CCBC-Net Archives
Harry Potter and the Haters -Reply
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Maia <maia>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 12:31:01 -0500
Roger, thank you for the reference to the fflibraries website. The aspect of their review that I found most interesting was the focus on Witchcraft, Wicca, and Neo-Pagans. Last night my mother-in-law asked me what I thought of the Harry Potter books; sh e's a middle-school teacher who hasn't read any of them yet. I tried to express my mixed feelings without going into too much detail, and when I mentioned the darker sides of HP, she said "Oh, you mean the witchcraft?"
Um, well, no. Just what is this idea about witchcraft and HP? The review at fflibraries cites the Narnia series as Christian literature, yet one might as easily call Susan or Lucy Pevensie witches for their use of magic horns and vials. Or Edmund and Eustace warlocks for their magical transportation devices. Polly and Digory use magical rings.... I could go on and on but I won't. The review at fflibraries says, "Although these Potter books are not religious instruction manuals, they celebrate Witchc raft through entertainment." I'm perplexed, because the world of Harry Potter doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to that of Wiccans.
Regardless, it dismays me that (once again) the more absurd voices of the Christian right have been represented so loudly in the press, because I think that the opportunity for an intelligent discussion is being lost. I worry that perhaps for anyone to express anything but admiration is to gain the mark of a censor.
(The scarlet C?) Even to quote Kathleen's opening remarks: "Ginny Kruse has observed that one of the things that makes Harry Potter's popularity different from, say, R.L. Stine or Animorphs, is that the Harry Potter books are adult-sanctioned (with the exception of some would? censors)."
I wasn't going to speak at this point this month, but I confess that Roger's expressed isolation and Kathleen's remarks together brought me some concern -- if those who aren't thrilled with Harry are already being marked as censors, then where can we go with the conversation this month? (If we started from this position last month, would we have made it anywhere at all?) Can we back up a little, so that the validity or invalidity of positions may be judged fairly?
Maia
p.s. I'm so pleased that HB will be coming forth with an article about the conservative Christian perspective on fantasy. It also occurs to me to point out that although the conservative voice is often the most heard in the media (it makes for a good st ory), it is also a minority position. Also, a significant portion of Christian literature is filled with mysticism, magic and metaphor -- and many of the 'classic' fantasists were Christians. Doesn't this suggest that the issue is complex - and isn't we ll represented by the media soundbites we've heard?
Roger Sutton wrote:
on Harry.
Received on Fri 05 Nov 1999 11:31:01 AM CST
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 12:31:01 -0500
Roger, thank you for the reference to the fflibraries website. The aspect of their review that I found most interesting was the focus on Witchcraft, Wicca, and Neo-Pagans. Last night my mother-in-law asked me what I thought of the Harry Potter books; sh e's a middle-school teacher who hasn't read any of them yet. I tried to express my mixed feelings without going into too much detail, and when I mentioned the darker sides of HP, she said "Oh, you mean the witchcraft?"
Um, well, no. Just what is this idea about witchcraft and HP? The review at fflibraries cites the Narnia series as Christian literature, yet one might as easily call Susan or Lucy Pevensie witches for their use of magic horns and vials. Or Edmund and Eustace warlocks for their magical transportation devices. Polly and Digory use magical rings.... I could go on and on but I won't. The review at fflibraries says, "Although these Potter books are not religious instruction manuals, they celebrate Witchc raft through entertainment." I'm perplexed, because the world of Harry Potter doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to that of Wiccans.
Regardless, it dismays me that (once again) the more absurd voices of the Christian right have been represented so loudly in the press, because I think that the opportunity for an intelligent discussion is being lost. I worry that perhaps for anyone to express anything but admiration is to gain the mark of a censor.
(The scarlet C?) Even to quote Kathleen's opening remarks: "Ginny Kruse has observed that one of the things that makes Harry Potter's popularity different from, say, R.L. Stine or Animorphs, is that the Harry Potter books are adult-sanctioned (with the exception of some would? censors)."
I wasn't going to speak at this point this month, but I confess that Roger's expressed isolation and Kathleen's remarks together brought me some concern -- if those who aren't thrilled with Harry are already being marked as censors, then where can we go with the conversation this month? (If we started from this position last month, would we have made it anywhere at all?) Can we back up a little, so that the validity or invalidity of positions may be judged fairly?
Maia
p.s. I'm so pleased that HB will be coming forth with an article about the conservative Christian perspective on fantasy. It also occurs to me to point out that although the conservative voice is often the most heard in the media (it makes for a good st ory), it is also a minority position. Also, a significant portion of Christian literature is filled with mysticism, magic and metaphor -- and many of the 'classic' fantasists were Christians. Doesn't this suggest that the issue is complex - and isn't we ll represented by the media soundbites we've heard?
Roger Sutton wrote:
on Harry.
Received on Fri 05 Nov 1999 11:31:01 AM CST
