Harry Potter

[TigerintheShadows]

I may have already said this before, but one of the reasons that Harry Potter is better than Twilight is because the morals in HP are so well-defined. You can tell by the end who was good and who was evil. Very few characters, if any, were shades of gray. But in Twilight, I don't think there's a single character or event in there who wasn't morally messed up. That's why I recommend Harry Potter as superior to Twilight.

Now, to be honest, one really should read HP only if one is mature enough. The reason is simple--the witchcraft, the romance, and the violence are all, while in a book aimed at children's literature, simply better for older audiences. Plus, these kids who decide to read them will be carrying around a dictionary half the time just to understand what the books are talking about.

On the subject of HP/LotR/CoN, it's not so much about magic as it is how you use it. Granted, in the real world, any kind of magic is evil, whether good or bad. But the plots of all three series are basically carried by the fact that people who could use magic used it in a way that they shouldn't have. If there was no magic, there would be no plot...

[ShadowSa1nt]

If there was no magic, there would be no plot...

Very true.

[Dallas R.]

I'm actually surprised that no one has come on here yet and bashed the entire series. As a christian site, and Harry Potter being as objectionable as it is among some Christians, I really thought there would be more Harry Potter 'hate mail' here.
As it is, I was never allowed to watch the movies or read the books until this year when I finally asked my parents if they thought I was old enough. They gave me the go ahead, though it wasn't like I was dying to read them or anything. I really just wanted reasons to back up my arguments against the series. I've got to be honest, while it isn't my number one new series or anything, I'd have to say that I haven't built up much of an argument against it. I just started book five, The Goblet of Fire was great, probably my favorite that I've read in the series so far.
I've only seen the first movie, but if I had to pick my favorite character so far in the series it's Professor Lupin for his serious side, and a character who makes me laugh is Dobby.

[American Eagle]

We've decided it isn't worth it anymore.

[StrongNChrist]

I started watching them just to back up my arguement as well. I didn't think saying "I heard ...." sounded like a pretty good arguement

And to be honest, I find them fascinating. They have good plots, an intruging (I know I spelled that wrong!) story, and very little language. But at the same time they still have magic. And not just any normal magic like LotR or Narnia or Disney...but witchcraft. They even go so far as to admit that they are witches and go to a school that teaches witchcraft. Despite them being fascinating, my opinion of them hasn't changed.

[jasonjannajerryjohn]

I really don't feel like arguing these amazing books, because really it's not worth it. So instead I will simply state my opinion on them.

I read the first Harry Potter book about two years ago. It was an amazing experience for sure, but I never understood the full significance of the world of Harry Potter. The wizarding world is well constructed and contrasts with muggle world of the Dursleys. The outlandish and almost cartoonish horrors that Harry is subjected to by the Dursleys is shown in a much more sinister way with Voldemort later. There is alot that can be learned by studying the books. This is why there are now Harry Potter classes in college and philosophy books based on Harry Potter.

I for one love it. I've had Hufflepuff pride ever since reading them. I always cringe whenever people try to focus on the magic in the story, which really, is not the point. The stories would not function without magic, but it is not the main drive for the story. The main drive is a mother's love for her son, the friendship that Harry has with Ron and Hermionie, and the courage to stand up against evil. These are morals I know all of us can agree on.

[darcie]

I'm actually surprised that no one has come on here yet and bashed the entire series. As a christian site, and Harry Potter being as objectionable as it is among some Christians, I really thought there would be more Harry Potter 'hate mail' here.

Hate mail without the knowledge to back it up does very little, if any, good. Anyone just bashing the series would obviously not have read them, and therefore their arguments would carry very little weight. It actually proves you guys are growing up that there isn't more negativity going on here!

[Caswin]

But at the same time they still have magic. And not just any normal magic like LotR or Narnia or Disney...but witchcraft. They even go so far as to admit that they are witches and go to a school that teaches witchcraft.

While I'd rather not get caught up in a lengthy debate, I think it's important to note that while the characters refer to it as "witchcraft" (and wizardry), I don't think it's right to say that they "admit" to it. In practice, the magic in the books can resembles witchcraft about as much as any of the other stories you just listed -- most likely, Rowling just thought "witch" was a good female equivalent to "wizard".

[StrongNChrist]

Well, they call themselves witches and they say they go to a school of witchcraft. For me I see that as them admitting to it.

[Lord Sesshoumaru]

But at the same time they still have magic. And not just any normal magic like LotR or Narnia or Disney...but witchcraft.

Is their truly "normal magic" ? it's called many things but ain't it all the same thing?

[StrongNChrist]

But at the same time they still have magic. And not just any normal magic like LotR or Narnia or Disney...but witchcraft.

Is their truly "normal magic" ? it's called many things but ain't it all the same thing?

Normal magic was the only words I could think of at the time
And no, there is a difference. There is such thing as fiction magic, which neither pertains to witchcraft or talks about it, and there is witchcraft. A very big difference.

[Caswin]

And no, there is a difference. There is such thing as fiction magic, which neither pertains to witchcraft or talks about it, and there is witchcraft. A very big difference.

That's the thing. Apart from the choice of words, I don't see anything that would make the magic in Harry Potter worse than the magic in Lord of the Rings, Narnia or The Sword in the Stone -- no references to Satan, no invoking of unholy forces (or, if you assume that of all magic, no more so than Gandalf or Doctor Cornelius ever pulled). Again, the only references to "witchcraft" are in the same breath as "wizardry", and that just seems to pertain to which gender is at it this time.

EDIT: ...or The Wizard of Oz, for that matter. Or (I'm just looking for clarification, here) is Glinda equally suspect?

[Trixie Belden]

I would consider Harry Potter much worse than LOTR and Narnia, simply because it is based on real life wicca and wicca traditions. J.K. Rowling spent a lot of time researching true witchcraft for her protagonists to use! It's teaching kids that just because Harry uses witchery and spells that are REAL that it's okay for them to do it to.

Deuteronomy 18:10 says:

Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but Harry Potter distinctly uses sorcery, engages in witchcraft and interprets omens. Like SnC said, it's not just normal magic. It goes against God's laws and is truly a sin, all wrapped up in a "harmless" little bundle called "Kid's Fiction."

[Termite]

There was witchcraft in Narnia. The White Witch and the witch in the Silver Chair. Aslan calls the power that He had "good magic", because technically, it was good. Just had to interject that.....

It was kinda the same thing in Lord of the Rings. The Valor granted the eight? wizards magic to protect and serve Middle Earth... *shrugs* (the Valor were like the guardian angels. Can't think of the Father figure's name)

[Caswin]

I would consider Harry Potter much worse than LOTR and Narnia, simply because it is based on real life wicca and wicca traditions. J.K. Rowling spent a lot of time researching true witchcraft for her protagonists to use! It's teaching kids that just because Harry uses witchery and spells that are REAL that it's okay for them to do it to.

You're sure about this? Because nothing I've ever heard about Wicca involves them waving a wand and saying spells mostly composed of English puns and broken Latin, most of which Rowling (by her own admission) came up with on her own.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but Harry Potter distinctly uses sorcery, engages in witchcraft and interprets omens.

As I've insisted so far (what was that I said about getting caught up in a lengthy debate? ), he doesn't do the first two any more than your average fictional wizard. In fact, "omens" spend less time being interpreted than being ridiculed. It's pretty clear the author doesn't care for them.

[Trixie Belden]

Yes, I am quite sure that JK Rowling took direct examples from Wicca to create her books. That was quoted from an interview with her that my mom found. Let's look at it this way. The Bible says that Witchcraft of any kind is wrong, and that's how I'm going to take it as. Like it or not, Harry Potter IS witchcraft, and that's the number one thing wrong with it. Don't get me wrong. I love fantasy. My two most favorite books, Inkheart and the Mysterious Benedict Society are fantasy. But fantasy is different then going against God's laws by using wicca and the occult. Think what you like, but that's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

[Caswin]

Yes, I am quite sure that JK Rowling took direct examples from Wicca to create her books. That was quoted from an interview with her that my mom found.

Now wait just a minute.

That "interview" wouldn't happen to have come from The Onion, would it?

[Trixie Belden]

No, it was not. My mother knows all about Snopes and would certainly not use a source like that without checking first.

[Caswin]

No, it was not. My mother knows all about Snopes and would certainly not use a source like that without checking first.

Ah. My mistake -- the Onion article is the only reference to Rowling actually mentioning the occult with more than a passing "no, my books aren't like that" that I had ever heard of. Given that, do you remember where the interview did come from?

[andy0923]

Can we have a topic about Harry Potter without some sort of debate or Bible verse thrown out, please? This happens every time.... It's a book, it's not going to kill you, grow up.

Sorry that you may be offended at my reply, but I see no reason to refrain from scripture here.

Philippians 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things