Lev Grossman has once again managed to demonstrate his abysmally poor understanding of the Harry Potter series in his most recent write-up, “Who Dies in Harry Potter? God.”
Harry Potter lives in a world free of any religion or spirituality of any kind.
Except for Christmas, Easter, Harry’s being baptized and having a godfather, and the presence of religious Christmas carols and even a quick reference to a church. Other than that, sure – no religion at all.
He lives surrounded by ghosts but has no one to pray to, even if he were so inclined, which he isn’t.
Funny. I don’t remember anyone “praying” in Middle Earth or Narnia, either.
In choosing Rowling as the reigning dreamer of our era, we have chosen a writer who dreams of a secular, bureaucratized, all-too-human sorcery, in which psychology and technology have superseded the sacred.
Mr. Grossman is apparently having difficulties with his memory. It was to him, after all, that Rowling made that statement that her books “are not that secular.” Here’s the entirety of the statement, as Lev Grossman himself reported it in 2005:
Interestingly, although Rowling is a member of the Church of Scotland, the books are free of references to God. On this point, Rowling is cagey. “Um. I don’t think they’re that secular,” she says, choosing her words slowly. “But, obviously, Dumbledore is not Jesus.”
Yes, Rowling’s always been cagey on this point, because she’s admitted that if she’s up-front about it, we’ll guess the ending of the story. But how does Mr. Grossman take the phrase, “They’re not that secular” and turn Ms. Rowling into a proponent of a secular worldview? It boggles the mind.
And finally:
When the end comes, where will it leave Harry? He’ll face tougher choices than his fantasy ancestors did. Frodo was last seen skipping town with the elves. Lewis sent the Pevensie kids to the paradise of Aslan’s Land. It’s unlikely that such a comfortable retirement awaits Harry in the Deathly Hallows.
Sure, we may not see an afterlife scene in Deathly Hallows. But does all the talk of the afterlife, book after book, meaning nothing? Apparently it does to Mr. Grossman. (I’d also take issue with the claim that Frodo’s end was in any way easy, but that’s another topic for another time.)
Time would do well to pick another reporter to cover Harry Potter from this point forward.
Jonathan on 
Derek D on 
revgeorge on 
korg20000bc on 
Arabella Figg on 
Red Rocker on 
Loading ...
{ 1 trackback }
{ 20 comments… read them below or add one }
Interesting. So Rowling writes about the power of love instead of God. As if that’s a big contradiction, or a “cultural sea changeâ€. Surely God doesn’t die because of love. Lev Grossman must also be a great Legilimens to guess what Rowling dreams of, bureaucratized sorcery. Wow.
I do see what he’s getting at, of course. In Lewis and Tolkien, “magic” is a supernatural force that has origins outside of the created order (sort of…even that statement doesn’t really work…it’s more like magic is part of the created order. anyway.) With Rowling, magic is a substitute for technology, in many ways.
But her use of magic is clearly a critique of the materialism that results from naturalism and modernistic rationalism. And in any event, to say this particular portrayal of magic equates to the death of God is to say way too much. As Mia says, Love’s being the greatest magic is as much a reference to supernatural power as anything else.
Reading about this sort of gross misinterpretation of the series is always so unpleasant for me. It makes my stomach churn. Thank you so much for refuting each and every one of his ridiculous claims here where hopefully someone currently in agreement with him will stumble upon them.
And, as you just said, magic is such a metaphor for talents and intent.
Didn’t John Granger write a piece reguarding the Patronus charm in which he explained how very similar to prayer it is? Expecto Patronum!
I’m not sure whether Rowling will begin to refute this sort of nonsense once the seventh book is out on the shelves, but I’d dance with glee if she did.
That’s what I’m really hoping for. Because by silencing people like Grossman, she will also silence the Harry haters who refuse to read the books to find out for themselves how rich they are with Christian imagery.
Pat
That would be great, but I fear that Rowling can do or say absolutely nothing to silence these people. They’ll just maintain their opinion, no matter what. After all, Mr. Grossman insists that she’s writing a secular story, even though she told him that it isn’t a secular story, and the religious critics argue that she isn’t a Christian, even though she said she’s a Christian… Frustrating.
While I’m not expecting individuals like Mr. Grossman to change their opinions it would be nice if those who listen to such arguements heard some alternative interpretations of the series.
I’ve always believed books should be judged by their effect on you as a person. Whether Rowling wrote them with religious intentions doesn’t really matter in the long run if those who wish to interpret them that way enjoy doing so and grow in their faith.
She implied that she would speak of her faith after the seventh book, so maybe our hopes aren’t unfounded.
Call me a cynic, but I don’t think Rowling’s own words would help much. She would run the risk of stoking the controversy as much as anything. For Grossman, who’s already branded the books and Rowling as spawning from evil and amorality, anything she would say wouldn’t be credible.
The Christian symbolism and spirituality of the books is so obvious that if critics refuse to admit to them now, I don’t think Rowling’s comments could change much of their perspective.
Of course her words won’t help much. As my mom says, “You can’t reason with unreasonable people”. Her words may help a bit, though, and that’s all I’m hoping for. I’m content with what she’s said already, really.
John Granger’s new post about the character Severus (of the French work “Polyeucte”) is very awesome, by the way. I’m hoping to major in French, and I want to pick up a copy of this sometime soon.
Agree with Dave (the Longwinded) and Mia: Grossman has made up his mind and isn’t going to let the facts interfere with his opinions.
For him to say that:
‘Harry Potter lives in a world that has been scrubbed clean of any religion or spirituality of any kind.’
to me means he’s interpreting spirituality in the narrowest sense possible, i.e. in the sense that spirituality is attained only by praying or “darkening a church door.” Since he absolves Lewis and Tolkien of the sin of aspirituality although neither of those authors write about prayer or churches, then it’s obvious that he’s using a double standard with the aim of blackening JKR.
I would also question his understanding of love. He writes:
‘In the new millennium magic comes not from God, or nature, or anything grander or more mystical than a mere human emotion. It’s the most anthropo-centric vision possible: even in our fantasies, where we give ourselves permission to believe in dementors and blast-ended skrewts, love is all you need, and love is all you get.’
To call love a ‘mere human emotion’ not only trivializes the best in humanity, it completely ignores the idea of divine love, and one of the basic tenets of Christianity.
I don’t think that Grossman seriously believes that spirituality can only be found in a church, nor that love is an insignificant emotion. I think that he is making a ‘Straw Man’ argument.
From Wikipedia:
‘The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.’
I would suspect that he’s attacking JKR as a representative of the “massive cultural sea-change” which he sees happening around him, a powerful if not as forthright a soldier in the army headed by those
‘celebrity atheists Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.’
Harry Potter is not his ultimate target. More in the nature of collateral damage.
I have to admit that, perhaps naively, I just don’t get it. I can go to the library and unearth literally thousands of children’s books that don’t contain any mention of religion, prayer, or an afterlife. Yet they are not attacked as being anti-Christian. Why do these religious critics insist that the Harry Potter series has to be an extended argument either for or against the Christian faith?
I just want to clarify that I don’t think Grossman is “attacking” Rowling. I think he thinks that the supposed absence of God from the books is a good thing.
Travis, I re-read the article. And I just don’t see where Grossman is saying that the absence of God is a good thing.
Do you see it in the article? Or from his previous writings?
Falkirk, I don’t really get it either. Why this author, why this book? There are so many other stories about magic that aren’t so different from Rowling’s story. Why do the critics take issues with her and why are some of their reactions so extreme?
I think, part of it has to do with the enormous success of the books, that’s practically unprecedented in literary history and we the online community are a part of it. Rowling has clearly hit a nerve of our time and there is a rising interest in religious topics, Christianity, spirituality in general. Fundamentalists become more outspoken, then there are some atheists, who feel that their worldview is under attack.
In my opinion this whole debate has little or nothing to do with Harry Potter, the books just happen to be the catalyst for people to express their beliefs.
OK, delete my last comment. I went on NerdWorld and found a comment by Grossman on his article:
‘I think some people are reading this piece as an attack on Rowling for being overly secular. Which isn’t really what it says. And not that it really matters, but I am in fact an atheist, so being secular is A-OK #1 with me. Her non-godliness is one of the many things I personally like about JKR’s work.’
and
‘But she’s framing the story in a non-spiritual way that’s very new. Not a bad thing or a good thing. Just something to think about.’
I guess I missed his point.
I guess I missed his point because he didn’t make it very clearly. Either he’s a very subtle writer – in which case I’d argue Time magazine is not the place for such refined subtley – or he doesn’t have the cojones to come out and make his point directly. What’s wrong with saying: I notice a lack of organized religion and spirituality in the works of JKR, and this is a shift from Lewis and Tolkien, who were much more spiritual, and I think this shows people’s values and beliefs are changing and that pyschology and technology have taken over religion and spirituality?
What this misses is the sneer.
I think the reason I missed his point was that he sneers at everything, Rowling, Lewis, Tolkien, religion, spirituality, love, and most unforgivably, Hermione.
The man is entitled to his beliefs. I object to his tone.
http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2550
Discussion of Grossman’s piece on the “Get Religion” journalism and Religion site.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, all of you! for your comments and for putting into words what I feft after reading Grossman’s article in Time. I do believe the man has missed the whole point of Harry Potter and his universe, or maybe he just likes to stir up controversy. And, as I recall from my Christian youth, Jesus was called the God of love, so I don’t see how love triumphing can kill God, but what do I know.
Grossman’s inability to see the reality of Rowling’s writing reminds me of the dwarves at the end of Lewis’s “The Last Battle” who were convinced that they were inside a stable (even though they had entered the new Narnia).
TMM,
That’s a great image for it. Thinking that sweet flowers are “stable filth”!
Well Done.
Matthew
Travis,
In the blogosphere, as you know, this is known as “fisking”. You fisked Lev Grossman. I wonder if he murmured “Ouch” to himself as he read this. Game, set, match to Travis.