Re: Parentless characters (was Re: Harry Potter)

[Marion Baumgarten]

Elizabeth Gardner > wrote:

>
>
> This is where it would help if you'd actually read the books. There's a
> very clear delineation in HP, as in Narnia, between good magic and bad
> magic. If you doubt good magic in Narnia, consider the chapter in the
> first book titled "Deeper Magic from Before the Dawn of Time" and the
> magical properties of the gifts given to the children by Santa Claus, as
> well as the apple in "The Magician's Nephew" whose tree confers
> protective properties against the bad magic of the White Witch, just to
> name a couple of instances. In the latter case, the magic of the apple
> was only good if it was used for unselfish purposes; it became perverted
> into evil if someone tried to use it for himself.

I do think a major difference between the books is that most (not all of
Narnia) is set in another workd, not our world and many of the
charcteres are not human. It may seem minor, but from a theological
point of view, I can see where it makes a difference. Harry Potter s set
in our world and it' snot really clear whther magicains are human or
not. Having said that, as a Christian, I find nothing offensive about
them.

[Elizabeth Gardner]

In article >,
(Marion Baumgarten) wrote:

> Elizabeth Gardner > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > This is where it would help if you'd actually read the books. There's a
> > very clear delineation in HP, as in Narnia, between good magic and bad
> > magic. If you doubt good magic in Narnia, consider the chapter in the
> > first book titled "Deeper Magic from Before the Dawn of Time" and the
> > magical properties of the gifts given to the children by Santa Claus, as
> > well as the apple in "The Magician's Nephew" whose tree confers
> > protective properties against the bad magic of the White Witch, just to
> > name a couple of instances. In the latter case, the magic of the apple
> > was only good if it was used for unselfish purposes; it became perverted
> > into evil if someone tried to use it for himself.
>
> I do think a major difference between the books is that most (not all of
> Narnia) is set in another workd, not our world and many of the
> charcteres are not human. It may seem minor, but from a theological
> point of view, I can see where it makes a difference. Harry Potter s set
> in our world and it' snot really clear whther magicains are human or
> not. Having said that, as a Christian, I find nothing offensive about
> them.


I think I would call them enhanced humans, maybe--since they can
intermarry with Muggles, and since they occasionally are born to Muggle
parents.

The anti-Potter theology seems fairly sketchy no matter how I look at
it, particularly since it seems to be propounded almost exclusively by
people who haven't actually read the books. But I read recently that
J.K. Rowling belongs to my particular branch of Christianity (or rather,
I belong to hers since the Scots had it first), so maybe that's why I
see Christian overtones in the story that those of a different tradition
may miss.

[dragonlady]

In article >,
illecebra > wrote:

> I know the Christmas tree was once the Yule log/ Yule tree and easter
> baskets were once Beltaine baskets... not sure where the bunny came
> from as my tradition doesn't have a bunny holiday.
>
> Susan
>

The goddess Eoster had her feast day in the spring; she was often shown
with eggs and rabbits (as signs of fertility). According to the website
http://www.fionabroome.com/craft/ostara1.htm:


> Ostara has become a popular name for the Equinox festival. Some historians
> believe that the name comes from the Teutonic-Anglo-Saxon goddess of dawn,
> Eostre. The Equinox itself has sometimes been called Eostar. And although we
> can find similar names in other traditions, many of them come from cultures
> far removed from the Celtic tradition. These include "superwomen" such as the
> Babylonian Astarte, the Assyrian Ishtar, and Queen Esther from the Purim
> celebration.


meh
who loves to trace the origins of all kinds of traditions and symbols
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

[Mary Gordon]

A lot of books that appeal to kids deal with overcoming scary
challenges - its about trying on ideas in your imagination. Being
independent and alone is quite scary for most kids. My kids (12, 9 and
5) have often expressed worry about having to grow up and deal with
all the details of adult life and taking care of themselves. Reading
stories about kids learning to take charge of their lives, figure out
what kind of person they want to be, stand up for what they believe
in even if it means taking a risk - I think this is a very safe,
healthy way to start a kid thinking about those issues.

One of the things I really like about the Harry Potter books is that
not all adults are good, not every thing is fair, lots of things about
the adult world and the culture of the magic world either make limited
moral sense or are outright wrong, there is prejudice (i.e. against
mudbloods and house elves). Harry (and its a particular theme of book
5) has to decide what kind of person he wants to be and recognize that
even people he looks up to have flaws.

I also like the premise that evil can exist in a society with the
complicity of people who we might not think of as bad - and that
because of cultural blinders we may not immediately see it, or may not
want to admit it exists. A lot of what goes on in Harry Potter that is
bad occurs with the support of the goverment, legal and social systems
of the magic world (i.e.which have corruption in them, leading people
to deny the truth, get jailed unfairly, the press to spin doctor to
the popular opinion etc.). So, Harry has to be willing to see past
authority figures and majority opinions and decide for himself what is
really right. I really like that coming of age kind of theme.

Mary G.

[dragonlady]

In article >,
(Mary Gordon) wrote:

> Just as a matter of interest, how can you be anti-Harry Potter without
> having read the books?
>
> Mary G.
>

I met a 14 yo a week ago who was reading HP5. I asked him if he was
enjoying the book, and he said no, but he hadn't liked the others,
either. I asked why he was reading it then: he said everyone was
reading it, and he didn't expect to like it, but he didn't think it was
fair to trash a book he hadn't read!

(Agree with him or not, you gotta love the integrity of a 14 yo who will
plow through 870 pages of text he claims to not enjoy just so he can
trash it!)

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

[Penny Gaines]

Elizabeth Gardner wrote in >:

> In article >,
> Penny Gaines > wrote:
>
>> Elizabeth Gardner wrote in >:
>>
>> [snip]> The anti-Potter theology seems fairly sketchy no matter how I
>> [look
>> at
>> > it, particularly since it seems to be propounded almost exclusively by
>> > people who haven't actually read the books. But I read recently that
>> > J.K. Rowling belongs to my particular branch of Christianity (or
>> > rather, I belong to hers since the Scots had it first), so maybe that's
>> > why I see Christian overtones in the story that those of a different
>> > tradition may miss.
>>
>> Is she actually a practising Christian?
>
> I've seen her referred to in various media accounts as a "member in good
> standing" of the Church of Scotland; not sure what the terminology means
> there, but in our church (Presbyterian--the U.S. descendant of the
> Church of Scotland) it would mean that she had officially joined by
> making certain affirmations of faith and an oral commitment to be an
> active part of the church family. As far as I know, you don't have to
> show up a certain number of times a year, give a certain amount of
> money, or serve on any committees in order to be a member in good
> standing. So she may do all those things or none of them. Or C of S
> may be set up differently.

That ties in with what I know about the Church of Scotland.

> I've seen her quoted as saying that she believes in God, not magic, and
> that if she goes into any deeper public explication of her Christian
> beliefs, it will give away too much of the plot of the coming books in
> the series. Based on that, I would guess that we'll have to wait for
> Book Seven before we really see the full Christian subtext of the
> overall plot.

Now that sounds like it really is going to be interesting!

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three

[Robyn Kozierok]

In article >,
David desJardins > wrote:

>Personally, I tried reading Harry Potter, but I thought it was just
>awful. And the whole concept of the books puts me off. How many pages,
>exactly, should I have to read before forming such an opinion?

There's a difference between not liking a book, and being opposed to it.
I'm surprised that you found it "just awful" but apparently it isn't
your ball of wax. My children's school requests that they give a book
2 chapters before proclaiming they don't like it. I suspect you've met
that requirement. :) So, you don't like it.

That's different from being opposed to it, as some people are, feeling
that their own kids, or in some cases no one's kids, should be allowed
to read it. That goes way beyond not enjoying it. And I don't think I
would ever take such a stand over a book without reading enough of it to
make a first-hand determination of the objectionable elements myself.
How many pages that will be varies depending on the nature of the
objections. For some things, I suppose just finding a few objectionable
passages would suffice. For things relating to the theme or message of
the book, however, I would think I'd need to read the whole thing to get
a fair picture.

--Robyn (mommy to Ryan 9/93 and Matthew 6/96 and Evan 3/01)