Announcement
view point |
JULY 19th 2007
SORCERY IN A STONE: A CLOSER LOOK
From HARRY POTTER AND THE BIBLE by Richard
Abanes,
With more than 116 million copies in print
in 200 languages, the Harry Potter books have
turned out to be the biggest phenomenon in publishing
history," reports the Washington Post.
On November 16, 2001, Warner Bros. released
the first Harry Potter movie to 8,200 screens
in the United States. In 24 days, the movie
grossed $239 million and went on to become the
third highest money making film of all time.
In light of these events, the Adventist Review
presents the following study on this contemporary
icon. — Editors
J.K. Rowling came up with the idea for her books
in 1990 while traveling on a train. Without
any warning, she suddenly just saw Harry “very,
very clearly” in her mind. His visible
image actually popped into her thoughts from
out of nowhere as a “fully formed individual.”2
During one interview, Rowling stated: “The
character of Harry just strolled into my head.
. . . I really did feel he was someone who walked
up and introduced himself in my mind’s
eye.”3
Rowling confesses that she has no idea why he
chose to “come to her” when he did.
4 According to her account, Harry just stood
there looking very much like he now does on
the cover of her books, complete with black
hair and spectacles. She somehow perceived that
he was a wizard, and knew that he did not know
he was a wizard. Soon afterward, she began thinking
about how this could possibly be, and before
long, was writing about a young boy who did
not know he had magical powers. 5 Thus, Harry
Potter was born.
Most fans of the Potter series believe that
nearly everything in the books are mere products
of Rowling’s fertile imagination. To these
Potter supporters, all of the negative and controversial
talk about actual occultism being in Rowling’s
novels is ridiculous. For example, Dr. Christopher
Beiting of the Ave Maria Institute (a Roman
Catholic institution of higher education in
Michigan), feels that Rowling’s creation
of Hogwarts is harmless because it exists “in
a fantasy world.” He continues: “I
have heard the interviews with Rowling; she
says she doesn’t take any interest in
the occult and hasn’t studied it for her
novels. I feel these are just things she has
made up in her own head and it is just a device
to tell a story.”6
Christianity Today has taken a similar position,
forcefully deriding any concerns about witchcraft:
“[T]he literary witchcraft of the Harry
Potter series has almost no resemblance to the
I-am-God mumbo jumbo of Wiccan circles.”7
(Wicca is the name given to the official religion
of Witchcraft founded within the last century
by Gerald Gardner [1884-1964].)
Sustaining this notion have been the numerous
remarks by Rowling about her complete disinterest
in witchcraft and her disbelief in magic. In
a July 2000 Associated Press article, for instance,
she said: “I truly am bemused that anyone
who has read the books could think that I am
a proponent of the occult in any serious way.
I don’t believe in witchcraft, in the
sense that they’re talking about, at all.”8
In an online interview, she explained that when
it comes to the kind of magic that appears in
her series, she “does not believe in magic
in that way.”9 In another online venue,
she remarked, “I don’t believe in
magic in the way I describe it in my books.
I mean, I don’t believe in the wand waving
sort of magic.”10
Many people have completely overlooked the obvious
qualifiers in these statements. Rowling says
she does not believe in witchcraft “in
the sense” her critics talk about it,
and rejects the “wand waving sort of magic”
that appears in her books. The questions arise:
Is there another “sense” in which
Rowling does believe in witchcraft? What brand,
of all the different forms of magic that exist
that are not the wand waving sort of magic,
might she embrace? Are there any bits and pieces
of paganism with which she may agree?
Interestingly, Rowling has stated that she believes
the number seven “is a magical number,
a mystical number.”11 Her ex-husband,
Jorge Arantes, confirmed this in London’s
Daily Express, saying that Rowling “had
planned the full series of seven books because
she believed the number seven has magical associations.”12
And in the introduction to Beacham Publications’
educational resource book, Exploring Harry Potter,
Walter Beacham makes a similar remark: “Ms.
Rowling has spoken extensively about her plans
for future Potter novels, and stated that the
magical number seven will see the conclusion
of Harry’s education at Hogwarts.”13
More significant is the fact that not everything
in the Potter series is imaginary. During a
1999 interview, Rowling admitted that she had
studied mythology and witchcraft in order to
write her books more accurately, stating, “I
do a certain amount of research. And folklore
is quite important in books. So where I’m
mentioning a creature, or a spell that people
used to believe genuinely worked—of course,
it didn’t . . . then, I will find out
exactly what the words were, and I will find
out exactly what the characteristics of that
creature or ghost were supposed to be.”14
Rowling goes on to say that roughly one-third
of the sorcery- related material appearing in
her books “are things that people genuinely
used to believe in Britain.”15
What Rowling fails to mention is that a vast
amount of the occult material she has borrowed
from historical sources still plays a significant
role in modern paganism and witchcraft. Consequently,
her writings merge quite nicely with contemporary
occultism. This could easily present a spiritual
danger to children and teens, or even adults,
who are either leaning toward occultism or who
may be vulnerable to its attractions. Also,
it is noteworthy that some of the information
Rowling uses is not widely known by persons
other than those who are actually involved in
occultism. She, in fact, has an extremely well-developed
and sophisticated knowledge of the occult world,
its legends, history and nuances.
In fact, Rowling’s thorough understanding
of occultism’s intricacies is so obvious
in her books that during one radio call-in interview
show, a self-professed “magus” (a
male practitioner of magick) excitedly asked
Rowling if she herself was a member of the “Craft”
(i.e., Wicca). When Rowling answered no, the
caller seemed shocked and replied, “[Well],
you’ve done your homework quite well.”
This particular caller went on to express his
love for the Harry Potter series not only because
it contained so much occultism, but because
its positive portrayal of magick had served
to make his daughter more comfortable with his
own practices as a witch-magickian. 16
Rowling seamlessly weaves into her novels countless
references to ancient and modern occultism,
sometimes hiding them in people’s names
or disguising them in minor characters. Such
inclusions certainly do not teach the precise
doctrines of witchcraft, nor do they explicitly
instruct children to purchase a step-by-step
guide to Wicca. But the allusions could easily
stir a child’s curiosity about occultism—perhaps
enough for that child to one day dabble in it.
The very title of Book I, Harry Potter and the
Sorcerer’s Stone, hearkens back to a set
of occultic beliefs about the “Philosopher’s
Stone.” (Rowling’s first volume
was originally released in England as Harry
Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone.) In
the Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology,
the Philosopher’s Stone is described as
a legendary substance that supposedly enabled
medieval alchemists to turn base metals into
gold or silver. But unlike the literal stone
sought for in Rowling’s novel, the stone
coveted by real alchemists was an essential
powder of some kind, often designated “Powder
of Projection.”17 The author of a Treatise
on Philosophical and Hermetic Chemistry, published
in 1725, wrote:
It is necessary then to proceed first to
purge the mercury with salt and with ordinary
salad vinegar, to sublime it with vitriol and
saltpetre, to dissolve it in aquafortis, to
sublime it again, to calcine it and fix it.
. . . This is the first operation in the grand
work. For the second operation, take in the
name of God one part of gold and two parts of
the spiritual water, charged with the sal-ammoniac,
mix this noble confection in a vase of crystal
of the shape of an egg: warm over a soft but
continuous fire, and the fiery water will dissolve
little by little the gold; this forms a liquor
which is called by the sages “chaos”
containing the elementary qualities—cold,
dryness, heat and humidity. Allow this composition
to putrefy until it becomes black; this blackness
is known as the “crow’s head”
and the “darkness of the sages,”
and makes known to the artist that he is on
the right track. . . . It must be boiled once
more in a vase as white as snow; this stage
of the work is called the “swan,”
and from it arises the white liquor, which is
divided into two parts—one white for the
manufacture of silver, the other red for the
manufacture of gold. Now you have accomplished
the work, and you possess the Philosopher’s
Stone. 18
But alchemists were far more than metal-workers.
They were spiritual-minded individuals who pursued
their science as a means of purifying the soul
and achieving an unclouded understanding of
their own divine nature. Transmuting base metals
into gold was merely a process used to transform
themselves and obtain what they called the “fifth
element,” which was thought to be God’s
“creative power” by which all things
received life. 19
Consequently, alchemists also believed that
creating the Philosopher’s Stone produced
a sort of natural by-product of the chemical
procedure: the Elixir of Life. As Rowling writes
in her book, “The stone will transform
any metal into pure gold. It also produces the
Elixir of Life, which will make the drinker
immortal.”20 This is not the only parallel
between Rowling’s stone and the stone
sought by medieval alchemists. In Book I, Harry
and his friends learn that the Philosopher’s
Stone they are seeking (the only one ever made)
was created by Dumbledore’s partner in
alchemy, Nicholas Flamel. 21
Nicholas Flamel really existed. He was a French
alchemist who allegedly succeeded in making
the Philosopher’s Stone in the late 1300s.
According to historical documents and occult
tradition, Flamel learned how to make the Philosopher’s
Stone through the esoteric Book of Abraham the
Jew. This text, supposedly written by the Jewish
Patriarch, contained various directions in hieroglyphic
form. Alchemists throughout the centuries have
believed that after deciphering these drawings,
Flamel did indeed create the Philosopher’s
Stone, and by doing so, never died. 22
Rowling also mentions Flamel’s wife, Perenelle.
Again, this is not fictitious. Nicholas’
wife, in agreement with the Potter “fantasy”
novel, was named Perenelle (also spelled Petronelle).
Rowling even correctly identifies the approximate
era of their lives. Book I takes place in late
1991-1992 (a school year cycle), a date easily
discerned by calculating subtle time markers
in Book II (Harry Potter and the Chamber of
Secrets). In Sorcerer’s Stone, Flamel
is 665 years old. This number subtracted from
1991/92 comes to the year 1326/27 for Flamel’s
birth (as recorded by Rowling). In the real
world, Flamel was born in 1330, give or take
a few years. 23
Book I goes so far as to add some of Flamel’s
religious beliefs about death. Toward the book’s
conclusion, after Nicholas and Perenelle know
they will die, Dumbledore tells Harry that they
are not afraid because to them dying will simply
be “like going to bed after a very, very
long day.” Dumbledore continues: “After
all, to the well-organized mind, death is but
the next great adventure.”24 The book
Magicians, Seers, and Mystics reports that Flamel,
in fact, felt this way: “Nicholas Flamel,
after his discovery of the Philosopher’s
Stone, would have had no temptation to evade
death; for he regarded death merely as the transition
to a better state.”25
Such a position echoes current pagan/Wiccan
thinking. Anthony Kemp, in Witchcraft and Paganism
Today, writes: “The one who has departed
has left for the Summerlands, the fairy realm
in the west where he or she will be refreshed
before the cycle of rebirth [reincarnation]
starts again. . . . Death as we know it is but
a transition—an initiation.”26 Celebrated
witch, Starhawk, declares: “Death is not
an end; it is a stage in the cycle that leads
on to rebirth. After death, the human soul .
. . grows young and is made ready to be born
again.”27
To Christians, of course, this is an inaccurate
and spiritually dangerous view of death. Christians
believe that only those who die “in Christ”
(i.e., those who have received Jesus Christ
as their personal Lord and Savior) will enjoy
eternal bliss (Romans 10:9; 1 John 5:11-13).
Others will suffer eternal separation from God
(Luke 16:19-30; John 3:16; Revelation 20:11-15).
Reincarnation too stands at odds with Christianity.
Hebrews 9:27 says we are created to die once
and then to experience our judgment before God.
There are no second, third or fourth chances
after death. “Now is the day of salvation”
(2 Corinthians 6:2).
Flamel and his Sorcerer’s Stone are only
two examples of how Rowling mixes reality with
fantasy in her series. Book I also refers to
Paracelsus,28 a Swiss alchemist who lived from
1493-1541. He was “one of the most striking
and picturesque figures” in occultism.
29 Another individual Rowling mentions is Adalbert
Waffling, author of Magical Theory, which is
included on Harry’s list of required reading.
Again, we have a fictional character having
a real-world counterpart: Archbishop Adalbert
of Magdeburg (eighth century).
Adalbert was a French pseudo-mystic who claimed
he could foretell the future and read thoughts.
The Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology
reveals that “[H]e was in the habit of
giving away parings of his nails and locks of
his hair as powerful amulets [charms used to
drive away evil]. He is said to have even set
up an altar in his own name.” Adalbert
eventually showed followers a letter supposedly
sent to him by Christ via St. Michael. He also
invoked demons using mystical prayers he had
composed. The Church convicted him of sorcery
in 744-745 A.D., and condemned him to perpetual
imprisonment in the monastery of Fulda. 30
A sympathetic discussion of Adalbert’s
plight can be found in the writings of Helena
Petrovna Blavatsky (1831-1891), founder of Theosophy,
an occult blending of metaphysical thought,
spiritualism, channeling, science, Eastern philosophy,
Transcendentalism and mental healing. Blavatsky,
who greatly helped to spread the concepts of
Buddhism and reincarnation in America, wrote
the following about Adalbert in her article
“Star-Angel-Worship”:
In the middle of the VIIIth century of the
Christian era the very notorious Archbishop
Adalbert of Magdeburg, famous as few in the
annals of magic, appeared before his judges.
He was charged with, and ultimately convicted—by
the second Council of Rome presided over by
Pope Zacharia—of using during his performances
of ceremonial magic, the names of the “seven
Spirits”—then at the height of their
power in the Church—among others, that
of URIEL, with the help of whom he had succeeded
in producing his greatest phenomena. As can
be easily shown, the church is not against magic
proper, but only against those magicians who
fail to conform to her methods and rules of
evocation. However, as the wonders wrought by
the Right Reverend Sorcerer were not of a character
that would permit of their classification among
“miracles by the grace, and to the glory
of God,” they were declared unholy. 31
Interestingly, these pro-Adalbert sentiments
expressed by Blavatsky sound remarkably similar
to those voiced by Albus Dumbledore in a speech
he gives to students at Hogwarts— which,
coincidentally, was founded at approximately
the same time Adalbert and others were being
convicted by the Church (i.e., 1991 minus approximately
1,000 years [800-1,000 A.D.]). Dumbledore explains:
You all know, of course, that Hogwarts was
founded over a thousand years ago—the
precise date is uncertain—by the four
greatest witches and wizards of the age. . .
. They built this castle together, far from
prying Muggle eyes, for it was an age when magic
was feared by common people, and witches and
wizards suffered much persecution. 32
An equally odd connection that seems to exist
between Rowling and Theosophy can be found in
a play on names in Book III (Harry Potter and
the Prisoner of Azkaban). On page 53 Rowling
mentions a book titled Unfogging the Future
by a Cassandra Vablatsky. Could Vablatsky be
an anagram for Blavatsky? I believe so. An anagram,
of course, is a word or phrase formed by transposing
the letters of another word or phrase. And this
is exactly the kind of word games Rowling plays
throughout her novels.
For example, in one scene from Book II (Harry
Potter and the Chamber of Secrets), we learn
that it was a boy named Tom Riddle who eventually
became Lord Voldemort. Riddle unveils this mystery
using an anagram to taunt Harry:
He [Riddle] pulled Harry’s wand from
his pocket and began to trace it through the
air, writing three shimmering words: TOM MARVOLO
RIDDLE. Then he waved the wand once, and the
letters of his name rearranged themselves: I
AM LORD VOLDEMORT. 33
Another anagram, this time in Book I, shows
up when Harry finds a mirror in which he sees
images of his family. Inscribed above the looking
glass are these words: Erised stra ehru oyt
ube cafru oyt on wohsi. 34 Written backward,
they read: Ishow no tyo urfac ebutyo urhe arts
desire. The phrase still makes no sense. But
splice the letters together in a different combination
and suddenly we get: I show not your face but
your heart’s desire. It is not only an
anagram, but a backward anagram! In my opinion,
a similar trick is used to disguise Blavatsky
as Vablatsky.
Pagan and mythological characters play an important
role in Sorcerer’s Stone as well. One
of Harry’s teachers, Minerva McGonagall,
is named after the Roman goddess of agriculture,
navigation, spinning, weaving and needlework.
35 Hogwarts’ caretaker, Argus Filch,36
is named after the Greek mythological giant
with a hundred eyes. We also have Harry’s
best friend, Hermione, who shares her name with
the daughter of Helen of Troy in Greek mythology.
From Homer’s Odyssey, Rowling borrows
the name Circe. 37 In the Greek classic tale,
Circe is a witch who can transform men into
animals. Even the first name of Harry’s
nemesis, Draco Malfoy, is significant. It refers
to astrology. Draco, which means dragon, is
the ancient astrological term for the constellation
that “used to hold special significance
as the location of the pole star, but due to
the Earth’s precession, the pole has shifted
to Polaris in Ursa Minor. The Dragon is usually
associated with guardians of the temples and
treasures.”38
And then there are references to Morgana and
Merlin taken from the Arthurian legends. Merlin
is Arthur’s wizard-mentor. Morgana is
the evil half-sister of Arthur. She seduces
Arthur in order to give birth to Mordred, who
eventual destroys the king. Morgana is said
to be heavily based on “Morrighan,”
an ancient Celtic goddess. “Those who
see her washing out bloody linen are normally
warriors whose vision of her presages their
pending death in battle.”39 Morrighan
is also known as the battle goddess, queen of
witches, the goddess of magick—and the
goddess of death. 40
Perhaps most interesting, though, is Rowling’s
passing reference to the Druid/Celtic goddess
Cliodna, 41 who is still worshiped today by
contemporary pagans and witches. According to
The Circle of the Ancient Ways (COTAW), an independent
group of witches who focus mainly on the Wiccan
path, “the names of Gods and Goddesses
in the Celtic beliefs are probably the most
well known and often used in modern Paganism
and Wicca.”42
Cliodna (also Cliodhna) is Ireland’s pagan
goddess of beauty. It was believed that through
her the magic of “blarney” or the
“gift of gab” came to the Celts.
43 She is a Banshee (also Bean Sidhe), which
in Scotland is referred to as the wailing woman
spirit (Behn Nighe) who lives in the hills and
glens. In Irish folklore, this spirit or fairy
foreshadows death by wailing:
She visits a household and by wailing she warns
them that a member of their family is about
to die. When a Banshee is caught, she is obliged
to tell the name of the doomed. The Bean Sidhe
has long, streaming hair and is dressed in a
gray cloak over a green dress. Her eyes are
fiery red from the constant weeping. When multiple
Banshees wail together, it will herald the death
of someone very great or holy. Aiobhill is the
Banshee of the Dalcassians of North Munster,
Cliodna of the MacCarthys and other families
of South Munster. 44
Finally, Sorcerer’s Stone plainly introduces
astrology through the words of two Centaurs
named Bane and Firenze. 45 (A Centaur is a mythological
beast with the torso and head of a man, but
the hindquarters of a horse.) Bane says, “Remember,
Firenze, we are sworn not to set ourselves against
the heavens. Have we not read what is to come
in the movements of planets?”46 Firenze
replies, “Do you not see that unicorn?
. . . Do you not understand why it was killed?
Or have the planets not let you in on that secret?”47
Astrology is clearly being discussed, given
the fact that Hagrid refers to the two Centaurs
as “stargazers,”48 another name
for astrologers.
Such occult themes are numerous in Book I. Also
plentiful are Rowling’s many references
to various demonic entities deeply connected
to magic, witchcraft and sorcery. However, before
taking a closer look at these demonic beings
(see Chapter 4), we must touch upon another
set of problems within the Potter series—moral
ambiguity and ethical confusion.
POTTERETHICS
Countless articles, both Christian and non-Christian,
have applauded the admirable morals and ethical
behavior of Rowling’s characters. According
to more than one reviewer, Harry and his companions
are brave, true, just, kind, insightful, unselfish
and noble. In a January 2000 article written
for the Roman Catholic journal First Things,
Wheaton College literature professor Alan Jacobs
saluted the first three books (the fourth had
not yet been published), noting: “Rowling’s
moral compass throughout the three volumes is
sound—indeed, I would say, acute.”49
Similarly, a 1999 Knight-Ridder news article
reported that Harry Potter is the perfect role
model to teach children lessons about endurance,
kindness, wisdom and love. 50
Harry is far from perfect. The morals and ethics
in Rowling’s fantasy tales are at best
unclear, and at worst, patently unbiblical.
It is true that there are fleeting moments throughout
her stories where the good characters actually
behave in a way consistent with being “good.”
But on many other occasions, these same characters
act quite contrary to the biblical definition
of “goodness.” This is most apparent
in Harry.
His image as a “good” boy begins
disintegrating early in Book I when he disobeys
Madame Hooch, the instructor hired by Hogwarts
to teach students broom-riding technique. She
directly tells her students, including Harry,
not to ride their brooms while she takes an
injured student to the infirmary. But Harry,
in reaction to Draco Malfoy’s jeers, grabs
a broom and streaks into the sky. He is caught
by Professor McGonagall, but instead of being
punished, is rewarded by being put on Gryffindor’s
Quidditch team. 51 (Quidditch is a wizard’s
soccer-like sport that is played with self-propelled
airborne balls and flying brooms.)
On the same day that Harry ignores Hooch’s
directive, he breaks two more rules by agreeing
to fight Draco in a “wizard’s duel”
at midnight in the school’s trophy room.
Fighting, especially fights in which spells
are used, are against Hogwarts’ rules.
Moreover, students are to be in their dorms
at night. Nevertheless, Harry sneaks out with
his favorite rule-breaking companion, Ron Weasley.
The lone dissenter is Hermione, Ron and Harry’s
acquaintance. She reminds Harry that every time
a student is caught breaking a rule, merit points
are taken away from the dorm in which they live.
She tries to reason with the two boys: “[Y]ou
mustn’t go wandering around the school
at night, think of the points you’ll lose
Gryffindor if you’re caught, and you’re
bound to be. It’s really very selfish
of you.”52
But Harry responds: “[I]t’s really
none of your business.”53
During this scene, we also see Ron casting integrity
to the wind as he instructs Harry in the art
of wizard dueling. Both Harry and Draco have
agreed to the terms: “Wands only—no
contact.”54 But just before Harry and
Ron sneak out at night, Harry asks, “[W]hat
if I wave my wand and nothing happens?”
In direct contradiction to the promise given
to Draco, Ron answers, “Throw it away
and punch him on the nose.”55
Draco never shows up, but the school’s
caretaker does. In fact, he almost catches Harry
and Ron. They manage to avoid capture, however,
by slipping into an off-limits corridor that
houses a monstrous, three-headed hellhound guarding
a trapdoor leading to the Philosopher’s
Stone. But where Rowling could have demonstrated
how breaking the rules can be harmful, she ignores
the rule breaking and instead begins the next
chapter: “Harry and Ron thought that meeting
the three-headed dog had been an excellent adventure,
and they were quite keen to have another one.”56
Next a very serious regulation is broken by
Harry when he sneaks into the library, yet again
at night, to have a peek at the Dark Magic books
kept in the school’s restricted section.
No student is allowed to look at any of these
texts unless they have a request form signed
by a teacher. But Harry feels he has a good
reason to ignore this rule: he must find out
about Nicholas Flamel. Again, rather than following
any objective standard of right and wrong (i.e.,
Hogwarts’ rules), Harry lets his own self-interests
and subjective rationalizations determine his
actions.
Something else happens on this same evening.
He finds the mirror of Erised (a.k.a. Desire),
which shows him movie-like images of his dead
family smiling and waving back at him. This
is indeed a touching scene. But it only serves
to cause Harry’s “moral compass”
to go further awry. He sneaks out of his dorm
on two subsequent nights in order to go back
to the mirror. On the third night, he gets caught
by Albus Dumbledore, Hogwarts’ Headmaster.
Does he punish Harry, or even chastise him for
being where students should not be in the middle
of the night? No! He simply explains to him
about the Mirror of Desire, then sends little
Harry scurrying back to bed. 57 So far Harry
has disobeyed Hogwarts’ codes at least
seven times without suffering any consequences.
By page 225 of Book I, Harry is doing just about
whatever he wants to do, making decisions for
himself based on what he feels is best for him.
He even follows Professor Snape—the Potions
teacher—into the “Forbidden Forest”
(a dangerous wooded area beside Hogwarts that
is off-limits to all students). 58 Only Hermione,
an oft-ridiculed student, seems bothered by
all the rule-breaking. Again and again she tries
to explain why following school directives is
important. Harry’s responses are consistently
negative:
Chapter 9
Hermione: “Don’t you care about
Gryffindor, do you only care about yourselves,
I don’t want Slytherin to win the house
cup, and you’ll lose all the points I
got from Professor McGonagall . . .”
Harry: “Go away.”59
Chapter 10
Hermione: “So I suppose you think that’s
a reward for breaking rules?”
Harry: “I thought you weren’t speaking
to us?”
Ron: Yes, don’t stop now, it’s doing
us so much good.”60
Rowling herself, throughout the narrative
portions of Book I, refers to Hermione as “hissing
. . . like an angry goose,” having a “bad
temper” and being a “bossy know-it-all.”61
Sadly, Hermione succumbs to peer pressure after
overhearing Ron and Harry say she is disliked
at the school and that “she’s a
nightmare.”62 Hermione endears herself
to them by telling a “downright lie”
to a teacher in order to cover up for the boys:
“Harry was speechless. Hermione was the
last person to do anything against the rules,
and here she was, pretending she had, to get
them out of trouble.”63 This morally troubling
scene concludes with Hermione and the boys becoming
friends. 64
In an equally tragic tweak on morality, a small
boy named Neville Longbottom tries to correct
Ron and Harry and is basically ridiculed for
it. “Don’t you call me an idiot,”
Neville says. “I don’t think you
should be breaking any more rules! And you were
the one who told me to stand up to people.”
Ron’s answer perfectly illustrates the
message Rowling seems to be communicating: “Yes,
but not us.”65
When Neville tries to prevent Ron and Harry
from again sneaking out of the dorm, Hermione
(now as much a rule-breaker as her friends),
puts a full “Body-Bind” spell on
him: “Neville’s arms snapped to
his sides. His legs sprang together. His whole
body rigid, he swayed where he stood and then
fell flat on his face, stiff as a board.”66
In yet another scene, Rowling writes: “Excuses,
alibis, and wild cover-up stories chased each
other around Harry’s brain, each more
feeble than the last. He couldn’t see
how they were going to get out of trouble this
time.”67 The option of simply telling
the truth never even crosses Harry’s mind,
but he cannot come up with a lie either. Significantly,
this one instance in which Harry’s knack
for lying does not work quickly enough is the
one instance that he and his companions are
punished with detention after school hours.
The adults in Book I hardly act any better.
They not only break other people’s rules,
but also break their own rules. Consider Hagrid
(Hogwarts’ Keeper of the Keys and Grounds).
He consistently performs spells even though
he is not supposed to do magic. (He was expelled
from Hogwarts during his third year, which means
he never graduated to the level of full wizard.)68
He also ignores legal statutes applicable to
the entire wizard world. For instance, he raises
an “illegal” dragon against the
1709 Warlock’s Convention law prohibiting
dragon breeding in Britain. 69
Even worse, Hagrid consistently asks Harry and
his friends not to tell anyone about his disobedience.
On page 64, he makes this request: “If
I was ter—er—speed things up a bit,
would yeh mind not mentionin’ it at Hogwarts?”
Harry replies, “Of course not,”
because he is eager to “see more magic.”70
Later in the book, Hagrid actually asks Harry,
Ron and Hermione to smuggle his illegal dragon
out of Hogwarts, with the help of Ron’s
brother, Charlie (a Hogwarts graduate), and
some of Charlie’s older, postgraduate
friends. 71
Professor McGonagall even persuades Headmaster
Dumbledore to allow her to break school rules
by allowing Harry to have his own flying broom
and to play on Gryffindor’s Quidditch
team—privileges not granted to first-year
students. Why dismiss these rules? Because Harry
is a natural-born broom-rider, and as such,
is bound to be an excellent Quidditch player.
Since Gryffindor has not won the championship
in years, the course of action is clear: put
Harry on the team.
The threefold moral message that Rowling presents
through her characters is clear: 1) rules are
made to be broken if they do not serve one’s
own self-interests; 2) rules need not be obeyed
if no good reason seems to exist for them; and
3) lying is an effective and acceptable means
of achieving a desired end. This latter lesson
is implied in one student’s explanation
for why he is half-Muggle: “ ‘Me
dad’s a Muggle. Mom didn’t tell
him she was a witch ’til after they were
married. Bit of a nasty shock for him.’
The others laughed.”72
Judith Krug of the Chicago-based American Library
Association has stated,
The storyline is wonderful. . . . We have
Harry Potter as an orphan. There’s no
one always telling him what to do, and what
young person hasn’t at one point said,
“Oh, if they’d only leave me alone.”
Or: “I wish that I didn’t have parents.”
They don’t mean this in a mean way. It’s
just that parents get in the way. 73
In the real world, parents do indeed “get
in the way,” especially when a child misbehaves,
or when a child needs loving guidance away from
harmful activities. But children, because they
are children, often do not want to be disciplined.
It is no wonder they like the Potter books so
much. As one eleven-year-old girl told me, “I
like Harry because he can do whatever he wants
to do.”
Although he may have benevolent motives (e.g.,
wanting to keep someone from taking the Philosopher’s
Stone, or trying to keep Draco from hurting
a student), Harry ultimately is simply following
his own self-interests. This is consistent with
modern Wicca, as the Wiccan Creed says: “If
it harm none, do what you will.” The creed
would apply to such things as unbiblical sexual
encounters, use of illegal drugs and lying.
Starhawk, founder of Covenant of the Goddess,
plainly says, “In witchcraft, we do not
fight self-interest, we follow it.”74
Whether Rowling realizes it or not, she is promoting
witchcraft/occultism/Wicca in the form of ethical
and moral subjectivism.
AGE 6 AND UP?
During a National Public Radio interview with
Diane Rehm, J.K. Rowling explained that she
did not necessarily write her books for children.
She actually penned them as novels that she
herself, as an adult, would enjoy reading. 75
Rowling also mentioned that she kept in mind
the kind of book she might have wanted to read
as a little girl. Interestingly, Rowling has
stated: “When I was quite young, my parents
never said books were off limits. . . . As a
child, I read a lot of adult books. I don’t
think you should censor kids’ reading
material. It’s important just to let them
go do what they need to do.”76
Rowling apparently feels that adult-oriented
material is perfectly suitable for children,
which may explain why forty-three percent of
her books sold in 1999 were to readers older
than fourteen. And according to the N.D. Group,
a leading market research firm that tracks book-buying
in 12,000 households, nearly thirty percent
of Harry Potter purchases were made for readers
thirty-five or older. Some adult readers are
so captivated by Harry that they have begun
concocting their own “fan-written”
Potter adult stories.
For example, there is “Harry Potter and
the Paradigm of Uncertainty,” which can
be found on the Internet at e-Groups. Lori Summers,
author of this narrative in progress, describes
it as a PG-13 story for adult fans of the Harry
Potter series. It takes place twelve years in
the future, is extremely romantic in nature,
and puts Harry living in one big dorm with several
other witches (females) and wizards (males).
Summers stresses it is not for children. 77
But adult Harry Potter fans need not scan the
Internet for “mature” material,
especially when it comes to scenes involving
gratuitous violence, gruesome images, cruelty
and humor that often borders on perversity.
One of the most grisly characters to come from
Rowling is a ghost named “Nearly Headless
Nick” who lived 500 years earlier and
died on a Halloween night by being struck on
the neck forty-five times with a blunt ax. 78
He first appears in Chapter 7 of Book I:
“I know who you are!” said Ron
suddenly. “My brothers told me about you—you’re
Nearly Headless Nick!”
. . . “Nearly Headless?” [asked
Seamus Finnigan]. “How can you be nearly
headless?”
“Like this,” he said irritably.
He seized his left ear and pulled. His whole
head swung off his neck and fell onto his shoulder
as if it was on a hinge. Someone had obviously
tried to behead him, but not done it properly.
79
Then, in Chapter 15, readers are treated to
a horrible scene featuring Professor Quirrell,
who is possessed by Voldemort:
[O]ut of the shadows, a hooded figure came
crawling across the ground like some stalking
beast. . . . The cloaked figure reached the
unicorn, lowered its head over the wound in
the animal’s side, and began to drink
its blood. 80
Scenes less gory, but equally disturbing, are
those wherein cruelty/vengeance are presented
as acceptable. Hagrid, for instance, performs
an illegal spell against Harry’s cousin,
Dudley. (He gives Dudley an extremely painful
pig’s tail that has to be surgically removed.)
This is not done because Dudley himself acts
improperly toward Hagrid. It is done to punish
Mr. Dursley for insulting Dumbledore. 81 Rather
than attacking Mr. Dursley, Hagrid turns his
revenge against Dudley (an innocent individual)
as a way of more gravely hurting the father.
Revenge also appears in a Diagon Alley scene,
where Harry finds Curses and Countercurses (Bewitch
Your Friends and Befuddle Your Enemies with
the Latest Revenges: Hair Loss, Jelly Legs,
Tongue-Tying and Much, Much More) by Professor
Vindictus Viridian. When Hagrid drags Harry
away so they can stay on their time schedule,
Harry says: “I was trying to find out
how to curse Dudley.” Instead of correcting
Harry and pointing him in a better direction,
Hagrid replies: “I’m not sayin’
that’s not a good idea, but yer not ter
use magic in the Muggle world except in very
special circumstances.”82
A display of similar attitudes by other “good”
characters throughout the Potter series creates
a running theme that is not difficult to discern:
It is appropriate to return evil for evil, and
treat others well only if they treat you well.
As Rowling herself has stated about her main
character: “Harry wants to get back at
Dudley. . . . [A]nd we readers want him to get
back at Dudley. And, in the long run, trust
me, he will.”83 Contrast this approach
with what Scripture says regarding enemies and
our treatment of them:
Thou shalt not avenge. . . . [L]ove
thy neighbour as thyself. (Leviticus
19:18)
Recompense to no man evil for evil.
. . . If it be possible, as much as lieth in
you, live peaceably with all men. . . . Be not
overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
(Romans 12:17-18, 21)
Love your enemies, do good to them which
hate you, bless them that curse you, and pray
for them which despitefully use you. (Luke
6:27-28)
In yet another scene, Professor Snape—the
disliked potions teacher—is seen limping
due to some sort of injury to his leg. Harry
wonders what is wrong with Snape, and Ron bitterly
replies: “Dunno, but I hope it’s
really hurting him.”84 Again, the Bible
reads very differently: “Rejoice
not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine
heart be glad when he stumbleth”
(Proverbs 24:17).
Clearly, Rowling’s books include a great
deal of material that is inappropriate for children
as well as inconsistent with Christian values.
Despite these flaws, Book I has become a best-seller
around the world. According to an ABCnews.com
report, it is because Rowling’s books
“show the complexities of children, and
the ambiguities of childhood—the delights
and fears of separation and exploration.”85
But as we have seen, these volumes also contain
material that is both unsuitable and harmful
to children. Rowling’s second volume,
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, is
just as problematic.
Source: Copyright © 2001 by Horizon
Books, a division of Christian Publications,
Inc., Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. Used by permission.
All rights reserved. |
announcement
View
Point