Debating Abanes, Part One

About a month ago when I decided to give Sword of Gryffindor its own domain name and a new site design, I started manually transferring posts from the old site over here. Richard Abanes, published author and outspoken Harry Potter critic discovered the site before it went public and in doing so, came across my description of his work, Harry Potter and the Bible: The Menace Behind the Magick, as being “shoddy.”

He wasn’t thrilled with that description (who would be?), and he pointed me to his newer work, Harry Potter, Narnia, and The Lord of the Rings, which he says is updated and contains a clearer presentation of his stance on the Harry Potter novels. I haven’t had the time to check out the new book.

What followed our initial exchange, however, was a short, friendly debate focusing on some points surrounding John Granger’s thesis: that Rowling is writing in the great tradition of English literature, which is largely Christian, and that her themes and use of symbolism in the book are distinctly and deliberately Christian. I deleted all comments prior to the site launch, but I saved our exchange and will be posting it here in three parts, with some editing for clarity: all points and wording remain the same, but I fixed up the grammar and the format of the discussion. I also removed things peripheral to the actual issues being discussed.

And just so you know, at one point in the discussion Richard told me,

I have all kinds of internet tricks of the research trade. I’m all over the place and keep a pretty close eye on things.

In other words, he’ll be showing up here once this posts. I doubt he’ll pick up the discussion again, since we paused it waiting for me to have time to check out his new book. But feel free to ask him a question or two yourself.

I’ve separated this out in a way that will give Richard the last word in the first two posts. This took place in a comments section, so I’ve blocked it out in that way.

Here goes!

Comment on September 21, 2005 @ 11:43 pm:

Abanes:
Before labeling my work as “shoddy,” you might want to familiarize yourself with it. I suggest you read my newest volume titled “Harry Potter, Narnia, and The Lord of the Rings.” In it,m I discuss a wide range of topics, even dealing specifically with the groundless assertions made by John Granger. Information about my book can be found here.

Comment on September 22, 2005 @ 12:12 am:

Travis: I’ll check out the new book (though I do have to put it on a long list and get to it later), but I wasn’t a big fan of “Harry Potter and the Bible.”
A question I meant to ask – is there any difference in the substance of your criticisms in the new work?

Comment on September 22, 2005 @ 12:46 am:

Abanes: The answer is yes. I found that my position was being misunderstood by fans and foes alike. So I needed to update everything, reword some stuff, bring in new information, expand other arguments, and then deal with people like Granger—who in my estimation have really gone off the deep end (and I would say this even if I were a serious fan of Harry Potter).

Comment on September 22, 2005 @ 12:51 am:

Travis: Well, it will indeed be quite interesting to read what you’ve got to say. I have regular correspondence with Mr. Granger and find his insight (while I don’t always agree with him) quite excellent.

Comment on September 22, 2005 @ 3:10 pm:

Abanes:
Travis wrote,

Mr. Granger and find his insight (while I don’t always agree with him) quite excellent.

Interestingly, as I point out and document in my book, Granger on many occassions contradicts, well, none other than the explanations J.K. Rowling herself has given. Oh well.
Sadly, the average person is not going to sift through the hundreds of interviews I read where Rowling actually talks about the real meaning of her stories, what she is saying, the inspiration for various names, etc etc etc. They will just believe what Granger says. And that would be their mistake. Granger has invented 3/4 of what he says in his book. Oh well again.

Comment on September 22, 2005 @ 4:48 pm:

Travis:

Richard wrote,

Sadly, the average person is not going to sift through the hundreds of interviews…

True, but then again most folks aren’t looking to find the occult under every rock. We already know that Rowling is not talking openly about her Christianity, and we know she loves to dodge media questions, because her primary concern is to keep “what’s coming next” a secret.

Richard wrote,

Interestingly, as I point out and document in my book, Granger on many occassions contradicts, well, none other than the explanations J.K. Rowling herself has given…Granger has invented 3/4 of what he says in his book.

Alright, I’m not sure this is really going to get us anywhere, but ok. I’ll bite:
Go ahead and give me an example or two. Even if I order the book today (I will NOT go to the local Christian bookstore), it would take at least a week to get to me. And I don’t have the money for it right now.

Comment on September 22, 2005 @ 5:26 pm:

Abanes:

Travis wrote,

. . . give me an example. . . .

Sure. a single teaser. Let’s just take the name “Harry Potter” for obvious reasons.
Grnager says, “The Cockney and French pronunciations of Harry’s name tell us what his name means….Arry with a long ‘A’ suggests the word ‘heir.’…If Harry means ‘Heir-y,’ then what is our Harry ‘Heir to’ or ‘Son of’?…The answer to that is in the biblical use of the word ‘Potter.’…Potter can be used as a synonym for ‘God’—and thus Harry Potter means ‘Heir to’ or ‘Son of God’….Harry Potter is ‘son of God.’”
Well, sounds good. But here’s the truth, according to Rowling herself. She says, quite simply, “‘Harry’ has always been my favorite boy’s name, so if my daughter had been a son, he would have been Harry Rowling. Then I would have had to choose a different name for ‘Harry’ in the books, because it would have been too cruel to name him after my own son. ‘Potter’ was the surname of a family who used to live near me when I was seven….I always liked the name, so I borrowed it.”
So much for Granger’s bizarre theory about “Heir of God.” Just one exmaple of MANY.

Comment on September 22, 2005 @ 8:25 pm:

Travis:

I would have predicted you would choose that example, but then you would have picked another.
I’ve always thought John’s parsing of the name “Harry Potter” was pushing it a bit (and I had read that same interview you’re quoting).
But the example is minor and largely unrelated to his thesis in general.

Comment on September 22, 2005 @ 10:02 pm:

Abanes:

Travis wrote,

But the example is minor and largely unrelated to his thesis in general.

Oh, sure. I understand. But it is only one examople of many. Also, his entire thesis contradicts various other aspects of Rowling’s intentions, life, and artistry. There are about eight or so (probably more) different groups claiming that the symbolism in Harry Potter is advocating (or at least imnplying) their particular views. Such is the danger of symbology—you can make it say anything you want it to say if you divorce it from other evidence.

Let me be clear—I like John a lot. I met him last year and debated him at California Baptist University. I think that he is a sincere, generally nice, bright guy. But I can still view his theories and arguments as absurd. The problem with Granger is that he has stepped WAY outside his field of expertise and is seeking to discuss issues like occultism that he has studied very little. He also seems very, very intent on trying to distance Christians from the more extremism loonies that the media invariably digs up to give quotes on TV and newspapers. But to do it, he is over-compensating and trying to make HP into some Christian series like the ones written by Tolkien and Lewis. That is a disservice to ALL of the authors, including Rowling, IMHO.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ok, that’s where we’ll end it for today. I’ll post the remainder of the discussion, which will take up 2-3 more posts, over the next week.