Two views of Harry Potter

Why Harry Potter Goes Awry

Author Michael D. O´Brien Critiques a Literary Phenomenon

COMBERMERE, Ontario, DEC. 6, 2001 (Zenit.org).- As the film "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" opened to record box-office receipts, ZENIT turned to renowned Canadian author Michael D. O'Brien to comment on the phenomenon.

O'Brien's works include the novel "Father Elijah" and a critique of the paganization of children's culture, "A Landscape With Dragons: The Battle for Your Child's Mind," both by Ignatius Press.

Q: Many are critical of the Harry Potter books because they claim it is dangerous to expose children to witchcraft and the occult. What is your reaction to this?

O'Brien: I have read the four volumes of the Harry Potter series three times, and with each reading the serious defects of the novels appear in clearer light.

The most obvious problem, of course, is the author's use of the symbol-world of the occult as her primary metaphor, and occultic activities as the dramatic engine of the plots. It presents these to the child reader through attractive role models, such as Harry and Hermione, who are students of witchcraft and sorcery. This has the potential of lowering a child's guard -- both subconscious and spiritual -- to actual occult activity, which is everywhere and growing.

Rationally, children know that the fantasy element in the books is not "real." But emotionally and subconsciously the young reader absorbs it as real. This is further complicated by the fact that in the world around us there are many opportunities for young people to enter the occult subcultures, where some of Harry's powers are indeed offered as real.

Q: Critics of Harry Potter see a big difference between authors such as Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, who, they argue, use magical elements in a Christian way, and the books of J.K. Rowling, where magic is presented in a Gnostic and pagan fashion.

O'Brien: The differences are great, I would say absolute. The resemblance between the works of Christian fantasy writers and Rowling is only superficial. Yes, there is "magic" in both. Yet Tolkien and Lewis repeatedly warn about the danger of magic throughout their novels.

Tolkien is especially clear on this. In his great epic "The Lord of the Rings," and in his foundational work, "The Silmarillion," he shows that powers that do not rightly belong to man always have a corrupting influence on man. Only higher ranks of creatures in his imaginary world exercise supernatural powers, and then only as a gift from God.

The evil characters in the tale have corrupted these gifts, or else -- in the case of humans -- they have tried to seize them as personal possessions, only to be deceived and finally destroyed by them. Moreover, the "magic" in Tolkien's subcreation does not really resemble magic practices in the real world. He makes efforts to explain this in his collected letters, where he expresses some concern that his intention might be misinterpreted by readers.

In his fantasy series for children, "The Chronicles of Narnia," and in his cosmic trilogy for adults, C.S. Lewis also repeatedly demonstrates the seductiveness of powers that are not rightly man's, especially when they are seized as a form of Gnostic quest for power.

Both of these Christian writers firmly underline the fact that defeat of radical evil depends on humility, courage, love, self-sacrifice -- in short, our natural human virtues.

Q: How does this differ from Rowling's approach in the Potter series?

O'Brien: Rowling's Potter-world is fundamentally Gnostic. Magic is presented as an inherent faculty of human nature that only needs awakening and formation through the pursuit of esoteric knowledge and power.

There is not even a whiff of divine presence, whereas Tolkien's and Lewis' worlds are radiant with this unspoken presence. In Potter-world, magic is portrayed as a morally neutral power, which in the hands of "nice" characters serves the good, and in the hands of negative characters serves evil.

When the war between good and evil is portrayed as thrilling and highly rewarding emotionally, a child reader will be imprinted deeply with messages about the way in which the "good" characters defeat the evil.

Tolkien's central character, Frodo, defeats evil by fidelity to truth, by rejecting unlawful power, and persevering in a state of weakness. Rowling's central character defeats evil by amassing enough power to overcome his archenemy, yet this power is the same as that of his opponent.

Simply saying that the Potter books show good as better than evil, is not sufficient defense of the series. Rowling has radically blurred the lines between good and evil, redefining some of both. The real question is, what is the nature of good and evil as she has presented it, and as it is presented in the film.

Q: Others see in the stories a classical children's tale, albeit with magical elements, of good against evil. What positive elements are there in the books for readers?

O'Brien: I can think of few works of culture, regardless of how flawed, that do not contain some positive elements. But this is no argument for giving gravely disordered material to our children.

In the Potter series there is an attempt to portray courage and loyalty in the "good" characters. But courage and loyalty can be found in all peoples, even those involved in the worst forms of paganism.

It is important to note that children read fiction with a different consciousness than adults. This is something that has been overlooked by those Christian leaders who have written pro-Potter commentaries. They forget that children are in a state of formation, that their understanding of reality is being forged at every turn.

Wholesome fantasy, regardless of how wildly imaginative it may be, reinforces the moral order of the universe in a child's mind. Corrupt fantasy undermines it. The Potter world is corrupt fantasy with a little cosmetics. The cosmetics are the "values" woven into the tale by the author.

In modern culture we have all become accustomed to eating a certain amount of poison in our diet; indeed most of us no longer even recognize the poison. I believe that's why many educators and parents simply don't recognize the scope of the problem with the Potter books.

Q: Would you say that the witchcraft and sorcery element is the only defect in the Potter series?

O'Brien: There are other serious problems in these books, notably the question of authority and obedience.

Harry's faults are rarely punished, and usually by the negative authority figures in the tale. The positive authority figures actually reward Harry for his disobedience when it brings about some perceived good. His lies, his acts of vengeance, and his misuse of his powers are frequently ignored. The message of "the end justifies the means" is dominant throughout.

Lip service is paid to a code of ethics -- never really spelled out -- but in fact the undermining of those ethics is reinforced at every turn. Another problem is the consistent use of repulsive details, lowering the child's instinctive aversion to the horrible and grotesque.

For example, in one class the students are taught to cut up mandrake roots, which are living human babies, for use in a potion. At the least, this can cause a subconscious desensitization to abortion.

Q: In recent years there has been a surge of interest in themes related to the occult. Why is this happening?

O'Brien: The phenomenal resurgence of interest in occult "spiritualities" is a symptom of the bankruptcy of secularism. There is an innate hunger in human nature for the sacred transcendent, for the holy, wherein man finds his true identity and worth. When it is denied, a void opens up within him.

If our particular churches are not offering the fullness of the Catholic faith to the coming generation, if we are not giving the young an authentic and vital spiritual life, they will go searching elsewhere -- and the realm of the pseudo-mystical, which is so often connected to the diabolical, will be waiting for them.

The Potter books open a doorway into that world. Articles have been appearing for more than a year now, in secular and religious periodicals, providing evidence that this series of books bridges the gap between normal children and the world of darkness.

With the appearance of the film version of the first volume -- and this film promises to be the biggest box office hit of all time -- an added dimension of psychological influence is at work.

Any serious student of modern media recognizes the power of film to reshape consciousness. By using both overt and subliminal techniques, it can override the mind's natural critical faculty. It is also interesting to note that, even in the books, Rowling's use of imagery and pace is actually derived from the techniques of visual media.

Q: Is the interest in the occult among the young a sign of the lack of Christian influence in modern culture?

O'Brien: Certainly the lack of truly Christian culture is part of the problem. It is never enough simply to keep unhealthy influences from our children. The primary task is to give them good food for the imagination, providing opportunities to fall in love with the great adventure of existence.

By and large, modern culture has replaced the splendor and wonder of existence with cheap thrills. The Potter series is a full-blown orgy of cheap thrills, dipped in a little pseudo-morality. The morality is thin; the corrupt messages, both overt and subliminal, are overwhelming.

But the Potter phenomenon must be seen within a larger context -- not only the ideological confusions of the present sociohistorical era, and the unprecedented power of the new media culture to reshape our understanding of reality.

Most urgently, we must recognize that the nature of the spiritual war in which we are all immersed is changing rapidly, entering a new phase of intensity.

Q: What should parents do to guide their children through the hazards of modern culture?

O'Brien: First of all, parents need to recognize that there is a problem. A majority of our Catholic parents are not yet awake to the spiritual assault that is waged primarily through culture.

Culture defines us to ourselves, tells us what is of value, what is harmless or dangerous, what is the real meaning of existence. We must recognize that the times we live in are unique; the bombardment of our minds by powerful imagery and messages has no parallel in human history.

A constant onslaught of indoctrination pours into our children's lives through films, videos, books, music and all the other forms of social communication -- peer pressure being one of them. Parents need to familiarize themselves with what's really going on in youth culture.

The sheer volume and complexity of this material, however, makes it impossible to assess it all. For that reason, we need to pray daily for spiritual protection for our families, and to ask God for extraordinary gifts of wisdom and discernment.

We also need to ask the Holy Spirit for the development of an inner barometer, or radar, which triggers a warning bell within us whenever corrupt influences enter the family. Last but not least is the gift of courage -- courage to firmly and lovingly resist the invasion.

Q: One consequence of the books has been to spark interest in reading among children. Isn't that a positive sign?

O'Brien: While it is true that the Potter books are hooking a generation on reading, I must say that this is a superficial defense of the series. Will the 100 million young fans of Harry now turn to Tolkien and Dickens and Twain?

Or will they go searching for more of the thrills Rowling has whetted their appetite for? There is a lot of corrupt literature out there, well-written material that may indeed stimulate a literary habit, as it speeds the degeneration of moral consciousness.

Q: So you believe that literacy is not of utmost importance in the development of a healthy child?

O'Brien: A discerning literacy -- the true literacy -- is of very great importance in a child's formation. But literacy alone can never be enough. Is an appetite for reading fiction a higher value than a child's moral formation? Is any book better than no book? Would we give our children a bowl of stew in which there was a dose of poison, simply because there were also good ingredients mixed into the recipe? Of course we wouldn't.

Discernment is always needed in deciding what we give our children. So why are we discarding this basic understanding when it comes to unhealthy cultural material?

Reasonable Christian parents would not permit their children to read a series of enthralling books depicting likable young people involved in drug-dealing, or premarital sex, or torture. We would not give our children fiction in which a group of "good fornicators" struggled against a set of "bad fornicators."

We would not justify giving our children such books by pointing out the characters' good qualities. Why, then, have we accepted a set of books which glamorize and normalize occult activity, even though it is every bit as deadly to the soul as sexual sin, if not more so?

Q: Some literary critics and scholars say that the Potter series is a valuable contribution to culture. Why are they not concerned about the problems you see in the books?

O'Brien: I'm surprised by the promotion of the Potter series in certain Christian circles, even among some Catholic academics. Perhaps this is due to their naiveté about the power of fantasy. Possibly it's an overreliance on individual reason, as if to say, "I am so intelligent, and my child is so intelligent, that we can enjoy the irrational and the corrupt without being affected by it, and therefore it's not really corrupt."

This non sequitur is based on the mistaken belief that the imagination can be safely contained within an airtight compartment of the mind. I'm guessing here, but I suspect there is also a certain fear at work in their adamant and not always objective reaction to criticism of the Potter series.

Is their overreaction caused by a fear of anti-intellectualism, a fear of "fundamentalism," perhaps even a fear of loss of credibility among other academics? I'm not certain. At the very least it indicates a lack of understanding about the integral relationship between faith and culture, between imagination and the world of action.

Consistently, the pro-Potter advocates extract details from the books that point to some kind of "morality" in the series, actually more a set of "values" -- to use the modern term -- than genuine morality. Their approach is, I think, rather revealing. Any serious scholar should know that empirical "evidence" for any theory can be found by dipping selectively into a large body of source material, and that this can be highly misleading.

When a scholar operates from an a priori need to find supportive data for his gut attraction, truth gets lost in the process. And this is the crux of the problem for all of us: Regardless of whether we are impelled by a gut attraction or a gut repulsion to the world of Harry Potter, we must ask ourselves if we are thinking according to principles, or are we articulating impressively as we let ourselves be driven by feelings.

If Catholic intellectual life becomes dominated by visceral likes and dislikes, we may very well find ourselves contributing to a dark future for Western civilization. We may even help form a race of super-impressionists incapable of right discernment. This is a profoundly disturbing trend. The fruits of it will be even more disturbing.


More detailed assessments of the Harry Potter series can be found at the Web site of the Catholic Educators' Resource Center, at www.catholiceducation.org and also at www.studiobrien.com.

TOP


Fundamentalism Afoot in Anti-Potter Camp, Says New-Religions Expert

Popular Culture Enjoys an Autonomy, Explains Massimo Introvigne

TURIN, Italy, DEC. 6, 2001 (Zenit.org).- What does one of Europe's leading experts on new religious movements and sects think about Harry Potter?

ZENIT approached Massimo Introvigne to find out. He is the director of CESNUR, the Center for Studies on New Religions, an international network of associations of scholars working in the field of new religious movements. He has just published a book on Osama bin Laden.

Q: Many are critical of the Harry Potter books because they claim it is dangerous to expose children to witchcraft and the occult. What do you think?

Introvigne: As both a Roman Catholic and a social scientist, I regard this as an extremely interesting, yet dangerous, form of fundamentalism, a subject matter I have considerable interest in.

Fundamentalism, in general, consists in denying the autonomy of culture --and of the secular sphere in general, including politics -- claiming that there should be no distinction between religion and culture.

Fundamentalists, from a Catholic point of view, are not wrong in their diagnosis of a modern illness, that is, separation or divorce between religion and culture. It's their cure that is wrong.

Vatican II -- and Thomas Aquinas several centuries before -- teaches that religion and culture should not be separated; at the same time they should not be confused, because they are not one and the same. When Vatican II mentions the autonomy of the secular sphere, its operative word is "distinction," something different from both secularist separation and fundamentalist confusion.

Fundamentalism is rare among Catholics, but the anti-Potter crusade is an example of how Protestant fundamentalist ideas are getting disseminated in certain Catholic milieus as well.

There is little doubt that the Harry Potter books and movie are prime examples of a social production of popular culture that -- unlike, say, in the 17th century -- is not controlled, nor determined, by the Church or the Christian community.

Secularists would say not only that this is always good and positive, but that we should judge contemporary cultural products leaving entirely aside Christian moral values.

Fundamentalists reject, or even burn, all products of contemporary popular culture, because their modes of production, languages and styles are not intrinsically Christian. If we honor the Catholic teaching on the autonomy of the culture, yet retain the right to judge its products based on our own values, we cannot dismiss contemporary popular culture as a whole and should judge on a case-by-case basis.

It is an obvious fact that modern popular culture often uses the language of magic. This goes back to classics such as "Lord of the Rings," "The Wizard of Oz," "Mary Poppins" and "Peter Pan," not to mention much older stories such as Cinderella, Snow White and Sleeping Beauty.

The authors of what we call "supernatural fiction" do not necessarily believe in magic. Most of them don't. For instance, Bram Stoker, the creator of one of the ultimate novels of supernatural fiction, "Dracula," also wrote a book called "Famous Imposters" against all sort of superstitious and magical beliefs. Stoker was an Irish Protestant, married to a pious Catholic wife.

Most children understand that magic is used in fairy tales and juvenile supernatural fiction as a century-old language, and that this is fiction, not reality. If we dismiss the use of magic as a language, we should at least be fundamentalist to the bitter end, and go against "Mary Poppins," "Peter Pan" and "Sleeping Beauty," and insist that Cinderella puts a burkha on.

By the way, this is what not only the Taliban but even ruling Wahhabite puritans in Saudi Arabia do: All the titles and stories I have quoted were forbidden in Taliban Afghanistan, and most are in Saudi Arabia.

Of course, regarding magic as an acceptable language does not mean that we should not go on and examine what stories are told with this language. "Harry Potter," just as "Sleeping Beauty" or "Cinderella," pass this examination in my opinion with full flag, because the human values they teach are good natural values.

Q: Critics of Harry Potter see a big difference between authors such as Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, who, they argue, use magical elements in a Christian way, and the books of J.K. Rowling, where magic is presented in a Gnostic and pagan fashion.

Introvigne: It seems to me that there is a big confusion here between the author and the text.

It is not necessary to read modern secular theory of interpretation -- such, as say, Umberto Eco -- in order to realize that they are two very different things. It is enough to read classic philosophy in to distinguish between "intentio auctoris" and "intentio operas."

We all know that Tolkien was a good Church of England Christian. But I challenge anybody who would know nothing of Tolkien's biography to find explicit references to Christianity in "Lord of the Rings." This is a typical alternative universe, where the rules of the game are simply not the same with respect to human history.

There have even been some idiots trying to create a religion out of Tolkien's books. This is, of course, silly: Tolkien's world is fictional, and should remain as such.

On the other hand, Pamela Travers, who wrote "Mary Poppins," was a loyal disciple of occult master George Ivanovitch Gurdjieff, but this does not means that "Mary Poppins" is occult propaganda. Quite simply, the private beliefs of the authors do have a certain influence on their work but do not often translate into explicit references.

If anything, Tolkien's world is much bleaker and problematic than "Harry Potter." But again, it's fictional, and what really counts is the lesson we learn from the characters and their moral struggles.

Q: Others see in the Potter stories a classical children's tale, albeit with magical elements, of good against evil. What positive elements are there in the books for readers?

Introvigne: Just as in Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" -- which I would however recommend for children a bit older than the average juvenile reader of "Harry Potter" -- there are precious values for the postmodern world we live in.

First, there is a clear distinction between good and evil. Second, this distinction is not black-and-white -- a trademark of both cheap popular culture and fundamentalism; rather, the good characters are continuously in danger of being overcome by an evil within themselves.

This is what makes these characters both believable and educational. By the way, I believe that not including specific references to Christianity in a fictional universe, even by an obviously Christian author such as Tolkien, is the right thing to do. Young readers should not be confused between fictional worlds and Christianity, the latter being very much part of reality.

Q: In recent years there has been a surge of interest in themes related to the occult. Is the interest in this area a sign of the lack of Christian influence in modern culture?

Introvigne: This is partially true, but many simply repeat that "the occult is on the rise" based on press cuttings, without any real familiarity with the existing large body of social scientific literature on this subject.

While it is true that some occult groups are growing, but remain small, they are still very small if compared to Christian denominations. In the European Union, members of occult or esoteric movements are less than 0.1% of the populations. This is also true in the U.S.

The fact that the media offer a large coverage of these groups does not mean that they are, in fact, large. Some beliefs are on the rise, particularly reincarnation, but this is not a pure "occult " belief -- it is found in some contemporary fiction, but rarely.

On the other hand, concluding that the occult is on the rise because of the popularity of TV serials such as "Charmed," "The X-Files" or "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is, again, a confusion between fiction and reality.

These shows have a large following in Europe, yet occult movements are actually experiencing a decline here. There is, thus, some empirical evidence that a decade of heavy fictional magic on TV did not translate in increased membership for occult movements -- if one ignores, as he or she should rightly do, the propaganda utterances of the leaders of these movements themselves, some of whom try to exploit "Harry Potter" or the TV serials for their own ends, and relies on social scientific literature rather than on anecdotal evidence.

Q: One consequence of the Potter books has been to spark interest in reading among children. On the other hand, some worry about the creation of imaginary worlds and the difficulties this can create for children in distinguishing reality and fiction. What should parents do to guide their children?

Introvigne: I believe that "Harry Potter" worked its real magic in winning back children to books from TV. Only "Harry Potter" induced my 8-year-old daughter to say that she preferred to read than to watch TV -- we were very surprised. This is surely good.

On the other hand, we did not leave the situation unchecked and constantly discussed "Harry Potter" with our daughter, making sure she understood that magic there is fictional, whilst good moral values are real and should prevail also in the real world.

Parents should ideally do this -- and we know it's difficult -- with most products of contemporary popular culture, graduating them according to their children's age, rather than enclosing their kids in a fundamentalist ghetto.

I wouldn't like a Catholic version of the Taliban regime, and quite frankly prefer my Cinderella to go to her party without a burkha.
ZE01120625