Harry Potter Coda

Several months ago a journal requested a brief article from me in response to novelist Michael D. O’Brien’s arguments against the Harry Potter books.  I wrote the piece, which was effectively turned down, but am posting it here for anyone who might be interested.  It follows the general lines of my Touchstone and Mere Comments writing on the subject, for which it may serve as a synopsis of something upon which I doubt I will say much more.

********************

Michael D. O’Brien believes the Harry Potter books will paganize Christian children; I believe they are more likely to Christianize pagan ones--and can be read profitably, meaningfully, and harmlessly through young Christian eyes.  This judgment is based in part on the probability that far more non-Christians, or Christians who are practically ignorant of their professed religion, will read these books (translated now into about 70 languages, including simplified Chinese) than knowledgeable Christians, in places where Harry is likely to do more in service to the gospel than against it. 

In Touchstone articles I have elaborated on Harry as a Christ-figure, given them to love where Christianity is dimmed, and in whom by grace it is possible to see and love the unknown Christ--one of those evangelical “pictures” of which Lewis spoke in Pilgrim’s Regress, smuggled by God into places where active evil has made a more explicit evangel unavailable or unintelligible.  Harry is the elect prince, born in hostile obscurity, about whom gathers an awkward and unlikely group of friends and allies, and who, in the willing sacrifice of his native powers and finally his life, delivers his world from one who would rule it by evil power. 

This, however, I say without much prejudice to Mr. O’Brien’s argument.  I cannot deny the Potter tales can be very dangerous indeed, and very likely to do to some exactly what he fears they will.  There are many raised as Christians who, beginning as children, attempt to find their way out of that particular fix, and in Harry Potter--or faulty parenting, or atheist professors, or traditionalist patriarchalism, or the imperial demands of the flesh, or some diverting whimsy--they will find reasoned opportunity for blame in abetting their departures.  Harry, after all, attractively encourages a thoroughly pagan view of the world, endorsing witchcraft, the private judgment of children over obedience to legitimate authority, transgressive behavior, materialist magic, and a gnostic pursuit of power and esoteric knowledge that attracts the mind by its inventiveness, charm, and indeed, its form of morality, furnishing an alternate reality to the imagination in which there is no place and no need for the only faith that can save.

Where this is how the Harry Potter books are taken, that is what they are, and those who understand them in that way find justification for their point of view.  I am reminded of the elderly monk Ubertino lecturing the young Adso in Eco’s Name of the Rose before a beautiful image of our Lord’s mother on what was, for him, the spiritual discipline of viewing it as to incite to virtue and not lust.

Harry is not as innocent as Ubertino’s Virgin: Rowling’s treatment of the mandrakes, for example, as O’Brien notes, is horrible, and I think the least excusable thing in these books--less, even, than the murder/suicide pact.  But considered together with the rest they do not demand rejection, first because of their proevangelical quality among their largest probable audience, but then, as regards their use by Christians, because of the powers of spirit active--and to be encouraged in--Christians and their children, who should be robustly critical enough to take their good without being seduced by whatever in them isn’t.  In considering the Christian imagination we are responsible to keep not only its susceptibilities but its powers in view--in this case, the power to sanctify Harry Potter.

These are powers we must have to live in the world as members of the church militant, which cannot shrink from everything that might do harm, but engage, transform, and take what can be taken for the Kingdom’s sake--and for the health and strength of our own souls.  Not only do I believe that Harry Potter may be taken as a redemptive tale that reflects the story of the New Testament and the Church, but that it places us in communication (as others have also observed) with the millions who have read these books but do not yet comprehend the gospel of Christ, to which we may now point as their truest ground and meaning. 

In this power the witchcraft is transformed from a portal to the occult to fairy-tale magic, the transgressive behavior discussable as normal human sin, or perhaps, at least in certain instances, as comparable to that of which our Lord and disciples were constantly accused.  Most important, the attractive, and pagan, alternative imaginations are disclosed as alternative for an actual something that was, is, and shall be in a way beyond imagining, and to which one may apply without leaping the bar which all sane men--and children, at least children who are old enough to read Harry Potter--know lies between fantasy and reality. 

I would wish to look closely at judgments on the Potter books based on “what constitutes healthy nourishment of the imagination and what degrades it,” for while I (disagreeing with Oscar Wilde on the point) agree that there are things such as bad books, books intended and designed to degrade the imagination--often on the pretense of illuminating it--in the end the effect of a book depends entirely on what is sympathetically assimilated from it, what is “taken to heart.” 

A good analogy to the imagination exists in the body which continually takes into itself substances and organisms that will cause disease and death if they are allowed to proliferate by weak internal defenses.  While it is imprudent to eat food one knows to be spoiled, or negligently expose oneself to toxins, normal, wholesome food, and good, breathable air contain certain amounts of conditionally dangerous material--which the body, however, is made to “handle,” and even assimilate to healthy use.  That some have weaknesses which make even negligible amounts harmful to them is no reason to place what may be harmful to some under general interdict--which seems to me an all too common operation among Christian Potter critics.  Discretion and good sense are always required of their guardians, but spiritually healthy children of normal sensibilities need take no harm from these books.  

As it is with the body, so it is, or should be, be with the imagination.  By the time a Christian child can read Harry Potter, its immunities, supplied and developed by his parents and church, should be sufficient to handle whatever challenges are posed by the books, and he should be more than able to claim from them his own measure of Egyptian gold.  Thus engaged, he will be free and able to see and enjoy the series as the postevangelical myth that it is, a myth whose ground is in his catechism, and which demonstrates the inescapability of the Story Upon Which All Stories Worth Hearing are based.  As his thought life matures, his synthetic and critical faculties should become even stronger, for his soul, like his body, is made to live inquisitively and with military fortitude in a world full of the Dark Lord’s literary servants, whom it is not meant flee, but overcome.       

Comments

[Sandra Miesel]

Thank you for these sensible comments!So refreshing!

[Dennis Hankins]

I hope you are right, but I'm still very concerned.

[Susanne Barrett]

I am a fan of Michael O'Brien's books, but his comments on Harry Potter quite shocked and saddened me. Your comments are much more positive.

I have four kids who are homeschooled, and after reading the books myself, I let my kids, once they were over twelve and old enough to discuss the Biblical issues and themes. John Granger's books on Harry Potter, specifically Looking for God in Harry Potter helped me to teach them about the Christian elements in the series.

What I don't care for is the judgment involved in the Christian community over Harry Potter. Some Christians have judged us as a "pagan family" because we read Harry Potter and watch the movies. I'd like to see less judgment and more acceptance of each family's decisions regarding the HP series, especially in the Christian homeschooling community. We have allowed the books in our family because when faced with a decision, Harry tries to do what is right and good. He fails at times, just as we do, but he matures over the series until he becomes a type of Christ.

I think that reading Harry Potter is a decision each Christian family needs to make, a prayerful and informed decision.

[Phoebe Eunice]

I enjoyed your take on this. I have wondered about some more points of view on it than just the total embrace of the books versus the total rejection of the books. I guess I just wonder if it really matters if you read them at all. I guess if it's going to benefit you to be challenged to a thought provoked discussion then good. If you are in a state to be seduced by evil, then not so good. I remember a roommate my brother had in college who had all the Lord of the Rings books, and sided with the evil characters in those books! I was shocked that in such a clear cut characterization of evil someone could actually choose to associate themselves with the bad guys. But that's how life is, isn't it? I am always surprised when someone chooses evil. But God gives us free will. Potter's world has some blurring of the lines, as you described, that Tolkien's world does not have. I think the books and movies do require some maturity and discernment to be enjoyed safely.

[smh]

No one is obliged to read the Harry Potter books, and if they are found to be a snare, then it is best to stay away from them, just as an alcoholic is well-advised to avoid alcoholic beverages, or those who have a violent allergic reaction to gluten, or dust, or pollen, need an environment as free from these things as can be made.

When those measures are necessary, though, there is something abnormal, something wrong, with the person who needs the protection. I object to the attitude of those who think that the reasonable definitions of things must be altered to accommodate the abnormally sensitive by claiming abnormal sensitivity is in fact the "normal," the rule--that there is something wrong with those who recognize the abnormality as such rather than those who actually have it. This is the sort who invent euphemisms like "differently abled," and impose upon the world the responsibility of allowing the disabled to live as though no disability existed, as well as those who insist that no Christian should read Harry Potter.

When those with disabilities, spiritual or otherwise, are accommodated by others, this is charity, not something the weak have by right, not something they should be allowed to create a right for by claiming that those with normal sensitivities who read books like Harry Potter are doing ill while they who do not are being proper Christians. This is something I figured out years ago in a church that forbade ingestion of alcohol (including Eucharistic "wine") on pain of not being considered a good Christian, or any sort of Christian at all--my first experience with the invidious treatment of the Normal in that manner, and my first strong temptation to think that Nietzsche was really on to something.

Of course, if these people are really right about the Harry Potter books being bad, then what I have said here does not apply to them. But obviously I think they are wrong, and that the stakes in this game are really fairly high.

[Bob Srigley]

I agree with Dennis Hankin's comment, "I hope you're right but I still have concerns." The article is, as always from the pen of S. M. Hutchens, sagacious and compassionate. And very convincing up to a point. Susanne Barret and Hutchens put forward an ideal situation in which concerned and spiritually mature Christian parents may derive great benefit by shepherding their children through questionable materials which yet contain rudiments, artifacts or symbols of Christian faith. A good spiritual "immune system" is a wonderful attribute to possess if we are to engage the world, both for our own enjoyment and in order to evangelize. But what about those who are more vulnerable, who I would suggest, vastly outnumber the first group? Does the possible harm they may incur outweigh the possible benefit?

First of all, to be clear, do we agree that there are spiritual beings inimical to the kingdom of God, that they are subtle, deceptive and seek to implement Satan's program to lie, steal, destroy and murder? And further, that these demonic beings are commonly associated with sorcery, witchcraft and the occult? I hope that we are not so beaten down by a culture that considers Arthur Miller's Crucible the truth about these matters that we are unable to interpret such phenomena biblically.

A second consideration is the faith or beliefs of Ms Rowlings herself, and whether this should figure in an evaluation of her art. My impression is that on some level she is a proponent, even a proselytizer of the Wiccan religion. Whatever her intentions in this area I think it is indisputable that there are a very large number of young people who are encouraged by her writings to open their souls to influences that may bring terrible bondage. Anyone who has read Tolkien and Lewis can recognize an essential difference in the way Rowlings employs the fictional devices of magic, etc. If I take S. M. Hutchens words from his last comment and apply them to the other side of the debate, then indeed "the stakes in this game are really fairly high."

For all my negative perspective, I am really of two minds on this. I have to confess that for some years I was a great fan of Joss Whedon's raucus, exuberant exploration of Manichean philosophy, BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER. I followed the fate of Buffy and her friends with the same emotion that Dickens' readers followed that of Fanny and Oliver. But here is the difference: great and enduring art does not embrace the spirit of the age uncritically. Dickens (and Shakespeare) will still be read when Rowlings and Buffy are long forgotten.

[V-Dawg]

Bob Srigley: your "impression" that she is "a proponent, even a proselytizer of the Wiccan religion" is flat wrong. Rowling is an avowed Christian and a member of the Church of Scotland. This helps explain the numerous parallels to the Christian story found within her work. While I likely wouldn't agree with all her doctrinal positions (she appears to be a liberal Christian), and while being a Christian certainly doesn't make her work perfect, she has nothing to do with Wicca. Someone could conceivably become interested in witchcraft by reading her books, but one also encounters the occasional Tolkien fan who likes the Nazgul--abusus non tollit usum.

[Bob Srigley]

I wouldn't mind being mistaken, even flat wrong, in my impression concerning Rowling's relationship to Wicca. However, being "an avowed Christian" and a Wiccan proponent are not mutually exclusive categories. And the visible Church of Scotland may include many who are not at present members of Christ's body. It is certainly not unheard of for an artist who is an unbeliever to use Christian themes; it is actually rather common, and I am glad of it, for it keeps the story alive in the imagination of many who might otherwise be resistant. Christians too, may benefit from seeing the parallels to the Christian story from new and unexpected angles.

As an example (and perhaps a defense against the charge that I may be treating the Normal invidiously), I once decided that I should have a look at Serrano's photograph titled "Piss Christ" to see what all the fuss was about. (www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/502.html) I was first of all struck by the beauty of the crucifix illuminated by golden light, partly clear, partly obscured. And then it struck me that I was looking at a depiction of Philippians 2, the amazing declension of Christ, finally rejected, and submerged in human waste. Was this the author's intention? I doubt it; I think he intended sacrilege but like Caiaphas he spoke a truth he did not know. How like God to parry the thrusts of man's enmity and turn it to His own good will. So I should certainly be more sanguine about Harry Potter where there is no overt enmity to God; yet there are still concerns:

For one, the extraordinary popularity of the books. When you have millions of kids and parents lining up before dawn all around the world to purchase the latest addition to the series perhaps there is something more going on than merely the skill of a good storyteller.
I know, I know – I’m such a grinch to begrudge the lady her success and fortune, but it reminds me of another wildly successful book of a few years back, The DaVinci Code. A page turner, to be sure, but definitely not a Great Book. The interesting thing about Dan Brown’s novel is that it not only promoted the ancient gnostic texts but was itself an example of gnosticism. It purported to reveal the Truth, the secret knowledge hidden for ages but now revealed to the few, the select, the fortunate readers of his book. In Harry Potter if you are not part of the wizardry, you’re just not in the game, you are a muggle and the pettiness of your concerns earn you the well deserved contempt of those who are engaged in the higher pursuits.

Contrast this with Narnia where the little people, the Mr. and Mrs. Beaver, Mr. Tumnus and even Reepicheep are tasked with divine purpose while the great and mighty abuse their power and remain oblivious of the seismic shift beneath their feet. (For those who might object that the Harry Potter stories also concern mere children engaged in great doings, I only ask that you consider how if they were being led by Aslan he would chastise their little rebellions and follies.)

Or contrast with the gospel where great mysteries are entrusted to the aged Anna and Simeon, and a humble peasant teenager becomes the bearer of God. Once again, the little people, dare I say the muggles, are the ones whose humility allows them to be entrusted with the highest purposes.

In an earlier post I stated that great, enduring art does not embrace the spirit of the age uncritically. I think that is because the fashion of the world is constantly changing and what is all the rage one season becomes distasteful in the next. Artists who produce classic and enduring works are able to use the current and popular themes while at the same time transcending them because they have their eyes fixed on something higher and better; they want to participate in the Grand Story, and to the extent they succeed in this, their work is treasured by future generations who are better equipped to recognize the follies of previous ages. Though some will disagree I do not think Rowling’s work meets this criterion. Of course very little of current art will rise to the level of the classic so what’s the harm in enjoying the entertainment offered? Perhaps none, none at all; there may even be good which comes. Or it may be that hungry souls which become surfeited with half-truths and deceptive error lose their zest for the Truth.
Before posting this I re-read Steve Hutchens observation that so many people around the world who have no exposure to the gospel may be drawn to it because of these books. I think he's right about that and am relieved that nothing I can say will stem the flow. I only hope for a fuller richer dialogue that challenges the lies of this world and lifts up Christ.