Update: Virtuous Wizardry and John Granger take on O’Brien.
Atheists and Fundamentalists, that is. Or in this case, fundamentalist-type Catholics. Michael O’Brien is out with another anti-Potter essay which terribly misunderstands the series. I have no time to respond to this now (Behold a Phoenix, you want to take a shot at this?), but I did have to chuckle a bit when LifeSite actually named him “North America’s foremost Potter critic.”
Meanwhile, Behold a Phoenix takes on He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.
revgeorge on 
Jonathan on 
korg20000bc on 
Arabella Figg on 
Red Rocker on 
Dave the Longwinded on 
Fricka on 
Loading ...
{ 32 comments… read them below or add one }
One thing that strikes me: there’s virtually no textual evidence in this. Of the three very bare samples, one is flatly wrong (since when do the Dursleys get their come uppance — weren’t most of us disappointed they didn’t?), and the other two have almost no explication.
I did especially laugh at the good pimps/evil pimps analogy. That was hilarious…
Oh my. It took me a long time to slog my way through that rubbish heap. I had to force myself to finish reading it. I’ve no idea where he got some of his misconceptions–especially the pimps/prostitutes bit. Has he been reading some of the fan-fiction that’s out there, do you think?
I did find it interesting that the person he quotes the most for “insights” is Grossman, the atheist.
So how does one respond to that article? Or is it best to just let it sit there, amid all its own distortions and misinterpretations. (Harry, the power hungry one? I think I read a different book. And it’s not ok for Harry to become a married man with a family 19 years later? What alternative did he want for Harry?)
Pat *still shaking my head over this one*
I almost wondered if he read the same book I did, except for the (undocumented) references to several things from the book. I like Eeyore’s word for it: rubbish heap. It’s curious he condemned HP for it’s use of witchcraft and magic, and for the good guys sometimes killing the bad guys, and then held out Tolkien as the counterpoint to all that. LotR has all kinds of magic. The good guys frequently kill the bad guys, and it is okay “just because they are the good guys killing bad guys”. Tolkien even portrayed some of the good guys with some major ethical and moral failures. And goodness, the Silmarillion is full of the good guys making all kinds of bad choices along the way. Tolkien just was a bit more blatant in structuring his fantasy world around a Creator. JKR did not do this, but that doesn’t make her books evil. She just chose to not be as obvious about her beliefs until the end. I’m really not sure how he missed her Christian beliefs in this last book. I guess if you want badly enough to believe something is evil, you will find or create evidence to support that.
What a sad, pathetic man.
I started reading this and had to bail out. Someone let me know if there was anything worthwhile in there.
Matthew
I wrote a little piece about it in my blog. Not much. But I would like to quote the last thing I wrote:
This essay reminds me of a saying that goes something like this: Better to be quiet and let people think you are an idiot, than to open your mouth and confirm it. Michael O’Brien should keep that in mind.
What unbelievable tripe! (O’Brien, that is, not you, Travis.) Truly, I think people today simply haven’t been taught to *read*!
He lost me when he began talking about children who are alone because of abortion or contraception. Not that I believed his load of crap, but I try to give all opinions equal merit, even when I disagree. I agree – hemissed the point of the series. I hate when people over-analyze.
Matthew, I think he doesn’t like the stories because they try to substitute empty substitutes for important real things: preternatural powers for genuine transcendence, innate goodness for original sin, selective love and selective hatred in the place of grace and love, and feelings of freedom without the foundations of freedom.
I think what he really doesn’t like about the stories is the fact that they are fantasy. He doesn’t seem to think that fantasy can say anything true or meaningful about reality.
In other words – my words – he’s a literary snob.
Reyhan, I have to agree with you. But it still makes me wonder why he thinks so well about LotR and Narnia. They are also fantasy. Is it just because those have already been accepted as “classic” literature? Granted, as much as I love the HP books, I would never put JKR in the same class as Tolkien. She is a great storyteller, and a decent writer who has gotten better over the course of the seven books. JRRT was a master storyteller and a master writer. Does that make me a literary snob too? Maybe just a Tolkien snob (Tolkien freak, my wife would say).
Scott, I think that’s just reasonable analysis. Tolkien is quite clearly the master storyteller. I don’t know that anyone has or will comprise such a masterpiece of fantasy fiction. Being OCD about the storyline helped, I think.
Scott, I asked myself the same question shortly after I posted my previous comment.
He says that JKR’s story is as “contemporary” as LOTR (whatever that signifies) but:
“without Tolkien’s depiction of humility, genuine virtue, and wisdom.”
My guess would be that he objects to the nature of magic in the HP series. We’ve talked about this; the simplest definition of magic in the series is as a sort of substitute for technology, but also, of course, as power. I think that he is focusing primarily on the power aspect, and objecting to the placement of so much power in the hands of adolescents without any guidance from a supreme deity.
In LOTR, magic plays a very different role. It is not accessible to the heroes; and even in the hands of the most magical creatures, the elves, it’s more mystical/spiritual than a here-and-now way of dealing with reality.
So it’s not fantasy per se, but the fantasy of putting power in the hands of adolescents he dislikes. And the Godlessness.
I think a lot of the issue is that Tolkien and Lewis purists don’t want to allow anyone else into the pantheon of Christian fantasy writer gods. Is it the fear of the new or the dislike of appearing to jump on the bandwagon?
When Jackson’s LOTR movies came out I felt compelled get as many Tolkien quiz books and get my wife to ask me the questions so I could prove that I was a legit fan before it was cool to become so.
Reyhan,
You’re right, magic in Tolkien’s writing is part of the nature of the characters. I think Galadriel sum it up well when she says that she doesn’t understand what Sam meant by “magic” as the same word was used to describe the works of the enemy (presumably Melkor and Sauron, et al). I’m not sure about your point that the heros aren’t able to access magic. Aragorn and Gandalf seem to be able to perform magic at times. DId you mean the Hobbits more than the other characters?
Matthew
Travis, yes, most authors aren’t going to spend 50 years writing a single story. I’m guessing your publisher might not appreciate that much…
Reyhan, I like that distinction on the nature or role of magic. The only time magic is really used in the here-and-now way in LOTR is before they really understand it, when Bilbo and Frodo use the Ring somewhat frivolously to escape unwanted houseguests and such.
I was also thinking about Tolkien’s worldview as reflected in LOTR. People that find Tolkien acceptable for Christians generally do so because his world has one God, and any magic that occurs for good comes from God or His chosen powers on earth. Whereas in HP, there is no mention specifically of God, and the magic is therefore a power produced solely by the individual. The magic is a neutral power that can be used for good or evil. There is a difference there.
But I also think it’s a difference in approach to the story. LOTR and the rest of his stories are told as a sort of mythology. They are an entirely made up world wrapped in a Christian worldview. The HP books are not mythology. They are more of a modern fantasy, with some invented ideas, but mostly using the current real world. It is fantasy on a somewhat smaller scale, and that does not require an overt reference to a Creator or God, because it isn’t dealing with concepts that grand. It can still have Christian concepts and values. And yes, it does depict humility, virtue, and wisdom. That is something O’Brien really missed in reading this, if indeed he did.
There’s also an interesting distinction in the depictions of evil. Voldemort is a very different literary invention than Sauron. Sauron is a pure shadow, to borrow some of Travis’s terminology. He is always present, yet never physical. And there are only bare hints at Sauron as a personality. He is the essence of evil, quite literally. He’s not just a depiction of it. And he is incredibly formidable with vast forces at his disposal.
Voldemort is a well fleshed character. Harry spends vast amounts of time getting to know Voldemort, which is something that is pursued only very remotely in LotR. And it is kind of a shock for one’s Christ figure to share some significant character traits with he epitome of evil.
I was also kind of intrigued that Rowling chose to deflate the balloon of evil she’d expanded around Voldemort. For a guy who describes himself as pushing the boundaries of magic, he is shown as painfully shortsighted at the end of DH. He becomes more of a political evil — tyrannical and murderous — than flatly Satanic.
Dave, yes – there is a sense in which politics and tyranny took over the series starting at the end of GoF and culminating in DH. The introduction of “remorse” into DH as a means of healing a torn soul opened up the possibility of redemption, even if, for literary reason, that was never going to happen with Voldemort. Possibility of redemption negates a “flatly satanic” status.
Arrogance, it seems, turned out to be the ultimate downfall of Voldemort. That’s the fun of using “figures” instead of allegories. Harry, Christ-figure, has a piece of Voldemort in it. Voldemort, Satan-figure, has the possibility of redemption opened up to him. Funky stuff, that.
Matthew, yes, I was mainly speaking of the hobbits when I said the heroes didn’t do magic in LOTR. But I think the statement is mainly true of all the non-elven characters. Aragorn does one bit of magic in summoning the dead – a fairly huge piece of magic, mind you, and not to be sneered at – but it’s not the every day stuff that Harry and his friends do. The real exception is, as you said, Gandalf, who is, after all, a wizard. He’s the only one who seems capable of every day magic, using it to light his pipe, for example, using spells, summoning birds, and so on.
But Gandalf is clearly identified as a Maiar, a servant of the Valar and the creator, Iluvatar.
Sorry, submitted the last comment before finishing it.
As a Maiar, Gandalf’s power comes from the creator, i.e. God, and is dedicated to the fight of good over evil. His use of magic is very unlike the magic of Harry and his friends which is, as Scott said, neutral.
What I find interesting about Gandalf is that in his first appearance, i.e. in The Hobbit, he is much more human and approachable than he is in LOTR. And even in LOTR, he is more likely to kick back and light a pipe in the first book of the trilogy than in the later books, where he becomes almost entirely noble and stern. So by the end, the uses of magic have become directed almost entirely by the cosmic struggle between good and evil.
So we may conclude that according to Mr. O’Brien, Gandalf barring the path of the Balrog is ok, but Mrs. Weasley peeling potatoes is not.
Well, I think Aragorn does more magic than that. He does something with the hilt of the morgul knife. I doubt that he was just singing a song to it. We don’t really know what it is maybe trying to break curses on it or render it safer. His uses of Athelas to help heal frodo, or at least delay the knife wound’s evil. He says that Elrond, the eldest of his race, had the greatest ability to heal. He is foresighted- maybe that’s more to do with his innate power. Also, he somehow menaces the Mouth of Sauron maybe magically. Also he can resist the lure of the Ring. That may be due to his indominatable will.
Matthew
Here’s a different, but related question. So far we’ve talked about why people like O’Brien attack HP but not the Christian fantasy bigwigs. But I want to know why he is attacking HP, but not attacking some of the more hardcore fantasy out there that really is missing virtue and values and all that. I have read tons of it. For instance, back in high school I read the Dragonlance books. They have a lot of magic, and it is more the neutral force kind where it can be used for good or evil. There are multiple gods, some of whom are evil, some of whom are good, and some of whom are neither. Most of the main characters are not clearly good, and some of the supposedly good characters are portrayed as self-righteous buffoons who don’t care about the wide world around them.
Now, those books could not in any way be construed to be appropriate for teaching Christian values, although they are pretty good stories. You never heard anyone complain about kids reading them. It’s even okay for Christian kids to read them. Is that because there’s no one out there trying to say they have a message? Is it because they just don’t sell as many copies? I have read countless fantasy novels where the worldview and the magic would fall into O’Brien’s “unacceptable” rating. But HP is the only one he and others like him are ripping. So can anyone explain?
Scott
Scott,
I am also an old Dragonlance reader. I think in that particular case D&D based fiction gets lumped with D&D in general and the general “Christian” response to that. I’m sure the stories that you and I read are far from acceptable but the brightest light attracts the moths.
The main answer to your question, in my opinion, is the popularity of the Harry Potter novels. It’s a much bigger target and therefore the detractors get bigger coverage.
Matthew
Perhaps Dragonlance wasn’t the best example. I forgot about the whole D&D thing. But the point was there are plenty of more relevant targets out there if you are going to criticize a fantasy’s magic or worldview. You’re probably right. If there are 10,000 kids that read Dragonlance or Feist or whoever, there are 10 million that read HP. So from O’Brien’s perspective, it’s a bigger danger.
And, of course, this doesn’t even begin to get into all the non-fantasy garbage that’s published for kids these days. There really are some genuinely evil books out there that teach kids real witchcraft or whatever. Look through the teen section at a book store and it’s fairly appalling.
Scott, I want to go back to LOTR for a moment. Earlier you mentioned that there is one God in the stories, but where is that ever talked about in The Hobbit or the trilogy? I’ve still not read Simarillion, and I understand that it’s made clear there. However, does that mean that all the Harry Haters who love LOTR have also read the rest of Tolkien’s work? To be honest, I doubt they have. I think it’s more that LOTR has the advantage of 50 years time since publication, and the distinction of the author having been openly Christian in his life and other writings. Same for Lewis. Don’t get me wrong–I love LOTR and Narnia. But I just wish there was a way to make some of them realize that not every author has to be a theologian or a studied-Christian to write a story with Christian themes. It’s very frustrating.
I’m not a big fantasy reader, but my son-in-law is. I must admit that it sometimes bothers me when he talks about some of the stories and it’s obvious that they don’t have Christian themes. The latest is that he’s really looking forward to seeing The Golden Compass–I don’t think he’s read the books. But that’s another story all together. (And do all these Harry Haters have the same complaints about Phillip Pullman, btw? Or is he still flying below their radar?)
Pat
Eeyore,
Although you addressed your question to Scott I’d like to have a go at it. One God is not explicitly mentioned in LOTR although there is mention or implication of a greater power who is ordering events of the world for good. It is not the Valar, as the Istari Wizards are their attempt to work against evil in Middle Earth, it is something greater. Gandalf encourages Frodo about his why the Ring has come to him on page 54-55 of the Harper-Collins paperback edition. Also, Sam has an epiphany in Mordor after they leave Cirith Ungol about his and Fordo’s situation. He realises that there is a grand story being played out and darkness is a small and fleeting thing when compared with the eternal beauty and light above.
I know know there are many interpretations but I think the Christian reader of Tolkien says to his/herself “I know what he’s writing about”.
Matthew
That’s true Matthew, but that is a perception you have while reading it. It’s kinda like inside insight. You know Tolkien’s real beliefs so when you read that, you know what he’s writing about. I think most people that read those books do not. Eeyore, you are mostly right. The bulk of Tolkien’s worldview is presented in The Silmarillion and the other material published by his son, like Lost Tales. I know that most people don’t read all that, like I do. As I’ve said elsewhere, I’m a Tolkien freak.
I think that’s why people like Peter Jackson and most of the cast of the movies could read the trilogy and not really “get” them. I read interviews with a number of them where they talked about the great environmental themes in the stories and stuff like that. And that was in there. Tolkien had a huge dislike for industries that ruined the landscape where he grew up.
So I might tend to say, now that you point it out to me, that maybe Tolkien is acceptable to a lot of people of all beliefs if they don’t learn too much about the author, and acceptable to Christians if they do.
Well, there is also the matter of the association between witches and the devil. Modern day Wiccans may argue this until they’re blue, but the common perception of witches is that they worship the devil.
A lot of people think very literally, and think in black-and-white terms. Their only understanding of witchcraft is the traditional one. And the traditional definition is definitely anti-God.
Although I agree that JKR is atracting more flak simply because the books are so popular, I think Tolkien would also be in the black books of the fundamentalists if he had chosen to write of witches.
Ah, but there are hardshelled fundamentalists who fulminate against Lewis and Tolkien. I wasted a couple of hours last night mucking around in their websites. (Muck is literal here.)I was struck by the parallels between their attacks and O’Brien’s. He uses a more literate vocabulary and invokes philosophical/theological terms but the manner of arguing, with its distortions, selective readings, blatant misstatements of fact, proofs by assertion and bad references is quite similar. At the core, these “Vigilant” critics don’t understand symbolism, a fatal defect.
O’Brien, to my knowledge, has not spoken against Philip Pullman. I suspect that the highly visible popularity of HP is what goads him.
I did search the site for an article about Pullman and found one, written by Elizabeth O’Brien–his wife, I suppose? Anyway, interestingly enough, it’s not about the books, just about the upcoming movie. There are quite a few quotes attributed to Pullman, but I tried to check the link and it didn’t work. I’ll try again later–my computer was acting funny the other day.
Pat
Reyhan, “As a Maiar, Gandalf’s power comes from the creator, i.e. God, and is dedicated to the fight of good over evil. His use of magic is very unlike the magic of Harry and his friends which is, as Scott said, neutral.”
But Saruman also got his powers from the creator — yet he chose to use it for evil, to join with Sauron. So Tolkien is also telling us to use our abilities for good.
The difference is that in HP more people are wizards (but many people are not.) It also resembles X-Men. And Superman.
Sandra, that’s correct – loonies like Berit Kjos actually attack Narnia for its use of pagan deities and magic, which is far more consistent an approach than that of Ted Baehr and You-Know-Who, who think Narnia is edifying Christian literature while HP is dangerous.
Travis, it’s interesting you mention Ted Baehr. I had an email argument with him once about his review of the movie Titanic. He was largely bashing the movie for historical inaccuracies. Being something of a Titanic nut also, I know James Cameron went well into the realm of obsessive to make the movie as historically accurate as possible. There were things you could criticize that movie for, but the historical facts were not one. Ted Baehr did not let the facts get in the way of his opinions.
I think what baffles me most is the works they put up as “good” literature. Beowolf and the Illiad are excellent reading but Harry Potter isn’t? Neither of those stories hold up a purely Christian morality.
I ran across the same thing in Abanes second book when he listed Gulliver’s Travels along side Charlotte’s web. I’m thinking O_O have you read Gulliver’s Travels? That’s no kids’ book.
All literature is an exercise in discernment, gleaning the good from the bad and the questionable. And asking questions.
I am just passing through and I wanted to say that I find the whole discussion very interesting.
However I doubt in the end that good and evil can be discerned by the use of the intellect. The intellect, and language for that matter, have a way of tying everything up in knots and of turning the blindingly obvious inside out.
However I can see that saying the above does not help at all…
Still I know for a fact that I enjoyed reading the Harry Potter series more than I can easily explain
)