AN ORTHODOX VIEW OF HARRY POTTER

[Ephraem]

The fact that a tale contains lessons in morality does not excuse or somehow nullify the effect of the context they're found in. We all know how impressionable young minds are (yes) and HP is doing quite well in establishing in the unprotected minds an attitude towards magick, spells, occult schools, and the such, where these are considered cool, fun, profitable, acceptable. Some kids will be immune, and some souls will die. Magic is clearly demonic, so why make it seem okay? Why support a work that is spiritually endangering? Should we not fear it?

O Lord and Master of my life!
Take from me the spirit of sloth...
Give rather the spirit of chastity

One of the reasons that fantasy is used as a vehicle for tales of morality is that it helps to isolate what is morally real about the story. In a sense, it is a means of intellectual abstraction, because it pulls the principles of moral conflict outside of one's preconceptions.

Certainly, this can be done with fiction without resorting the fantasy.

In the case of HP, magic is essentially a cross between a talent and a kind of technology.

Magic and astrology are based on demonic knowledge, traditions derived from demonic origins. Occultism is technology employed by skilled practitioners. The Scriptures and the Fathers clearly warn against any involvement at all in this thing which is not of God.

The proposition within the context of the story is that magic in the story on the whole is morally neutral, and acquires its moral color by how it is used. It is therefore being used (from a story perspective) to heighten the issue of moral choice.

Candy coated turd. I've known a number of very moral occultniks, and I pray for them nightly since I know the spiritual suicide that comes with the involvement in those so-called practices, despite any given moral uprightness.

The issue of moral reality here doesn't have much to do with the fantastic setting of the story

What makes you think the kids can separate the two?
Poison is in the milk they're drinking.

[joasia]

CGW wrote:

Ms. Rowling is church-going Methodist-- not an occultist.

Interesting. This brings up a new question...why would a woman who is suppose to be conscience of God(albeit in a limited state), write such books about sorcery and incantations?

Don't forget that there are "church-going" people who proclaim their faith in God and are yet members of the KKK.

Maybe your children are dull enough to be satified with the lives of the saints as reading matter; mine are not. I was not.

Really nice commentary about the people who lived and died for Orthodoxy. :ohvey:

Now, I don't have a copy of the Philokalia handy, but there references I've seen to the citation from St. Hesychios indicate that he is especially talking of a sort of what these days would be called meditation. One could not walk down the street in the mental state he appears to be describing.

His teachings of the Jesus prayer has nothing in common with the non-Orthodox idea of meditation in our times. The first is an inspiration by God, the latter is a completely demonic illusion.

[ania]

I won't saying anything more on Harry Potter, as obviously your mind is made up regarding him.
Leaving him aside, however, here I find myself wanting to defend the entire literary world, and the right to have an active imagination. After all, isn't that what books are all about? Leaving aside legal documents, they were all created so that the authors could stir other peoples imaginations (even medical texts make the mind wrap around ideas previously unknown).
Do not tell me when you read the lives of saints, that your mind does not play out the scene. And if you only allow yourself to imagine what is tangible, then how can you allow yourself to imagine the mircles of the saints, and of Christ himself?

[ania]

Don't forget that there are "church-going" people who proclaim their faith in God and are yet members of the KKK.

And some Nazis used to sneak my grandfather jam and bread while he was a POW to keep him from starving, your point?
Evil can exist in what seems like good, and good can exist in what seems like evil. It can be either way, and therefore a useless tool for debate.

[joasia]

We're talking about fictional novels, right?

There is a great difference. One is the inspiration by God and the true faith. The other is a created man-made dillusion which leads mankind away from focusing on the true faith...which is Orthodoxy, of course.

But, since this post is about writings of sorcery, we should stick to that subject, shouldn't we? Perhaps a new post would be more appropriate for discussion about liturature in general.

[joasia]

And some Nazis used to sneak my grandfather jam and bread while he was a POW to keep him from starving, your point?
Evil can exist in what seems like good, and good can exist in what seems like evil. It can be either way, and therefore a useless tool for debate.

No, it's a good tool. It's the point I'm making. Don't always trust what you see about a person. But, observe what he does. Isn't that the meaning of bearing fruit?

[CGW]

The fact that a tale contains lessons in morality does not excuse or somehow nullify the effect of the context they're found in.

Thinking about this, I was initially inclined to agree, with qualifications. But I find that I must disagree. The problem is that a story cannot in general be taken apart this way. To do so is to enter into the specificities of interpretation, and at that point one must talk as much about the reader as about the text.

Now, I know some people who dislike HP intensely-- because of what are patently faults in the way they read it. One of the rules of fantasy is that the author is more visibly taking control of the rules of the universe, and while there are limits to how much things can be changed (suspension of disbelief and all that) by and large the reader has to grant the writer the system that is outlined. I know people who can't accept this. Rowling writes in the third person from Harry's view, and he goes from a position of utter ignorance to a gradual learning of how things work. Some people cannot accept this because it means that a lot of magic happens in the early books without any explanation of how it works.

We all know how impressionable young minds are (yes) and HP is doing quite well in establishing in the unprotected minds an attitude towards magick, spells, occult schools, and the such, where these are considered cool, fun, profitable, acceptable.

Here again I must disagree. If HP is making an impression, it is surely true that this impression varies hugely. And it's also true that forbidding something also makes an impression, and that forbidding something that is tried anyway and is "found" to be harmless makes another impression: it discredits those who do the forbidding.

For example:

Magic is clearly demonic, so why make it seem okay? Why support a work that is spiritually endangering?

A reader of the books can see that within the context of the story magic is not demonic-- in fact, so far I recall no demons at all. (While I'm at it, it should be noted that the third and fifth books devote quite a bit of space to ridiculing occultic divination.)

I don't know that what modern occultists do is demonic either. Actually, I would say that in my experience it is a load of hooey and that the spirits do not come when they are called. It is to be avoided. But any vaguely cogent reader can tell that the magic in HP-- or that in Tolkien, or in any number of books-- has nothing to do with the occult. It is fatally damaging to the authority of a parent to engage in this sort of misrepresentation of works of fantasy, because almost all children are smart enough to catch on that the parent's discernment is poor.

One of the reasons that fantasy is used as a vehicle for tales of morality is that it helps to isolate what is morally real about the story. In a sense, it is a means of intellectual abstraction, because it pulls the principles of moral conflict outside of one's preconceptions.

Certainly, this can be done with fiction without resorting the fantasy.

Early on I made the point that all literature is fantasy. Let me give an object example: The Bridge of San Luis Rey. For those of you who haven't read it, a synopsis is sufficient: a rope bridge collapses, killing a number of people. A monk is curious as to why these people were killed and investigates their lives. Now, I have yet to come upon a theologian who thinks that the theology suggested in this book is any good at all. And perhaps, for some people, it is thus dangerous.

But it's more dangerous to be casting about advice about books one cannot read. That seems to be the case with you and HP. What you claim about magic in the real world isn't true about magic as it functions in the books. Insofar as you state that they are the same, you are stating a falsehood. If you've read the books, then, well, you are merely the victim of your own misunderstanding. If you haven't, then you are bearing false witness.

The issue of moral reality here doesn't have much to do with the fantastic setting of the story

What makes you think the kids can separate the two?

Because I have children, and they've read all the books (as have I), and I see that they do. The person who is failing to make the separation is you.