Harry Potter, Part Two

Okay, so here's what we think about the Harry Potter books.

First, that there is a good deal of magic that specifically references witches and wizards, although it is highly fantastical and not, in my opinion, likely to be confused with the real thing. A more insidious danger is that because of the fantastical and sometimes comical nature of it, less discerning readers may be lulled into forgetting the seriousness of the real thing. It's not a handbook for witchcraft, so there's no danger that children will accidentally find themselves practicing it, and there is an attempt to differentiate between magic for good and the "Dark Arts" (but yes, of course I know that Christians know that even witchcraft for "good" is still a sin).  So on the one hand, I don't consider this "witchcraft" in the truest sense. But on the other, I would still be uncomfortable with children spending time imagining and acting out the Harry Potter world, which is why those of my children who still like to immerse themselves in fantasy worlds won't be reading it, but why I felt comfortable with my decision to let an older, more mature child do so.

Second, the best thing I got out of reading Harry Potter was that it did make me think about what's really in a name. As I read, I thought, "It really is good storytelling - I wonder what it would be like if the wizardry was removed and replaced with something else less obvious. It would still be a good story. It would something like...I don't know, the Percy Jackson series. Fantasy, beyond-human powers...the magic is just not so overt. I guess." Except is it really all that different, when fantastical powers are called magic, and in another case are pretty much the same thing, just not called the same thing? And what if a thing is called the same thing - a wizard in Harry Potter, versus the wizards in Lord of the Rings? Do different qualities change the meaning enough so that the form is more acceptable in one case but not in the other. And the answer, for me, is...yes and no. One the one hand, it really doesn't matter what something is called. If it is a practice to be avoided, it doesn't matter what it's called and whether it's named or not. So it is highly inconsistent for believers to shun Harry Potter with vehemence, but thoughtlessly allow or even embrace books, movies, and events (sorry, but Halloween? with roots in actual witchcraft and pagan practices?) that contain very similar themes that just don't have the same labels. On the other hand, how a subject matter is treated and presented does make a difference. In the Percy Jackson series, for instance, the worship of false gods isn't being promoted, the "gods" themselves are highly caricatured, and the whole idea of gods and demigods really just serves as a backdrop for a larger story, in which fairly noble character traits are explored and achieved. (Please note - I'm not suggestion that the Percy Jackson books are examples and great literature with only noble themes. It is mostly just a fun fantasy series.)

Now, I'm not a fan of making every story and every character a morality lesson, but the nature of characters in a story does matter to me in evaluating the whole of book or a series of books. And I will say that character is something that bothers me more than the use of the words "witchcraft" and "spells" in the Harry Potter series. There's not much integrity among the main characters. They regularly lie and cheat, usually in "little" ways, but there's hardly any internal struggle to do that which is right and good simply for the sake of goodness itself. There is a stark difference between characters who are "mean" versus ones who are "nice" - eg Draco Malfoy versus pretty much anyone else. Bullying and name-calling is clearly represented as "bad," but even the "good" characters react to this meanness with bitterness and vengefulness, rather than in attempts to combat it with actual truth and goodness. And if they lose tempers and strike out at the bullies, they don't regret their own actions, but rather the fact that ends proved not worth the means. And nearly every adult is virtually useless in this  rather ruthless schoolyard atmosphere. Hardly any of them champion or mete out justice. And in most, if not all, of the situations, the internal struggle in the characters between what it is right and wrong is related to how it affects the success of a particular adventure or quest. That, to me, is the biggest strike against the Harry Potter books.

Is it a collection of well-crafted stories? Yes, I think so. It's intriguing, the characters are interesting and have some depth, and while the first book seems most heavily concentrated with terms of magic and the world of training wizards, subsequent books are more about the journey of the characters through adventure and mystery. Is it worth all the controversy that has surrounded it since its beginning? I don't know. It's important to make good decisions in faith on anything and everything we do, read, watch, and enjoy. Just because something has a particular label doesn't automatically make it worse than other things that may be just slightly watered-down versions of the same thing. On that note, just because "it gets kids to read," or is fun, or is something "everyone" else is reading - or NOT reading, on the flip side - isn't a reason to read, or not read, it. Read it. Don't read it. But use discernment in your choice, as you should in every situation, and then let it be.



PS As to the question of whether it is just the same thing as reading about wizards in books like Lord of the Rings...well, that's just rubbish. It's not even in the same category. The subject of wizards in books like that could fill volumes, of course (and has), but the fact is that books like that are in an entirely different league, in the first place. In the second place, personally, I think wizards like Gandalf are types that represent far more than the label placed on them. And third, it is quite true that magic in Lord of the Rings and others like it, is highly downplayed, and far more attention placed on "ordinary" characters who must act in noble and extraordinary ways. But again, whether one can read and enjoy them as a Christian should still be subject to discernment and decisions that came from faith, not simply from what one is told.