A Response to Broken Messenger

Broken Messenger has written a blog post contesting some things I wrote at Boar’s Head Tavern and this site concerning the proper context for reading Harry Potter. Apparently, I’ve constructed “the mother of all straw man arguments.”

The mother? Really? Here’s how he summarized my viewpoint:

Boar’s Head Tavern contributor, Travis Prinzi believes that those of us who oppose the dissemination of Harry Potter to children, do so because we do not understand ‘good literature.’ Travis goes on further and plays the ‘ignorant card’ upon critics of the books and cites an earlier article, linking this ignorance of good literature with a poor understanding of the Bible in general. In other words: Call Harry Potter “trash” or denounce the witchcraft portrayed within, and you are not only ignorant of ‘good literature,’ you are also a poor theologian as well.

Let’s count his own strawmen. I see at least two.

1. He says I argued that if you oppose the dissemination of Harry Potter to children, you misunderstand good literature. Nonsense. I’m hesitant about the “dissemination” of just about any literature to children that is not age appropriate, approved by parents, and discussed with the children by the parents.

I have most certainly never equated caution about kids reading Harry Potter with misunderstanding of good literature, not anywhere on this site, nor in the two posts he has read.

2. He claims I argued that if you oppose Harry Potter, you’re also a bad theologian.

Now go read my post at BHT. Then go read my other article on this issue. Now tell me if I said what he says I said.

This is specifically what I wrote here at this site:

The great problem with most theologians is that they’re great at theology but lousy at literature. So much trouble springs from this. The constant practice of systematic theology with little to no engagement in literature and the arts causes, for one thing, a really bad view of the Bible, which communicates its truth not through scientific precision, but through various literary means. If you can’t wrap your head around various types of symbolism, you’re going to miss a lot of what the Bible has to say.

In no way did I argue that if one does not like Harry Potter, one is inevitably a bad theologian, too. My entire point is this: if one does not grasp the use of symbolism in literature, and if one does not see Harry Potter in its own context within the tradition of English literature, one will miss the point of the literary use of magic and start talking about Wicca. Further, if one does not understand symbolism, one will also miss much of the message of the Bible. The Bible was communicated in a variety of specific literary genres. Misunderstand the genres, and you’ll misunderstand the text. This is basic. I really can’t figure out how he contructs any argument against this point other than twisting my words to be all-inclusive: that all opposers of Harry are bad theologians. Again, this is something I never wrote. Rather, I’d want to say that good theologians and exegetes would be better theologians and exegetes with a better understanding of literature.

Now, let’s examine his arguments against Harry Potter to see if he serves as an example of my entire point.
First, he utilizes another one of those fun distinctions between Harry Potter, Narnia, and Lord of the Rings that does not exist:

I think that the Harry Potter series distinguishes itself in that it isn’t a fantasy series where witches and warlocks are merely a part of the general storyline (i.e. Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia), instead the Harry Potter series is a storyline in which witches, wizards and the like are the central heroes of the story.

Gandalf was not a central hero of the story? Aslan, who referred to his resurrection as the “Deeper Magic” was not a central hero of the story?

Rowling’s detail of the characters to actual mythology and the current practice of modern day witchcraft are unprecedented, and I believe that Travis needs to understand that ‘good’ literature and moral implications are not mutually exclusive.

See my recent post on C.S. Lewis’ use of actual mythology and real practices of pagan worship in Chronciles of Narnia. If Rowling is bad for doing it, so is Lewis.

Does the book encourage children to visualize themselves as having inward power, being self-sufficient, chanting spells and conjuring spirits reflective of the tenants of the actual nuts-and-bolts practices of Wicca? Yes, I believe it does. I don’t see how a credible argument can be made to say that it does not encourage children to this end.

Then you haven’t read a credible argument, nor do you understand what’s happening in Harry Potter. To read the HP series and come away with the notion that Harry is “self-sufficient” and relies on “inward power” is simply baffling. Harry is portrayed as a basically ordinary wizard, with basically ordinary skills, who manages to be saved in each book by something outside himself. And if Broken Messenger understood medieval Christian symbolism, he’d find a Christ symbol at every “salvation” scene in the novels.

Where does Harry conjure spirits? And is it really that hard to see the radical difference between Rowling’s Latin constructions and the chanting of spells? Granger’s incantational/invocational distinction is critical here.

And how exactly Harry Potter fits in with Gospel’s call to holiness and focusing on those things that are pure and noble is an argument that escapes me. I mean, can we honestly say that a modern day Christ would be reading Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire for entertainment purposes? Can we say that if he were right here among us that he would endorse a series that encourages self-sufficiency and arrogance in order to overcome one’s own struggles?

As to whether it’s alright or not for Christians to read even secular or occultic literature was answered very, very well by Pyromanic himself. Phil writes,

I do happen to believe there’s inherent educational value in reading great literature, even if it teaches moral or spiritual lessons we disagree with. “Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22). Daniel was taught “the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans” (Daniel 1:4). The benefit they derived from learning the ways of the Egyptians and Chaldeans surely was more intellectual than spiritual. But Scripture never treats such learning as a Bad Thing.

So I don’t buy the “What would a modern day Jesus do?” argument. And to hold that HP “encourages self-sufficiency and arrogance in order to overcome one’s struggles” is about as big a misreading of the series imaginable.

I respect Broken Messenger’s decisions about Harry Potter and his children. It’s his right to make those decisions, and it’s certainly not a matter of life, death, or salvation. Further, we can look and see someone caring enough about his children to guard their hearts, which is so rare these days! But I do think he’s demonstrated my point about misunderstanding English literature and the symbolic use of magic. At the same time, I don’t want to start an inflammatory “blog war” about the issue, so I’d be more than happy to discuss in detail, in a proper manner between two Christian brothers, each concern Broken Messenger has about the series. At the end of the day we might still disagree, but it’d be better than bombing each other’s views with blog grenades, and it might serve a purpose for those trying to make a decision about the Harry Potter series.