Facile Nation

August 15-18, a very affordable Mythcon, as such things go. I’ve just started prodding local press, hoping to get some awareness - a challenge, because the committee is primarily located in NYC (and Boston–), so our site liaison is local and none other.

Still, a really quick and gratifying response from Richard Kamins in his Hartford Courant arts & entertainment blog. The man obviously ‘gets it’ when it comes to the MythSoc and puns!

On the more grim side of things, this first week in July has been dreadful for the SF community - a devastating traffic accident on the way to Westercon in Las Vegas killed Roberta Carlson, the driver, and injured the other passengers and, on the other side of the country, the very talented Thomas M. Disch committed suicide. The New York Times article gives an overview. Following Mike Glyer’s coverage in his File 770 blog and the blossoming links is pretty powerful. Disch’s own Is Thomas Disch the Right God for You? LiveJournal entry on June 24th is sad and ironic and the world is so full of pain.

Personally, a good friend’s father also died. Grab someone you love and give ‘em a hug - we’ve got to appreciate each other while we can.

Feeling awkward and clumsy
and fallen from grace
the doors and the windows are closed in my face
I feel displaced
all the locks have been changed
and we cannot go home anymore

The woman is awkward
the child is wise
so look at this placed through those innocent eyes
they don’t see the lies
that live in the woodwork
and we cannot go home anymore

I wish that I could do without it
sing and laugh and shout about it
wish I could see through the walls
and the curtain calls
that put on this show
but no–

The lighting is different
you can see that at a glance
and, standing divided, we’re trying to dance
they’ve sealed the past
revealed at last
that we cannot go home anymore

written by Lynn Maudlin; © Moonbird Music Co. 1974, all rights reserved

When I was 22 my parents moved from Los Angeles to San Diego, selling the house I grew up in. I have faint, fleeting memories, only flashes really, of the house we lived in the first scant two years of my life so, for practical purposes, I’d lived my whole childhood in this house. I literally got married in this house, at the tender green age of 17 to my high school boyfriend; a friend of the family played the love theme from Romeo and Juliet on the baby grand piano in the living room; later we all sat down to a dinner of cornish game hen.

It was a terrific house: five bedrooms, seven bathrooms (well, five full baths and two half baths) on a corner lot in Los Feliz. Summer evening traffic was a pain because we were on the Greek Theatre route but we knew how to drive to avoid the worst of it. It was lovely to be able to walk up the hill to attend most of the Crosby, Stills & Nash concerts (Neil Young was added between the booking and the gigs), either by an employee-friend letting us in, or patrons leaving after hearing Joni Mitchell (yes, she opened for the boys), or in the trees if need be…

It had a large lot with plenty of room for a swimming pool but my parents weren’t interested. In fact, there had been a pool in the house when first built, a therapeutic pool for a wheel-chair bound owner, in the middle of the patio. We called it “the patio” in accordance with the American Heritage Dictionary’s definition:

The Spanish word patio refers to the roofless inner courtyard that forms the center of the house in many parts of the Spanish-speaking world. In English, however, the word has come to have a broader meaning and can also refer to paved spaces that adjoin a house. Patio first appears in English in the 1700s in descriptions of houses in the Spanish-speaking world.

My parents remodeled the kitchen and dining room, adding a sliding glass door from kitchen to patio as well as a wet counter with a pass-through window, making it very easy to have outdoor buffets; after that we often ate outdoors at a small table round table, even breakfast throughout much of the year.

It was a great space for parties. I remember my dad inviting many people from his work at the Naval Ordinance Test Station to watch Neil Armstrong step onto the moon on July 20th of 1969. My dad and older brother managed to lug the massive color television set up onto the roof, facing the patio, and we set up chairs and folding chairs and maybe even borrowed chairs so we could all watch that incredible event. I was already pregnant, although no one knew and I wouldn’t be sure for another few weeks.

After Pete and I got married we moved into the “rumpus room” - it was a massive room with a separate entrance and bath (–of course!); the single-story house was situated on a gentle slope so this room was on the downside at the back of the house, about two feet below ground level at its entrance and probably 6 feet below ground level at the deepest point. This made it a naturally cool room, very pleasant in the summer. My folks had a 21-foot travel trailer parked behind the house, about 15 feet from the rumpus room door and we used its little kitchen. We lived there for eight or nine months while we both graduated from high school (I skipped ahead to graduate in February, seven months pregnant, and Pete graduated, president of the senior class, in June. I brought our son to the graduation ceremony; we were a big hit). I remember timing my labor in that room, finally waking Pete at midnight on a school night (!!) to say, “I think you’d better drive me to the hospital now.” Seven hours later our son was born.

My grandparents had moved out from Iowa about 6 years earlier and bought a house a mile or so away, a “triplex” - a three bedroom house on the bottom and two one bedroom apartments upstairs; when one of their tenants moved out, we were offered the vacant apartment at no increase of rent, I don’t remember if it was $75 or $80 per month. We took it gratefully and that’s where we were living when the big Sylmar Earthquake hit in February of 1971.

I remember the sound of the timber tearing, a soft roaring sound, and of course the insistent rattling of the windows. Every aftershock brought that window-rattling and for days my adrenaline would punch skyhigh; this was my first fear-of-death experience, the first time I really believed I might die - and I had absolutely no control over it.

I couldn’t stand being in the apartment so we bundled into the car and drove up to my folks’ house, my old home. It just felt more solid (well, it was more solid) and I was there when a Navy operator managed to get through the jammed phone lines, checking on our well-being for Dad, who was on one of his frequent business trips back to D.C.

Some eighteen months later, I moved back into that house with my son and lived there for a school year (August or September to June of 1973). My folks did an admirable job of letting me have some autonomy without entirely compromising their boundaries and standards; looking back at it I’m very impressed, although I didn’t have the maturity to appreciate it at the time. I made a close friend at L.A.C.C. and we rented a bizarre little apartment together: it was the upstairs of four garages with a stairway up the middle, two large rooms on either side in the front, a small bedroom, a bathroom with no door and the kitchen on the backside. Beth took the northern front room and I took the southern front room and my son took the little bedroom; I painted a concentric rainbow on his ceiling and stippled the color gradations - it was really beautiful.

We had a wild and woolly time for a bit more than a year, as I recall, and then that same upstairs apartment in my grandparents house became available again; I moved back.

My parents owned a lot with two houses on it, maybe a mile and a quarter from their home; the long-term tenants moved out of the front house concurrent with some friends looking for a rental property so Beth’s older brother and his wife and my son and I moved into this three bedroom house and I was living there when my folks decided to move to San Diego.

It wasn’t entirely their choice; the Navy Lab in Pasadena was closing and relocating to Point Loma and it wasn’t thinkable for my dad not to go; after all, he had all those computers to move and a couple of hundred people working for him at this point. The housing market had boomed in San Diego and was soft in L.A. - it took them more than a year to sell the Los Feliz home; I remember my dad getting nervous about the possibility of not selling it within the window for the rollover capital gains exclusion (that would have been disastrous).

During this time I did some of the care of the property. My former roommate Beth’s other older brother moved into the small front bedroom of my old home and kept the lawn mowed and the house occupied while real estate agents brought clients in and out and tried to sell the place.

Somewhere early in that window I wrote this song, Cannot Go Home Anymore, with apologies to Thomas Wolfe whose novel You Cannot Go Home Again was published posthumously in 1940. Writing the song was the way I processed the loss of this massive, solid, amazing house that I’d lived in for nearly 18 years of my life and around whose gravitational pull I’d orbited in every successive and intervening move. There were nine moves in less than eight years, all but one in the same zip code.

or Pullman be damned!

My friend Diana wrote a fabulous blog entry called Lewis the Lover at C.S. Lewis: Original works on and about C.S. Lewis, a blog sponsored by HarperOne.

I am in fact joking about Philip Pullman; I genuinely hope he isn’t damned. I just find his angry vehemence against C.S. Lewis and Narnia to be weird and poisonous; anyone who proclaims himself the anti-CSL isn’t going to have much appeal for me personally.

Like so many fans of the Inklings and mythopoeia, J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis and Charles Williams, fantasy and yes, even Harry Potter, I went to see the new Narnia movie Prince Caspian.

What a disappointment.

I went with my son & daughter-in-law and grandkids; I wore my C.S. Lewis Centenary Celebration t-shirt, the one with Nancy-Lou Patterson’s great illustration of Bacchus’ wild girls, from the spectacular Mythopoeic conference in Wheaton in 1998.

Spoilers follow, so if you don’t know the book and you wish to remain in blissful ignorance until you’ve seen the film, cease and desist reading now.

The Peter Jacksonification of Narnia:

It’s not fair to blame Peter Jackson, horror-film director made rich and famous by turning Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings into an action-driven horror-fest in place of a character-driven epic of high fantasy. Someone, somewhere, must have thought, “ah, these films are popular because of the really impressive battle sequences!” and Walden Media, God bless their pointed little heads, thought, “ah, we must do really impressive battle sequences in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe - we can even film in New Zealand!”

I was disappointed in the first film, particularly in the characterization of Peter as whiny and bossy and troubled. This invented characterization has grown larger and more putrid in Prince Caspian, which starts with him fighting *yet again* with school mates. Where is High King Peter, where is illustration of the point, repeated over and over again by Lewis, that the children start to reacquire the maturity and skills they developed in their first stay in Narnia?

Now, fine, if a person thinks there’s an interesting psychological story, to look at the impact of the ‘Kings & Queens grown up in Narnia, back to childhood in England’ experience, tell that story independently - but it’s not the story Lewis told — it’s not Prince Caspian. These are children’s books, children’s magical fantasy stories, rich with spiritual meaning and interesting questions. The Walden Media people ignore most of the interesting questions and contort the spiritual content.

My son’s lovely wife never read the Narnia books in childhood so she came to the film without expectations to be dashed; she came away very confused. “You know at the end, when Aslan says Peter and Susan won’t be returning to Narnia because they learned the lessons they were supposed to learn? What did they learn?” Good question. Perhaps they were meant to learn you don’t rely on your own understanding but you follow Aslan even when it doesn’t appear to make sense - in which case, they didn’t learn it.

Every question she had was related to the inventions of the filmmakers: “why did they attack the castle? Why did Caspian try to attack the Old Narnians? Why didn’t Peter kill Miraz if it was a challenge to the death? What was Lucy doing? Why did she leave and ride through the forest?”

Yes– most egregious of all. Aslan, who is not a tame lion, turns out to be a stuffed lion; Lucy has to return to the place she last saw him in order to fetch him.

Give me a break!

So, to recap the confusion: these are children’s books so the battles can’t have any blood (swords drawn out without gore) BUT they’re Peter Jacksonified so we need more battles; these are books written by a man who enjoyed a smoke and a pint BUT that would confuse American evangelicals (apparently believed to be incapable of handling the rich, full humanity of Clive Staples Lewis) so we’ll delete all the festivities with Bacchus and Pan and the wild girls (–so much for my t-shirt–); for entirely unclear reasons we change the two conniving Telmarine lords into a conniving lord and a reluctant victim lord and instead of having them initiate the accusation of treachery during the challenge when Peter steps back to allow Miraz to regain his feet, the filmmakers invent a sequence where High King Peter refuses to kill his opponent during a ‘fight-to-the-death’ challenge, passes the task off to Caspian (who also declines, showing himself weak), and thus make for a very clumsy accusation of treachery (using one of Susan’s arrows, of all things).

Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel, saying, “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me and has not carried out My commands.” 1 Samuel 15:10-11

How can God regret doing something?

This isn’t the first time we see God express regret; the first time is Genesis 6:6-7 which says The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. The LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.” This is problematic, if one believes God (as I do) when He says, “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’.” Isaiah 46:9-10

If God knows the end from the beginning, being Creator God outside the constraints of the time domain, why would He do anything He would regret? Would He not foresee His regret? Perhaps God doesn’t foresee His own emotional responses or, more likely, His emotional reactions are not the basis on which He makes decisions (what a thought– would that we all had that capacity).

Maybe ‘regret’ (nacham) doesn’t fully encompass His thinking, His emotions - or at least doesn’t for us. Certainly Isaiah 55:8-9 tells us that God’s thoughts and ways are not our thoughts and ways; perhaps this post is simply folly because I’m pondering things that I cannot know. At the same time, God invites us to know Him better, to enter in, to strive to come into agreement with Him.

But I think it may be related to the fact that God values freewill; He lets us make our choices even when they hurt us. He tells us what is good, what is the way of life and blessing versus the way of death and cursing, and He exhorts us to “choose life that you might live” but He doesn’t impose that choice upon us.

So, despite the fact that God sees the end from the beginning, God lets us go through the experience. He doesn’t sit at the beginning and judge humanity, choosing some and damning some based upon His foreknowledge. If He did, we would of course cry out, “That’s not fair! I haven’t done anything!” We go through the painful and joyful reality of life and freedom to make stupid and glorious choices.

This is always a poignant and delicate area for me: I married at 25 under the firm conviction that God told me to marry this man. This man wasn’t my ‘type’, this man didn’t make my heart catch in my throat or my stomach drop out from under me (those indicators I sought in the past, looking for chemistry) - but this man was a professing Christian, a virtuous man, a man who ardently pursued me (warts and all, divorced with child and all), an intelligent man, a funny man, an excellent musician with whom I enjoyed playing and performing and attending concerts. This man asked God to give me to him for a wife - and God granted that request.

Now this man might look at it and think, “why did I ever ask such a thing?” - if this man does any self-examination at all, which I suspect is not the case. But that would be his blog, not mine. I look at it and ask, “God, why did you tell me (invite me, anyway) to marry this man knowing that he would blindside me 17 years later, that he would blow up the marriage in as destructive a way as he could manage?”

And maybe, just maybe, it relates to this Saul thing– that God, rejected by Israel from being King over them, gave them Saul because they wanted a king (and Saul appeared to be kingly; he was an imposing figure) - so Samuel anoints Saul and prophesies to him and concludes with, “Then the Spirit of the LORD will come upon you mightily, and you shall prophesy with them and be changed into another man.” 1 Samuel 10:6

Saul was given the opportunity to be a godly king over Israel; God put His Spirit upon him and changed him into another kind of man, but Saul continually made choices inconsistent with God’s clear direction (via Samuel) and will (evident in the Torah) - so at a certain point God removed His Spirit from Saul (Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD terrorized him. 1 Samuel 16:14 - a truly terrifying thought) and He removed His blessing from Saul as the anointed king of Israel.

A year or so into the long, grievous divorce process God showed me that our marriage had the opportunity to be a good thing, He had a vision for our marriage - but we weren’t faithful to that vision and finally He redeemed out of the marriage that which was willing to be redeemed. Thus far that’s me. I hope one day it will include my ex - but it hasn’t yet; God has shown me specific things that will mark that redemption. Not things I’m looking forward to, btw, except in the sense that they’re signs of that redemption.

Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death; for Samuel grieved over Saul. And the LORD regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel. (1 Samuel 15:35 ~ end of the chapter).

I wrote this essay, summer of 2007 and posted it on BigBlondeBlog. I wrote it in response to an entry written by a friend on a diary site we both inhabit. The bold italicized portions below come from her entry and where there are ellipsis in the italicized portions they come from the original; I have not edited the quotations lifted.

i’m a fundamentalist christian and i read harry potter.

it’s funny because only 4 years ago, all things harry were banned from this house. i went right along with the idea that it was evil, confused kids and glorified things i don’t believe in. okay i admit, it was an example of blindly following the council of men that was both unbiblical (yes) and not one of my finer moments.

I was also very slow to read the books. Slow because I don’t jump on ANY bandwagon as it goes by; that’s just not my nature. It’s my nature to watch it, consider it, walk around it, kick its wheels, and then –if it appears to be a good bandwagon– gingerly climb onboard, assessing as I go. As I listened to people talk about Harry Potter (my first exposure being in a bi-monthly zine that discussed fiction and what the various members were reading) I heard reasonable discourse, some speculation as to why Rowling’s book had so captured the public imagination rather than Sherwood Smith’s Wren to the Rescue (which I quite enjoy), recognizing the “perfect storm” of marketing and timing that surrounded it, etc.

And then the Christian backlash. And then the backlash to the Christian backlash, which, I must say, has always seemed absurd to me on the face of it: you may freely disagree about whether a particular book is a bad influence (be it moral or spiritual or even regarding the proper use of language) but to disdain the very idea that a book could influence the reader is absurd on the face of it.

those who know me and know my experiences can probably understand why i would have been wary. my own experiences with witchcraft are of the variety that would have the wicked witch of the west saying “damn, that’s just wrong.” i’d always been hyper careful with the subject of witchcraft and wizardry, even shunning tolkien and other authors because it just gave me the heebie jeebies.
A friend of mine with an extremely abusive cult background (not the one I’m quoting here) started having great difficulty, being triggered in very negative ways, by reading the HP books outloud to the children she watched after school. I assured her it was okay to *not* read the books to the kids; that if they really wanted to read them, they could read the books on their own (or have their own mothers read to them).

And then I watched some friends become mildly obsessed. Obsession always alarms me a bit - it’s not healthy or balanced. Doesn’t matter whether it’s Harry Potter or The Beatles of Angelina Jolie or The Lord of the Rings or computer games or pornography, obsession makes me take a few steps backward. I was obsessed with horses from toddler to 13 year old - it wasn’t destructive but it wasn’t balanced, either. And watching a handful of young adults develop an obsession with Harry Potter was a little unnerving; children’s obsessions can only go so far but an adult’s obsession can swing in a much wider arc… With a couple of these people there were contributing spiritual dynamics that increased my concern.

So standing back a good long while seemed like a reasonable choice.

anyway… my husband and i had a conversation the other night about whether or not it was okay to continue being fans of the series and spoke aloud, for the first time, some of the things some of our fellow believers may have forgotten or ignored.

I finally decided to watch the first movie on DVD - and it was okay. I didn’t have that sense of wonder that a fan would experience (you know, the joy of seeing something you’ve read about for years embodied on the big screen) but, on the other hand, it was a really fun introduction to certain concepts - like Platform 9 3/4! I hadn’t read the book, so I wasn’t disappointed by things that were missing, etc., and I wanted to see whether I understood the story well enough (one of the criticisms I’d heard from several corners was that the story was muddled by the screenplay). I felt I understood it. Waited a few weeks - was there any negative spiritual dynamic? None that I could perceive.

So I rented the second movie (3 were out at this point) and was really tickled to watch the same actors only a bit older– very cool, I quite liked that. So then I rented the third movie and said, “awww– it’s a time travel movie!” So I actually had to buy a used copy.

But I still hadn’t read any of the books and was still quite ambivalent (now I’m only somewhat ambivalent) when I drove to Durango a few years ago with my friend Diana & her daughter Sierra; we stayed with the sister of one of Di’s close friends; this sister specializes in children’s education and tutoring and assessments of gifted children. In the course of several days there Yvonna mentioned her fondness for Harry Potter. Again, Yvonna is a strong, Bible-believing Christian (as is Diana, as am I, etc.) and so I really picked her brain about the books. And she’s the one who sold me - she said, “Rowling has written engaging, accessible books with all the fun of the boarding school environment, contrasted with wicked parent-substitutes and hideous cousin.” Yvonna expressed her conviction that the books were highly moral and very clear about what is good and what is evil (–funny that in a world where even the church starts blurring those lines and waffling, it’s the author of a children’s fantasy series who draws a clear line).

So at some point in the fall of that year, I took out the first couple of books and started reading. I found J.K. Rowling a good writer with a fun sense of humor and her story engaging. I think it was late last year that I finally finished the sixth book - and I am looking forward to reading the seventh, when I can take it out from the local library! I don’t anticipate buying the series unless the Folio Society in England decides to release them - then, if I can afford it, I probably would buy the set.

WHY, as a fan of the series, do I have ambivalence about Harry Potter which I do not have about The Chronicles of Narnia or Tolkien’s created world of Middle-earth? One of the powerful strengths of Rowling’s creation is that Harry Potter’s world is almost our world: planes, trains, automobiles, computers, medicine, television, Christmas - and a talent or genetic ability to witchcraft. Now if it wasn’t witchcraft but simply a propensity toward levitation, I would have no problem at all. But witchcraft bears the stigma of being condemned in both the Hebrew and Greek portions of the Bible. God warns His people about witchcraft.

It makes me feel like Indiana Jones when he looks down into the pit and sees the floor moving with serpents and he rolls back and says, “Snakes– why did it have to be snakes?”

Rowling’s creation has humans that can learn to become witches. Tolkien and Lewis have witches and/or wizards *but* they are not human. When humans attempt to embrace witchcraft in Lewis’ creation, it is a very wicked behavior - which is in line with scriptural prohibitions. So Harry Potter isn’t at a comfortable fantasy-arm’s distance, but presses right up against The Real World. It is a strength and a problem. Is she encouraging children to embrace witchcraft? I don’t know. I know there are kids who write to Hogwarts and ask to be admitted (the British Post Office has said so) and frankly if I felt misunderstood and abused and alone in my childhood life, Hogwarts would have looked wonderfully attractive - does that mean they are inclined to pursue witchcraft in reality? I don’t know. I sincerely hope not, because that would be tempting little ones to sin, which Jesus thoroughly condemns.

I actually think one of the big problems –at least for serious Christian readers– may be when their children run up against the “You shall not allow a witch to live” scriptures. Huh? B-b-but Harry Potter? Hermione is a witch! I like those people; what do you mean, they wouldn’t be allowed to live in ancient Israel? God says they have to die? Then God is a big meanie. By blurring the lines between a work of fiction, a fantasy world, and the Real World in which we live, Rowling creates a very real tension between God’s clear instruction that His people are NOT to seek knowledge or guidance from any spiritual/supernatural source other than Himself. I fear the Potter books may interfere with the ability of some children to “taste and see that the LORD is good.”

And that’s a big problem.

if it is creating confusion, i have to wonder why. is it not the responsibility of the parents, no matter what their spiritual beliefs, to lay a solid foundation for their kids? if the parents are confused, the kids will be confused… no matter what the religious affiliation.

if we haven’t, that’s our fault. not J. K. rowlings.

Of course it is the responsibility of the parents to bring clarity. But as a child raised in a seriously Christian home who *still* got demonized in early childhood, I’m very aware of the dangers and pitfalls and the complete lack of mercy with which the enemy goes after children - and very specifically targets Christian children (why target the kids who aren’t even being taught about God? They’re much less likely to grow up into Christians… from the enemy’s perspective, those kids already belong to him).

Confusion is not easily dismissed. For instance, it took me a long time to understand the whole Acts 16 thing - if this spirit is testifying to the truth, why does Paul cast it out? Because 1) the presence of that spirit in the girl is an offense to God and the freedom which He created humans to enjoy and 2) the spirit is self-serving; it is trying to increase its credibility within the community so that it will be more powerful when Paul & Luke and all leave the area; it is entirely parasitic and opportunistic.

I don’t think these books could encourage satanism (well, unless a reader finds Voldemort and Malfoy attractive and wishes to impose their will upon others; the true mark of satanism: I can make you do what I please) but I think the books make witchcraft appealing, and that’s problematic. One can argue that witchcraft, in the Hogwarts setting, is scholastically appealing and therefore might as well be chemistry or physics. But it’s not chemistry or physics, it’s witchcraft and the word itself is loaded. It is disingenuous to expect readers and critics to strip the historic meaning of the word from Rowling’s use of the word.

My friend offered a statement and responded:“it’s just not of God” - the bible says we are in the world but not of the world. as much as i respect the amish, i couldn’t live as they do. if i were to be diligent and wholehearted about shunning ‘things of this world’ i’d have to take a step further than the amish and live in a cave. there are many things not of God that can still be positives in our lives… when used properly.

I think that argument would be fine if these were books about linguists or chemistry majors or football players. But these are books about children attending a school that teaches them how to be wizards and witches. The problem really does boil down to the fact that that God instructs us, in the strongest possible terms, to avoid sorcery, witchcraft, divination, mediums, astrology, spiritists. Thus I would argue there are three categories: of God, of the world, and of the forbidden. What if these were books about adolescent boys exploring their sexuality with each other in a fun, bath-house kind of boarding school atmosphere? All the clear “good/evil” divides could still exist - rape is evil but consenting orgies are fun. Fewer Christians are willing to stand up and say, “homosexuality is not compatible with Christian life” and yet I imagine my friend would not allow her sons to read the series if the death-penalty offense was homosexuality and not witchcraft. Once again, unlike Tolkien or Lewis, Rowling’s creation makes the idea of being a wizard attractive and possible - and who wants to be a muggle, anyway?! I’m actually not very bothered by the racism in the books (muggle vs. magical) because I think it adds three-dimensionality to her world; the degree to which the reader engages with that attitude I find problematic in the same way that descendants of African slaves find “Uncle Tom” attitudes or behavior problematic.

if we’ve done our job as parents, we can use even this series of stories to build on the lessons we seek to teach.
love is by far, the greatest thing.
death is not to be feared.
there are things far worse than death.
keeping hold of the good can repel the bad (dementors are a powerful example)
evil exists, no matter how some may choose to remain blind.
to name only a few.

fact is, harry potter is responsible for the literacy of a generation. it’s certainly responsible for my kids’ growth as readers. and you know what? they’ve grown interested in the bible. something i doubt would have happened if their reading abilities hadn’t progressed to the point they could understand the language.

I agree; there is so much positive good in these books and they’re great springboards for discussion. And they have gotten kids to read (including big kids!) who were never excited about reading before - and THAT is WONDERFUL. I just don’t think that erases the problems.

And so yes, even though I’ve now read the books (6) and have seen the first four films and really enjoyed them, I am still ambivalent.

*sigh*

I am, at long last Lynn, putting up a blog through my own website.

This post contains a pun…