Debating Abanes, Part Two

Two days ago, I posted the first few exchanges of a short discussion I had with Richard Abanes, outspoken critic of Harry Potter. Abanes is the author of two books addressing the series, Harry Potter and the Bible, and Harry Potter, Narnia, and the Lord of the Rings.

The posting of this discussion, of course, is not to present it as a full, scheduled debate of any kind, but to sort of give readers an introduction to some of the issues surrounding the Harry Potter debate in Christian circles. Hopefully these posts will contribute to the discussion. We pick up today right where we left off.

Travis’ Comment on September 23, 2005 @ 11:12 am:

Richard wrote,

Such is the danger of symbology—you can make it say anything you want it to say if you divorce it from other evidence.

You mean like JK Rowling’s professed Christianity? Oh. Ok.

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.

But this is what I see as the key problem with your evaluation. This is not an “occult” discussion. The occult is not the topic here. Literature is the topic. And that’s Granger’s area of expertise (in fact, he studied basically the same things Rowling studied in school). To see Rowling’s writings in the occult category and not in the category of Literature influenced by the English Great Books is to frame the whole discussion improperly.

So actually, I think you’ve ventured outside your area of expertise.

Richard’s Comment on September 23, 2005 @ 2:31 pm:

You mean like JK Rowling’s professed Christianity? Oh. Ok.

Yeah, like, there is no such thing from Rowling. A good example.

This is not an “occult” discussion. The occult is not the topic here. Literature is the topic.

Actually, both occultism and literature are involved in the discussion. And, I believe, simple logic and evaluation of evidence. granger is turning a blind eye to various aspects of HP that have been thoroughly documented by not only HP critics, but HP fans, and non-Christian (i.e., neopagans, Wiccans, and occultists). As a result, Granger isolates (and in many places invents) segments of HP to validate his preonceived thesis. This is not a sound method of analysis—for neither a piece of literature or a religious issue.

And that’s Granger’s area of expertise (in fact, he studied basically the same things Rowling studied in school).

But again, he has isolated certain symbols in the books in exclusion to other symbols and also in exclusion to what ROwling herself has said in numerous places about her own writings. The thesis that Grnager is advancing is totally foreign to Rowling as a person and author.

To see Rowling’s writings in the occult category and not in the category of Literature influenced by the English Great Books is to frame the whole discussion improperly.

This is one of Granger’s alteration of the facts. Rowling herself has made no such analysis of her work. Her books, by her own admission, stem a great deal from her own fascination and enjoyment of occult lore, magick, and occult practices. She has also borrowed countless symbols from all over the symbology/fairy tale map and incorporated them into her stories. This has nothing to do with making her books into some kind of pre-cursor to the g ospel presentation. her work is an eclectic mixture of all kinds of stories rolled into one. It is all VERY derivative—NOT distinctly Christian, which is what Grnager is stating.

So actually, I think you’ve ventured outside your area of expertise.

I don’t think so, obviously. I am evaluating the evidence available from Rowling herself, the text of the books, and how society is responding. Granger, however, is interpreting everything through his preconceived notion that the books MUST be similar to Lewis & Tolkien as a preparation of the Gospel. Everything he reads in the books is filtered through that lens. he rarely, if ever, quotes Rowling herself to substantiate his notions. I could do the very same thing with countless books—but that would not make it correct. Anyway, I look forward to your observations of my book.

Travis Comment on September 24, 2005 @ 8:20 am:

“TP: You mean like JK Rowling’s professed Christianity? Oh. Ok.
RA: Yeah, like, there is no such thing from Rowling. A good example.”

So that interview with the Vancouver Sun never happened.

Granger isolates (and in many places invents) segments of HP to validate his preonceived thesis.

He’s hardly operating from a “preconceived thesis.” That term is misleading. He began reading the books to explain to his daughter why we don’t read trash like that, and then his well-trained literary ear picked up some signals that made him re-think.

Rowling herself has made no such analysis of her work. Her books, by her own admission, stem a great deal from her own fascination and enjoyment of occult lore, magick, and occult practices.

What good is your reading of all these interviews if you’re only going to take out the parts that fit your own thesis? Fascination and enjoyment of occult practices and magick? She says she doesn’t believe in the stuff! And I suppose all those references to her greatest influences (Austen, Dickens, Shakespeare) have no bearing on the discussion?

I am evaluating the evidence available from Rowling herself, the text of the books, and how society is responding. Granger, however, is interpreting everything through his preconceived notion that the books MUST be similar to Lewis & Tolkien as a preparation of the Gospel.

This is just an off the mark thing to say. It’s really kind of silly to say, “Granger’s working on preconceived notions; I’m working from pure objectivity.” Again, Granger did not START with these notions; he found them once he started reading (a) the texts of the books, (b) JKR’s interviews, and (c) how society is responding. The two of you are interpreting things differently, but it’s really unfair to assume that because he’s not coming to the same conclusions you are, he’s working from preconceived notions and you’re working objectively.

Richard’s Comment on September 26, 2005 @ 2:06 pm:

So that interview with the Vancouver Sun never happened.

The interview only says she believes in “God”— what God? how is “God” defined? All kinds of people say they believe in “God.” She has made no profession of faitrh in Christ (as did Lewis and Tolkien), has never defined God, and flaunted an adulterous relationship with a married man for a year before marrying him once his divorce came through. Hmmm.

He’s hardly operating from a “preconceived thesis.” That term is misleading.

Well, we just disagree there. I think Granger started out wanting to make HP okay for Christians. and so he invented half of his stuff—again, as I said, in contradiction to Rowling herself about themes and names and symbols.

He began reading the books to explain to his daughter why we don’t read trash like that, and then his well-trained literary ear picked up some signals that made him re-think.

Uh huh. Well, he picked up on stuff that wasn’t there, in my opinion. Again, it really is just a matter of looking at what Rowling herself has said, not me.

What good is your reading of all these interviews if you’re only going to take out the parts that fit your own thesis?

I don’t. I supply all of the relavant information, including a discussion of her “faith” and remarks in that light. Granger is teh one who ignores 1/2 the evidence.

Fascination and enjoyment of occult practices and magick? She says she doesn’t believe in the stuff!

Travis, I never said she believes in it. I think, if I may say so, you just raised a straw man. i said that she was fascinated with it and enjoyed it—the way anyone might find astronomy, religion, or philosophy fascinating and interesting. As a result, she incorporated a great deal of material she read and knows. Other authors do the same thing—like Grisham incoprporates real legal stuff in his books.

And I suppose all those references to her greatest influences (Austen, Dickens, Shakespeare) have no bearing on the discussion?

No, they do. I discuss that. But as I said, Rowling puled from all kinds of places in a very eclectic composition. Just because she loves Dickens and Austen does not make HP Christian.

This is just an off the mark thing to say. It’s really kind of silly to say, “Granger’s working on preconceived notions; I’m working from pure objectivity.”

well, the problem is that I quote multiple sources—he does not even quote Rowling very often. And if he does, it is not accurately interpreted. or example, her stating that she believes in “God” hardly is a testimony of faith in Jesus Christ—but it is good enough for Granger because it helps push his view. Also, he completely misrepresents names in direct contradiction to Rowling (my book gives SEVERAL examples).

The two of you are interpreting things differently, but it’s really unfair to assume that because he’s not coming to the same conclusions you are, he’s working from preconceived notions and you’re working objectively.

Well, you read the quotes and explanations I have from Rowling. And also read how society (INCLUDING pagans. wiccans, and occultists) are responding. Then we can talk more.

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

Again, I’ll leave Richard’s comment as the last word of the day. I’ll post the rest of the discussion early next week!