide was the cause of all of the possible effects that you mention. However you slice it, dice it, and rationalize it, it's consequentialism. Why you shun calling your continuous defense of the murder/suicide pact "tenacious," I cannot fathom.
Silly Interloper | 08.28.07 - 3:13 am | #

Snape did NOT know about the wand. Dumbledore intended that he get it but never told Snape, so that doesn't implicate Snape. The "good effects" of preserving Snape's cover and his life, and saving Draco (I did not specify whether I was referring to Draco's life or his soul) were consequences of Snape's act, and the "bad effect" of hastening Dumbledore's death was also a consequence of Snape's act, but the good effects were not consequences of the bad effect (Snape's cover would have been preserved even if he had somehow failed to kill Dumbledore because the Death Eaters would have seen him attempt to).

I think this is a very close question, and what is critical for me is the military context, which you have again failed to address. You keep repeating "murder/suicide pact" as if that settles the matter, but I am challenging the appropriateness of this term in a military context. You need to say whether my example of "calling in an airstrike on one's own position" DOES or DOES NOT involve "suicide" by the soldier and "murder" by his bomber colleague.

Does it, or doesn't it? If you say "does", I reply that our disagreement is fundamentally about the law of war, and I take the "conventional" position while you take an unorthodox one. If you say "doesn't", then I am pleased that we agree that military self-sacrifice need not be "suicide" and assisting it need not be "murder", but then the onus is on you to delineate how Snape differs from the bomber in my example.
Joseph | 08.28.07 - 4:01 am | #

"Not OK ever" means that in my example, the bomber pilot should not drop the bomb ...

Not necessarily (though it may be the case) because the acts are not analogous. In the case of the bomb, the bad effect doesn't cause the good effect.
Zippy | Homepage | 08.28.07 - 6:59 am | #

(And that leaves aside whether Snape killed Dumbledore versus whether Dumbledore's death was merely an unintended side effect of Snape's act).
Zippy | Homepage | 08.28.07 - 7:03 am | #

Was killing D part of S and D's plans? Would S and D's plans have been thwarted if D didn't die? Would your plans be thwarted if your comrade, on whom you dropped the bomb, survived?

There are some cases (e.g. the bombing) which may require a nuanced understanding of the object of the act. I don't think this is one of them.
Zippy | Homepage | 08.28.07 - 7:10 am | #

I certainly do believe that books influence children. But for all that, I will still read my nephew Cinderella, including the part where the stepsisters cut their toes off, and Snow White and Hansel and Gretel and all the other stories where aging women meet horrible gruesome ends.

One thing for sure: children wouldn't understand this combox conversation at all. And by the time they can, they will be old enough to qualify for the extremely rare and gut-wrenchingly horrible task of euthanizing someone in war-time. Because that is what the Snape/Dumbledore pact came down to, and Snape is highly critical of it at first. The act itself was done in a moment of terror, and it saved a child's life. And, frankly, I don't think Snape was completely rehabilitated in the book. He did what he did out of a long-burning (and not entirely selfless)passion for a women. And his affection for her did not at all extend to her family. He's still dodgy; just not as dodgy as we all thought.

In short, forbidding children access to Harry Potter is akin to forbidding children from playing in the park because of germs, dogs and the odd creep who shows up. The evils of forbidding children HP may outweigh the risks you are associating with reading it.
Seraphic Single | Homepage | 08.28.07 - 9:27 am | #

Seraphic: My own view is that if a parent explains that both Dumbledore and Snape did moral wrong in their murder-suicide plot, that although under duress they still objectively should not have done it, that would mitigate to a significant degree the effects on children that Silly is talking about and might even turn it into a "teaching moment" for them. But how many parents are going to do that? How many even believe it to be true?

(Ditto with the "unforgivable curses". The whole business of unforgivable curses being forgivable as long as it is Harry who does them for a good reason doesn't just teach kids to be consequentialists; it teaches them to be little postmoderns, swimming around in a world of infintely plastic language where words can mean the opposite of what they say if you want them to).
Zippy | Homepage | 08.28.07 - 9:50 am | #

I have little time this AM, but here is some enlightening text taken from the book.

{Dumbledore speaking} "Ultimately, of course, there is only one thing to be done if we are to save him from Lord Voldemort's wrath."
Snape raised his eyebrows and his tone was sardonic as he asked, "Are you intending to let him kill you?"
"Certainly not. You must kill me."
There was a long silence, broken only by an odd clicking noise. Fawkes the phoenix was gnawing a bit of cuttlebone.
"Would you like me to do it now?" asked Snape, his voice heavy with irony. "Or would you like a few moments to compose an epitaph?"
"Oh, not quite yet," said Dumbledore, smiling. "I daresay the moment will present itself in due course. Given what has happened tonight," he indicated his withered hand, "we can be sure that it will happen within a year."
"If you don't mind dying," said Snape roughly, "why not let Draco do it?"
"That boy's soul is not yet so damaged," said Dumbledore. "I would not have it ripped apart on my account."
"And my soul, Dumbledore? Mine?"
"You alone now whether it will harm your soul to help an old man avoid pain and humiliation," said Dumbledore. "I ask this one great favor of you, Severus, because death is coming for me as surely as the Chudley Cannons will finish bottom of this year's league…."

The fact that they have a suicide/murder pact is unambiguous here. You can muddle up the "why," but the pact is clear.

The actual act was also not ambiguous. Every child who reads Harry Potter knows that the Avada Kedavra curse is the Unforgivable Curse that kills. Snape killed Dumbledore using that curse. The death was NOT an unintended consequence. It was the object of the act.

Here's an additional nugget from Harry speaking to the dead Dumbledore while h