Sunspots 709

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

The Arts: Christianity: (and Education) Ken Schenck tells us 10 top reasons for going to a Christian college.

Relevant quotes from Queen Elizabeth's Christmas message, which included some preaching!

(and Science) David Heddle points out a serious problem for young-earth creationists -- how did so many species come about after the flood?


Education: NPR reports that many teachers are using the Harry Potter books in class. The series was published in the US about 20 years ago. (I have posted about the series, which I like, and think kids should be encouraged to read, here and elsewhere.)

Finance: Catherine Rampell says that the Trump administration's recent handling of the financial system is about as competent as if they had been the Keystone Kops.

The Motley Fool on the future of Social Security.

Politics: Catherine Rampell on how President Trump did not stick to agreements before he became President, and doesn't do so now.

Michael Gerson thinks the Wall is not a good idea. He says it's not a Reagan-like idea.

The Associated Press fact-checks the President on the children who have died while in Border Patrol custody, and, of course, he has twisted these facts.

Science: Listverse tells us about 10 strange species of birds, and their habits and appearance.

A clear and understandable guide to what CRISPR is, why it's important, and the possible dangers, in Vox. I thank one of my brothers for bringing this article to my attention.

Sports: I missed Bob Cousy's 90th birthday, in 2018. Here's a video of some of his best basketball passing. Amazing!


The graphic used in these posts is from NASA, hence, I believe, it is public domain.

Thanks for looking!

The Harry Potter series, revisited.

I recently re-read all seven of the Harry Potter books, by J. K. Rowling. I enjoyed reading them, and wish to give some reactions. Since Rowling exerted firm control over the movies, I'm not considering them, as such. They are mostly like the books. There are probably some spoilers in this post. Sorry.

1) There is a clear conflict between good, represented by Hogwarts Headmaster Albus Dumbledore, and evil, represented by Voldemort. Some of the magical people in the books are steadfastly good, some steadfastly evil. Some of them change camps. Harry, and others, are tempted to join the evil side. Harry's father apparently was a real rascal, and a bully, when he was in Hogwarts, the school for wizards, but he did stand up for good before he died. (Harry's parents died while he was still a baby, killed by Voldemort.)

Percy Weasley seeks power, and, because he does, rejects his parents and siblings, in order to curry favor with people in the Ministry of Magic. But he finally repents. Severus Snape seems to be an evil character through almost all seven of the books, but, in the end, Harry understands that he really was on the side of good all along.

There is some scripture, and some indications that some of the witches and wizards pray, in the book.

As of January 9, 2015, the Wikipedia article on the last book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, has a section on "Christian Allegories."

2) Rowling doesn't seem to like bureaucracies very much. Although there are good people who work in the Ministry of Magic, there are also a lot of bad ones.

3) Rowling is usually very good at naming. Dumbledore, Voldemort, and Snape are names that are perfect for their characters. Hogwarts, and the four Hogwarts Houses, Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw and Slytherin, are well named. Nearly Headless Nick is an inspired name (for a ghost). I think Rowling could have done a better job with the Deathly Hallows. The word Hallow has, for me at least, the connotation of holiness, and that isn't really what the Hallows were about. Pensieve also doesn't quite ring true, for me.

4) Rowling has a great imagination. The train to Hogwarts, Hogwarts itself, with its several classes on the practice of magic, the Sorting Hat, the ghosts, and the game of Quidditch, played on brooms, are some of the evidence for that. The entire wizard/witch culture, living in the midst of non-magical people, is also evidence. She is good on setting, plot, characterization and dialog. The plot can be especially intricate, but the reader doesn't have to understand the ins and outs of wand possession to grasp who is on the side of Voldemort, and who isn't.

The point of view seldom shifts. Most of the time, it's on Harry. If you end a chapter, usually the next one takes up where the previous one left off.

5) One of the attractions of the books, for young people, is that Harry, Hermione and Ron (and other Hogwarts students) do a lot of staying up after they should have been in bed. They also do a lot of exploring into places where they aren't supposed to go. They copy each other's schoolwork. Sometimes, they get punished for staying up too long, or trespassing, but mostly they don't. Some of the destruction of evil in the books would not have been possible without this sort of behavior.

6) For some reason, none of the many professors at Hogwarts seem to be married. Although the leading character, Harry, is male, there are many important female characters, such as Hermione Granger, Professor McGonagal, Dolores Umbridge, Luna Lovegood and Ginny Weasley and her mother, Molly. Not all of them are good. All of them are well developed.

7) The great moral questions in the books revolve around power, and its importance, and death, and its importance. At least four characters willingly enter situations where they are in danger of death, to advance the cause of good, and two of them die in these situations. Voldemort, the archvillian, has done everything that he can to keep from dying.
“There is nothing worse than death, Dumbledore!” snarled Voldemort. “You are quite wrong,” said Dumbledore . . . - Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. 1 Corinthians 15:26, that says that the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death, is on a tombstone, and Harry and Hermione reflect on it.

8) Although Harry can be proud, cheeky, devious, revenges some bad things done to him, and can question Dumbledore's judgment, he has his really good points. One of them is that he saves the lives of two contemporaries who have been really nasty to him. Those are Draco Malfoy and Dudley Dursley, his non-magical cousin. He stands up for Hagrid, the not-so-competent professor.

A few years ago, I posted my reactions to the books, in a comment on an interview of the author, J. K. Rowling, with Katie Couric. In that interview, Rowling said that her books were very moral, and not designed to encourage devil worship, black magic, and the like. In another post, I compiled a number of reactions, by Christians, to the books and movies. That post, "Is Harry Potter a bad influence, ii," is here. It has links to a couple of dozen sources. Some of them, especially those to Christianity Today, are, no doubt, now dead.

I agree with Rowling, mostly. (But see point 5, above.) The books are not designed to teach love of devil worship, black magic, and the like. They are coming of age novels, set in the environment of a wizard/witch subculture, mostly in the United Kingdom. The coming of age is more important than the magic that the young wizards and witches are taught at Hogwarts. (Wizards are male, witches female.)

The Wikipedia has extensive coverage of the books, and the movies. This article is probably the best place to start.

See Speculative Faith, which has some good posts on the matter of magic and Christianity. They include "The Christian Problem with Magic, 1," and the second part. Also "Deuteronomy 18 Witchcraft," which, among other things, points out that Elsa, from Frozen, is a witch, and a post that claims -- read it -- that some Christian parents practice white magic, especially near Halloween.

If you haven't read these books, you should. Thanks for reading this.

Sunspots 433

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

The Arts: Wired reports on how an artist has created art based on the movements of the London Underground (that's the subway, if you didn't know this.)

Christianity: E. Stephen Burnett heads an insightful discussion on whether the Harry Potter books teach occultism. (He doesn't believe so.) There are a lot of comments, almost all done in a respectful manner. Burnett says, among other things, that "trusting [occult practices] instead of God as a means to manipulate one’s world and control one’s life. (This is the goal behind any real occult/witchery attempts, including the infamous 'prosperity gospel' heresy.)"

Christianity Today reports that too many non-Christians don't even know a Christian.

Computing: A National Public Radio reporter allowed an MIT professor to examine the metadata from the reporter's Gmail account, in a way similar to how the NSA can use our metadata. The professor learned a lot, without reading any of the e-mail.

Education: None of the more than 24,000 students taking entrance exams for the University of Liberia obtained a score high enough for entrance.

Science: (And Philosophy, and Christianity) Books and Culture, sister publication to Christianity Today, has re-published an essay, by Karl Giberson, a physicist, about the theoretical work of Stephen Hawking.




Image source (public domain)

Job, Harry Potter and misery

If there is a God, and He is even close to all-powerful, why is there suffering? (If there is a god who isn't even close to being all-powerful, he, she, or it is not God.)

That's a very good question, and theologians and philosophers have been asking it, and trying to answer, for a long time. But it's pretty clear that none of the answers are fully satisfactory to everybody. This attempt won't be, either. (I have dealt with the topic before, here, and here, among other places.)

C. S. Lewis had two good answers. One of them was in his non-fictional book, The Problem of Pain. Here it is in one sentence: "Try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the existence of free-wills involve, and you will find that you have excluded life itself." The other, simpler, better answer is in his splendid novel, Till We Have Faces. The four-sentence answer there is "I know now, Lord, why you utter no answer. You are yourself the answer. Before your face questions die away. What other answer would suffice?" To me, a belief in an after-life is also an answer, but I won't say more about that here. I doubt if it's a full answer for almost anyone.

I'm sure that not everyone is satisfied with either of the answers given by Lewis. The question remains, for many.

One of the books of the Bible, Job, is about suffering. God, although sovereign, allowed Satan, the adversary, to take Job's possessions, his children, and his good health. (Satan said that, if he was allowed to do so, Job would lose his faith in God.) Job didn't like all this loss, and complained about what he didn't like for a few chapters. Other people, well-meaning, tried to tell Job that all this was his fault -- he must have done something bad. His wife told him to stop believing in God. Job refused to believe that his troubles were his fault, and he refused to stop believing in the goodness of God. But he still had a question. Why did this happen to me? In the end, God appeared to Job, and, basically, said, "Who are you to question me?" Job said, basically, "I'm sorry, you are right. Forgive me. I'll shut up." Then God restored his possessions, and he had more children. God told those who had questioned Job's righteousness to ask Job to pray for them. Satan doesn't make an appearance, after the very first part, but presumably he was seriously disappointed by Job's reaction. In many ways, the answer given Job is the same as the answer given in The Problem of Pain.

I don't know, for sure, if Job was a real character. He probably was, but I suppose that the book could be a long parable. I don't think it matters, for our purposes. The question remains -- why is there suffering, if there is a powerful and loving God?

I presume that you know enough about the Harry Potter books, by J. K. Rowling, that what I am about to say makes sense. If not, you  should read them, or at least the Wikipedia summary. (Here's one place where I have written about the books previously.)

Is J. K. Rowling a terrible person? After all, she wrote about a character, Harry Potter, who had to undergo a great deal of suffering. His parents died while he was still very small, he had to live with relatives, the Dursley's, who took advantage of him, and restricted him terribly. He went through all sorts of ordeals. Some of his best friends died. He felt that he and his two closest friends had to leave his wizard training at Hogwarts, and wander in the woods for an extended period of time, during which the three of them suffered the misery of disagreeing with one another, and doubting each other's motives. Harry's mentor, Dumbledore, died. Harry himself offered to die to save the good wizards.

Would people read these seven books, and watch the movies based on them, if Harry hadn't had to suffer? I don't think so. A life without conflict, without occasional misery, seems dull and uninteresting. (How much good news do you see on TV, or read in the newspaper, compared to scandals, natural disasters, wars, crimes, stupidity by various politicians, and other awful things? Not very much. The news organizations couldn't sell good news. We wouldn't buy it, or watch or read it.)

Rowling, to write a novel which speaks to us (or at least to some of us) included suffering, of various kinds. True, it wasn't all about suffering. In the end, Harry marries his sweetheart, and has children. He is at least on nodding terms with Draco Malfoy, who was once his bitter enemy. Voldemort and his followers are defeated. But I submit that Rowling, who had almost absolute power over the content of her books, including the plot, was not a bad person because she put many of her characters through terrible suffering. And she didn't put in characters, like Voldemort, who had, except possibly before the books start, no good characteristics, because she was not in control of what she wrote. She was.

Similarly, God is not a bad person, nor impotent, because there is misery in the world.

I know. The Harry Potter books are fiction. My life (I think) is real. So is yours. No analogy is perfect, and this one certainly isn't. But I think it helped me to write this post. Besides, I'm not so sure that the life of characters in a novel, in relationship to the author, doesn't resemble the relationship between our lives and the Creator.

Thanks for reading.

The Amazing Spiderman - comic book science

My wife and I recently saw The Amazing Spiderman. (Wikipedia article here, official website here.)

The film stars Andrew Garfield as high school nerd Peter Parker, whose parents died in an accident, apparently soon after they left young Peter Parker to live with his aunt and uncle. (Well-played by Sally Field and Martin Sheen, with some good lines, especially for Sheen.) Emma Stone plays Gwen Stacy, his high school classmate, who becomes his best friend. Garfield and Stone are both a little old for high school, but why not? I think they both did a good job as actors.

I don't wish to give away the plot, but will mention a few aspects of the film.

Parker/Spiderman is portrayed as on the side of good -- he wants to fight criminals. But his morals are not always perfect. In a glaring example, he takes an identification badge for a special science internship, which belongs to another student, from a table. When the other student arrives, he is forcibly escorted from the building. Parker shows no remorse, and pays no penalty. Presumably, his action might have cost the other boy a college scholarship. I was reminded of incidents in the Harry Potter books, where Harry, Hermione and Ron often break all sorts of rules, because they think they have to, to do what they want. Sometimes what they are doing is to help them defeat Voldemort. Sometimes it's just to have fun, or to get something they want.

The science in the film is comic book science -- impossible things, like regenerating a limb in a matter of minutes, take place. This is not surprising, since the movie is based on comic books. But we should be careful of comic book science.

I know, no one with any sense is going to consciously judge the scientific enterprise by what they read in comic books, or see in movies based on them. But, still, our mythology becomes part of us, whether we realize it or not, and whether or not it makes sense. Some aspects of comic book science are partly true, but mostly not so. The first is that a single scientist can produce a significant breakthrough in any field of science in a relatively short period. Most significant discoveries are made by teams, or made in more than one place at the same time. The second is that lots of beakers, retorts, tubing, and the like are needed to produce scientific breakthroughs. Sometimes, in some fields. But not in astronomy, or in much of ecology, for example. Third is the myth of the mad scientist. There are some scientists who have done some bad things, or want to do them, but scientists are no more likely to want to deliberately release evil upon humankind than, say, park rangers or kindergarten teachers. Most scientists are simply trying to do their job as best they can, and when ethical issues come up, I don't think they are more (or less) likely to make mistakes than anybody else.

Perhaps we should have more movies about mad bankers, or mad real estate tycoons.

One more aspect. There is a large tower, home of Osco, a bioengineering company, in the middle of Manhattan. Much of the action takes place there. According to the Wikipedia article, the director, Marc Webb, thought of this tower as a modern-day Tower of Babel.

Thanks for reading!

"How Christians Warmed to Harry Potter"

There's a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, entitled "How Christians Warmed to Harry Potter." It's by an on-line editor for Christianity Today.

Sunspots 295

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

Science: National Public Radio talks to a 10-year-old girl who discovered a supernova.

Sports: Wired reports that there was a real Quidditch world championship this year. (And it's not the first one!)

The Arts: Pantone has announced the Color of the Year. (Mostly for fashionable clothing.)
 

Image source (public domain)

Marriage and divorce at Hogwarts

In an earlier post, I commented briefly that no one at Hogwarts, the school where Harry Potter was trained as a wizard, seemed to be married. All the professors, or teachers, were single. Can anyone think of an exception? True, Hagrid had a courtship with a giantess, but didn't marry her. Also, Remus Lupin married after he was a professor. But no professor was professor while married, as far as I can recall.

It's not that Hogwarts is immune to physical attraction. There is plenty of that among the students.

It's not that J. K. Rowling didn't include married couples in the Harry Potter books. She did. The Dursleys, and Harry Potter's parents, both seemed not only married, but in love. Mr. and Mrs. Weasley are important characters, and they are married, and in love.

One thing that Rowling doesn't seem to have included is divorce. There is no mention of divorce among wizards, nor even among muggles (non-wizards). That's remarkable! Probably Rowling's own status as a single mother influenced this aspect of the book, but I'm not at all sure that it was the determining factor. The Dursleys, and the Weasleys, have some disagreements, but that's realistic. Would that wizardly influence, or good choices, would stamp out divorce in our real society.

On an unrelated topic, why do Rowling's wizards travel over much of the Old World, but they are not mentioned as being in the Western Hemisphere?

Thanks for reading.

I re-analyzed the Harry Potter series, in a post in early 2015, here.

Are the Harry Potter books Christian?

Are the Harry Potter books Christian novels? I'd like to muse about that. This post isn't exactly about the plot of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, but some important plot details may be given away below. You have been warned.

I have dealt with the subject of what makes a novel Christian at some length, here, setting forth criteria, etc. There are links, from that post, to analyses of some works of fantastic literature. I've been surprised at how difficult it is to assess some works of fine fiction, using my own criteria.

A lot has been written on the topic of the present post, and you can find wildly different answers. In part, I think, the authors are seeing themselves here. Dave Bruno, in Christianity Today, claims that "Harry Potter 7 is Matthew 6." Conversely, Christopher Hitchens wrote this in The New York Times Book Review:
Most interesting of all, perhaps, and as noted by Orwell, “religion is also taboo.” The schoolchildren appear to know nothing of Christianity; in this latest novel Harry and even Hermione are ignorant of two well-known biblical verses encountered in a churchyard. That the main characters nonetheless have a strong moral code and a solid ethical commitment will be a mystery to some — like his holiness the pope and other clerical authorities who have denounced the series — while seeming unexceptionable to many others. As Hermione phrases it, sounding convincingly Kantian or even Russellian about something called the Resurrection Stone: "How can I possibly prove it doesn’t exist? Do you expect me to get hold of — of all the pebbles in the world and test them? I mean, you could claim that anything’s real if the only basis for believing in it is that nobody’s proved it doesn’t exist." "The Boy Who Lived." (Posted Aug 10, official publication date Aug 12.) The Wikipedia article on Hitchens says that he is a determined atheist and antitheist.

Now to my criteria.
1) Is there a Christ-figure in the Harry Potter books? In the sense of sacrificing oneself, even offering one's life, for others, yes. Harry's parents seem to have done that. In the sense of giving one's life to atone for evil in others, I'm not so sure. Possibly Dumbledore, Snape, and even Harry might have done that, but it seems that they were fighting for good against evil, more than trying to redeem evil in others.

2) Is there belief in orthodox Christian doctrine?
The two verses mentioned by Hitchens are Matthew 6:21 and 1 Corinthians 15:26. Apparently Dumbledore had one, or both of these placed on gravestones. They are certainly about orthodox Christian doctrine, and Dumbledore must have believed them.

3) Practicing monotheistic prayer to a divine being is scarcely there, if at all. Harry says "Thank God" in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, and seems to mean it. (p.74) Molly Weasley says the same thing a few pages later. (p. 78) That's as close to prayer as I recall in the entire series, and of course it may not have been exactly prayer.

The inhabitants of Godric's Hollow are mostly wizards. Harry and Hermione come to the village, and some of them are at church. However, it's Christmas Eve, and lots of non-believers go to church in that season.

I don't recall any other evidence of worship (except the evil worship of the evil Voldemort) throughout the series.

4) Expressing a relationship with the God of Christianity seems to be entirely absent.

5) Consciousness of supernatural guidance seems also absent, unless Dumbledore is conscious of this as he watches Harry's life.

6) There is rejection of evil. The most dramatic is Snape's life as an agent of Dumbledore among the Death Eaters, in spite of his earlier loyalty to Voldemort. In the seventh book, several other characters show unexpected turns to the good, including Percy Weasley and Wormtail, and even Narcissa Malfoy and her son, Draco. Draco pretends not to know if Harry is really Harry, and Narcissa doesn't tell Voldemort that Harry is alive, when she knows that he is.

So, there are some elements in the Harry Potter books that might qualify them as Christian novels. But some elements seem entirely lacking. That's hardly surprising. At least two of these missing elements, the 3rd and 4th, are also missing in The Lord of the Rings, which many people say is a Christian work.

Thanks for reading.

* * * * *

On April 2, 2009, E Stephen Burnett wrote an essay, asking questions about how far a Christian author could go in writing fiction which has a God who is significantly different from the Christian God, and whether a Christian could legitimately create a fictional character who is in defiance of God. I posted tentative answers to these questions, which are related to the subject of the post above, on April 13, 2009.

* * * * *
In November, 2010, a writer, on the Christianity Today web site, suggests that the Harry Potter franchise is like Paul on Mars Hill -- engaging the culture for Christian values.

Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Star Wars.

I have discovered an essay on the similarities (and they are striking) between Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings, and Harry Potter. It also discusses C. S. Lewis's comments on Paradise Lost.

Thanks for reading.

Guest Comments on the Harry Potter movie

A regular reader, who doesn't blog, e-mailed me these comments on the current Harry Potter movie. I consider them worthy of posting. Thanks!

Character Problems: 1) Every scene in which we see Professor Snape is either played for comedy at the time or played for comedy later on in the movie. I was hopeful that there might be one scene that was not played for comedy, that is, when Snape says he knows Harry has been going through his private stores, but this too was used for comedy later on when Dumbledore turns to Snape after discovering Barty Crouch Jr. and says, "Now I guess we know who's been going through your stores, Severus," or whatever it is he says. Again comedy. Snape can be funny. I enjoyed the humor that he provided earlier in the movie, but I have to wonder what in the world they are going to do when they get to movie number 6.

2) They had several shots during which it is hard not to imagine a romantic tension between Harry and Hermione and they totally loused up the romantic tension between Hermione and Ron after the Yule Ball. She's not supposed to be as angry at him for getting in the way of her date with Krum as she is angry at him for not asking her to the ball himself and then sulking about it. And Harry agrees with her. Now, I know in the book, Harry just thought that Hermione was right and didn't say anything, but they could have really played that off better somehow in the movie. If Harry and Hermione ever kiss in these movies, I will not spend another penny on going to see them.

3) The actor who plays Dumbledore has not read the books. I would be willing to bet a good sum of money on this if I had any. The scene where Dumbledore comes after Harry after his name comes out of the goblet was way overacted. Dumbledore actually grabbed him and shook him while screaming. This will not get in the way of the later plot as much as the previous two issues, but I think it was a bad decision. Dumbledore would never endanger a student or be physically threatening to them in any way. The core motivation of his character is care for the students he teaches.

Theme Difficulties: The movie left out any part of the book that had to do with the strong persecuting the weak. It left out the fact that the death eaters did not in fact burn down the entire Quidditch camp. They did something which defines who they are much more clearly in the book. They tortured a muggle family. Also, there were no house elves in this movie. In the book, they play a major role, and along with the house elves, they left out everything about S.P.E.W. (Hermione's quest to create the Society for the Preservation of Elvish Welfare).

They did a similar butchering of the themes of book three by leaving out the fact that Harry's father is the same as Harry's patronus. They also took out a lot of the themes having to do with family in the third movie.

Plot Difficulties: My main problem with the plot is that they never even touched priori incantatem until the very end and at that point they only said the name. Anyone watching the movie who hadn't read the books would have no idea that, although this casting of it is spectacular, it is a normal spell that anyone can use to determine the last spells cast by any individual's wand.

Mad-Eye Moody

Anyone looking for Thanksgiving material, please see my previous post, which should be right under this one.

* * * * *

I recently saw Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Here are some musings on this movie:
The movie was well-done. My wife, who has not read the books, except the first, enjoyed it.

It's long, two and a half hours. I wonder how whoever does it is going to manage the next two books as single movies.

I don't have my copy of the book with me, but was surprised to not see the Dursleys at all. Perhaps they aren't in the book.

I have the same problem with the movie that I did with the book it is based on. That problem is this. I have a hard time swallowing that Mad-Eye Moody was impersonated for an entire school year, and by a person who presumably didn't have his knowledge or maturity. Looking like him, OK, but basically being him, and teaching his class, I can't see, especially when surrounded by Dumbledore and others who would have known the real Moody. I know, it's all magic, but even so, my disbelief just wouldn't suspend quite that far.

Thanks for reading.

Voldemort as sociopath: Evil in the Harry Potter books

Two days ago, I posted on this same subject, more or less (actually, it was about the evilness, or lack thereof, of Draco Malfoy) and received a comment by personal e-mail. I have asked, and obtained, permission to use it. The comment, slightly edited, follows:

Voldemort is definitely evil. if you want to find an evil character, you need look no further. I know that we all knew that Voldemort was evil from book one, but what has impressed me as a reader is the way that Rowling has developed his character. Having done some reading on sociopaths and serial killers, I can tell that Rowling has obviously done her homework. Even little things about Voldemort's character and the way he responds to his world as a young man growing up are classic sociopathic things...things that have been researched in real people. That impresses me. Even though Rowling is a writer of the fantastic, and Voldemort is the ultimate evil, the fact that she bases all of her characters, even Voldemort, on things that are characteristic of real people is what makes the stories so readable.

Thanks for the comment!

More on Draco Malfoy

A couple of months ago, I posted my take on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. In that post, I compared a choice made by Draco Malfoy to the choice made by Saruman, when Gandalf confronted him in his tower, after the fall of Sauron. (Which episode was, most unfortunately, left out of the Peter Jackson movie.)

This comparison hasn't sat well with one of my readers, who sees Malfoy as, at least in part, a victim of circumstances, and she has given me evidence, from J. K. Rowling's own mouth, that Draco isn't as totally despicable as I portrayed him. I guess I was looking for somebody totally and completely bad in the Potter series, and wasn't sure that Snape would fill that role, so fixed on Malfoy.

The evidence is in the second part of a long interview with Rowling, toward the bottom. Here's the most relevant part: "Harry is correct in believing that Draco would not have killed Dumbledore . . ."

Thanks, daughter!

More on Harry Potter and Rowling

I have now finished Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. There's a lot to chew on and digest in that thick book. A few thoughts (I'll refrain from predicting what comes next, and from giving away the plot.)

The author's achievement is impressive, if only because of its size. Whether J. K. Rowling had all this in her head from the beginning, or made much of it up as she went along, there's a lot of material in the six books published so far.

Harry, Hermione, and Ron, and their peers, are growing up. There is less juvenile rule-breaking, and more interest in courtship and love, as there should be, than in the earlier books. There's still a lot of deceit, by nearly everybody, except maybe Hagrid.

Loyalty, and the capacity to love, seem to be the principal virtues at Hogwarts, as they have been in the previous works.

There are some clear moral choices in these works. Probably the clearest in this book is this one:
". . . I can help you, Draco." "No, you can't," said Malfoy, his wand hand shaking very badly indeed. "Nobody can. He told me to do it or he'll kill me. I've got no choice." "He cannot kill you if you are already dead. Come over to the right side, Draco, and we can hide you more completely than you can possibly imagine. . . . Come over to the right side, Draco . . . you are not a killer. . . ." Malfoy stared at Dumbledore. "But I got this far, didn't I?" he said slowly. . . . "No, Draco," said Dumbledore quietly. "It is my mercy, and not yours, that matters now." Malfoy did not speak. His mouth was open, his wand hand still trembling. Harry thought he saw it drop by a fraction. ( pp. 591-2, J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, New York, Scholastic, 2005).

This exchange parallels the moral choice given to Saruman by Gandalf in J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, including the similar result--Draco Malfoy, like Saruman, is tempted, but rejects the opportunity to be on the good side.

I have previously posted on the Potter series here, here, and here.

* * * *

Added later in the day:

There seems to be less about the animals (familiars?) that accompany the scholars at Hogwarts in this book.

Why is there so little evidence of marriage, or courting, among the Professors at Hogwarts? Hagrid was attracted to a female earlier in the series, but I don't recall any other such attractions to any of the professors.

Thanks for reading.

Martin LaBar and the Half-Recycled Blog Post

I haven't read Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince yet, and don't expect to until the paperback comes out, or the local library finally gets to my name (the 52nd one, at the moment) on the request list.

There is some controversy in the blogosphere over whether the new pope (before he became pope) condemned Harry Potter or not. Jeffrey Overstreet has commentary on that at Christianity Today's Reel News. The current complaints against the books seem to mostly come from here.

I'm not convinced that the Rowling books are strictly tools of the devil*, and, more importantly, neither is everyone else. See here for an older post giving links on this topic.

Christianity Today has posted a chapter of John Granger's Looking for God in Harry Potter. (Granger thinks He can be found there.) The chapter is about the use of animals as symbols in Christianity, and in the Harry Potter books.

Beliefnet has a thought-provoking post on prophecy and Harry Potter, in particular, on how you might act if someone had prophesied about what you are supposed to do.

*A lot of things, including, say, blogging, if it prevents me from doing something else I should be doing, can be a tool of the devil.

Thanks for reading.

Is Harry Potter a bad influence? Part II

Part I presented a brief analysis of the relationship between reading/watching the Harry Potter books and the Christian life. In Part II, I present a selection of links to other sources.

Jerram Barrs of the MatthewHouse project, which is linked to the Frances Schaeffer Institute, writes about "Harry Potter and His Critics," addressing three criticisms issued against the books, namely that they encourage exploration of the occult, that they encourage rebellion against authority, and that any fantasy, not just these works, is dangerous. He goes on to explain why he likes the books, and, at least in part, deals with the criticisms. (The first page of this article has a web link to the second.)

Wizardry may be taken as a form of technology. Like technology, it can be used for good or evil, as it is shown in the Harry Potter books.

Steven Greydanus, of Decent Films, compares the uses of magic in the works of Rowling, J. R. R. Tolkien, and C. S. Lewis, at considerable length.

Douglas Leblanc, in Christianity Today, reflects on the film, and offers reasons why a continuing debate about Harry Potter among evangelicals isn't so bad.

Michael G. Mauldin, in Christianity Today Online, wonders why the positive reaction to Tolkien's Ring books, and the negative one to Rowling's Potter books, and suggests that they have a lot in common, and that if either has led people into the occult, it's Tolkien, not Potter.

Jeffrey Overstreet, in Christianity Today Online's May 6, 2002 article on Spider-Man, still upset about how some Christians accused Harry Potter, spends a paragraph comparing Spider-Man with Harry.

The Focus on the Family Organization has reviews of the first and second movies in Plugged In.

The Onion, an on-line humor magazine, published an article claiming that J. K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter books, was trying to promote Satanism, and that children, including children from Easley, SC, who had read the books, were becoming Satanists. The article also claimed that the American Family Association had condemned the books. Like all of The Onion's articles, this one was fiction. Unfortunately, this fictional article has been forwarded as the truth in e-mail many times. My guess is that the original forwarder knew that he was forwarding fiction, but I can't be sure. This is a disclaimer from the American Family Association.

The American Family Association has published an article by Berit Kjos, entitled "Twelve Reasons not to see the Harry Potter Movie."

Connie Neal has written a book (which I haven't read) entitled What's a Christian to Do with Harry Potter? which apparently says that the books are a great witnessing tool. Here's an excerpt from another book by Neal, The Gospel According to Harry Potter: Spirituality in the Stories of the World's Most Famous Seeker. which (The "World's Most Famous Seeker" part of the title strikes me as a bit too much). The second link in this paragraph is to an excerpt about Potter character Severus Snape as a stand-in for redeemed Christians. Neal agrees with me (independently--I didn't find her article until after I had written Part I) that we are probably going to learn more about Snape in books yet unpublished. I personally find Snape, Dumbledore and McGonagall at least as interesting as Harry, Hermione and Ron. (For anyone who needs reminding, Snape is the Potions Professor, a member of the house of Slytherin, who despises Harry, and is despised by him.)

Christianity Today book review "Virtue on a Broomstick," recommending Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

Christianity Today movie review of "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban," with some parental guidance material.

Christianity Today compilation of excerpts from the reviews of "Prisoner" by several Christian movie critics, positive and negative.

An analysis of the books from Christianfantasy.net, pointing out that "the HP books tend to promote rule-breaking, lying, and revenge." The author also points to holes in some of the plots.

A roundup of Christian opinion on the Harry Potter books from Christianity Today, including a positive statement from Charles Colson.

"Surrounded by Sorcery: 10 ways to protect kids in an occult-filled popular culture" from the Christian Reader, condensed from Today's Christian Woman, has some ideas on how to guide children in making choices.

Christianity Today isn't only pro-Potter. Here's an article "The Perils of Harry Potter."

An article, "Harry Potter and the Inklings: The Christian Meaning of The Chamber of Secrets," is posted on the George MacDonald web site. (George MacDonald was a Christian writer who wrote fantasy. C. S. Lewis said that MacDonald was a great positive influence on him. The article was originally presented to the New York C. S. Lewis Society.) John Granger, the author, claims that Rowling's writing is really complex and uses Christian symbols a lot, and is the modern equivalent of medieval morality plays. He has also self-published a book, The Hidden Key to Harry Potter: Understanding the Meaning, Genius, and Popularity of Joanne Rowling's Harry Potter Novels. The MacDonald site posting of the article includes chapter titles from the book. The Amazon page on this book includes a review which points out that the book is self-published, hence probably could use quite a bit of constructive criticism, and suggests that some of Granger's conclusions are real stretches. I haven't read the book, but suspect that the reviewer is correct.

Azusa Pacific University, a Christian institution, has published articles by two of its literature professors. Emily Griesinger, in "C. S. Lewis and the Potter Debate," draws on her experience using Rowling in the classroom, and concludes that, although there are dangers, the books are good influences. She also believes that Lewis would have approved of them. James Hedges, in "Family Matters in the Harry Potter Novels," writes about the portrayals of good and bad families in the books.

Here's a sermon comparing Voldemort to Judas.

Here's a comparison of Lily Potter (Harry's mother) to Christ, which is part of a site on Christianity in the Potter series.

I cannot possibly link to every web site examining Christian symbolism in the Potter books, or warning against witchcraft in them. Try Google if you have more interest. My most recent productive Google search was using both "Voldemort" and "Christianity."

Most any book or movie can harm me, if I read or watch it when I should be doing something else, for example. Conversely, people have, and do, find Christ in all sorts of strange places. The Harry Potter books, and, I guess, the movies, can be one such place. I haven't seen Christ there--maybe I wasn't looking closely enough. I have seen goodness, and Christian symbolism.

Some source I read, but can't locate, pointed out that a phoenix, a bird that dies and is re-born, is a Christian symbol. Dumbledore has a phoenix as a pet, and the fifth book is named Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.

I plan to see the second Harry Potter movie, and will probably add to this page at that time. I have added to the web page that this blog posting was based on as I have read the books, and expect to add more when I read the sixth book.

All links checked on January 12, 2005. Christianity Today seems to be going to fee-based use of its archives, but all the articles referenced from that organization were free as of the date I checked them.

*  *  *  *  *

This post was edited slightly on January 8, 2015. Thanks for reading. I re-analyzed the Harry Potter series, in a post in early 2015, here.

Is Harry Potter a bad influence? Part I

Katie Couric: I'm not sure if we should bite this off, but I'm going to. Tammy in Kansas was wondering: "What would encourage you to write books for children that are supporting the devil, witchcraft and anything that has to do with Satan?" You've heard that before.
J.K. Rowling: Well nothing would encourage me to do that because I haven't done it so far, so why would I start doing it now?
Katie Couric: You have heard criticism along those lines ever since the beginning, and I think it also grew since more and more books came out.
J.K. Rowling: A very famous writer once said: "A book is like a mirror. If a fool looks in, you can't expect a genius to look out." People tend to find in books what they want to find, and I think my books are very moral. I know they have absolutely nothing to do with what this lady's writing about. So, can't give her much help there.from the transcript of a "Today Show" interview, October 20, 2000.

* * * * * *

With the release of the first "Harry Potter" movie, the debate among Christians over the books, and the movie, intensified. Should Christians read/watch these? Some say "No!--Scripture forbids dabbling in wizardry." Others say "Yes! This is great stuff! It entertains kids, and gets them to read." My own view, certainly not original with me, is that both these views are too simple. Here are a few ideas that may be helpful, with brief annotations.
1. Our mind should be the temple of the Holy Spirit. (I Corinthians 3:16) That being true, we should be careful what we put in it.
2. Philippians 4:8 exhorts us to think on what is good, beautiful, true, etc. Literature can present the good, beautiful and true.
3. Scripture does have exhortations to avoid witchcraft (Galatians 5:19-20, Revelation 21:8)
4. My time is not mine, but God's, and I should be careful how I use it. Reading for recreation, if not overdone, or reading for inspiration, can be good use of time.
5. Some things may tempt one person, because of that person's particular personality or background, that are not serious temptations for others.
6. There are some things that I personally have decided that I am not going to do (and some that I have decided that I will do) because I think I should avoid them (or do them.) There are, for instance, some sorts of TV that I won't watch, some kinds of books and magazines that I won't read. My choices are not binding on others, although if I were a parent of young children, I would have responsibility to guide them in making choices. One of the things that I have decided to do is to frequently read fantastic literature. I believe that I have been spiritually uplifted by such reading, including Watership Down, the Narnia books, and some of Tolkien. I believe that I have been entertained wholesomely by the Harry Potter books.
7. It is usually foolish to condemn things that we know little about. ("I haven't read the Harry Potter books, but . . .") This doesn't mean that there aren't some things that I can condemn without having personal knowledge of them (murder and child pornography, for example), but usually, if I am ignorant, I should keep my mouth shut.

I have read the first five Harry Potter books, some more than once. I saw the first movie, only once. I'm not an expert. The books, nor the movie, didn't tempt me into dabbling in witchcraft. They do present conflicts between good and evil, and Harry and his friends are clearly presented as good. The powers that they are learning at the Hogwarts School for Wizards are used to try to achieve clearly good ends. Two events in the first movie that particularly struck me as resonating with the Christian story were:
1) The statement, made by a person, Voldemort, who is clearly evil, in just about every way, throughout the books, that "there is no good and evil, there is only power and those too weak to seek it1" No Christian, of course, would make a statement like that about good and evil, but the blurring of the two by the Lord of Evil and his servants goes back at least as far as the Garden of Eden, and the movie makes clear that this is an evil suggestion. Harry rejects the idea.
2) Harry's friend, Ron Weasley, sacrifices himself for others, for all he knew, to death, in a wizard's chess game.

There are a number of other ideas in the books that are compatible with Christianity. Here are some:
One of the conflicts, in all the books, is over how wizards should treat muggles--non-wizards. The good wizards treat them with special care. The evil ones, or those that are tending toward evil, do not. They even hate, and try to hurt, not just muggles, but wizards born to muggles.

Another conflict is over how wizards should treat other magical creatures, such as house-elves. Albus Dumbledore, the headmaster of Hogwarts, says "We wizards have mistreated and abused our fellows for too long, and are reaping our reward.2"

Throughout the books, one character, Severus Snape, the potions professor, is portrayed as having repented of his association, probably even worship, of Voldemort, before the books begin, although I don't believe that the word "repented" is used. In the fifth book, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Harry learns that his now-dead father treated Snape very badly when they were both students at Hogwarts, which is why Snape has treated Harry badly throughout the books. ". . . at the sight of him Harry felt a great rush of hatred . . . Whatever Dumbledore said, he would never forgive Snape . . . never.3" My guess is that Rowling is setting up a scene in a later book where the two of them will forgive each other, and repent of their attitudes.

The fifth book presents many of the characters, in particular Cornelius Fudge, the Minister of Magic, and most of those under him, as having deliberately ignored the existence of evil--they refuse to believe that Voldemort, clearly a very evil wizard, has come back to power.

Harry has some crises of conscience in the fifth book. For example, he debates with a voice in his own head about Ron having been made a prefect, when he hasn't been.4

Albus Dumbledore, the Headmaster of Hogwarts, the school for wizardry, confronts Voldemort, and tells him that "Indeed, your failure to understand that there are things much worse than death has always been your greatest weakness--" To the Christian, there are things more important than death, and dying for a righteous cause is not nearly as bad as living for a wrong one.

Dumbledore follows the theme of I Corinthians 13:13 when he tells Harry that the greatest power of all is the one in his heart, that Voldemort has none of. Clearly, although he does not name it, he is speaking of unselfish (agape) Love.6

None of these are peripheral matters. The books show a conflict between good and evil, both on a wide scale, and within the hearts and minds of the characters. It is clear which side Rowling is on, and it's not evil.

1- J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. (New York: Scholastic, 1997, p. 291) I believe that the movie used the very same dialog at this point.

2- Rowling, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. (New York, Scholastic, 2003, p. 834)

3- Rowling, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. (New York, Scholastic, 2003, p. 851)

4- Rowling, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. (New York, Scholastic, 2003, pp. 166-7)

5- Rowling, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. (New York, Scholastic, 2003, p. 814)

6- Rowling, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. (New York, Scholastic, 2003, pp. 843-4)

Thanks for reading.

I re-analyzed the Harry Potter series, in a post in early 2015, here.