Why would you NOT allow your dc to read Harry Potter?nt

[redmom3]

nt

[Daisy]

We don't read books about witchcraft. That's the short answer.

[GreenKitty]

I have no idea?

[j.griff]

Hypothetically speaking (my Littles aren't reading yet), I would postpone it until they are at an appropriate "age" or rather, an appropriate "maturity" level to understand some of the things that happen in the books. They were written for an "older" child audience, so I didn't want my oldest to read the books when she was 6 ;)

IF my child was particularly sensitive to that type of fantasy (ie, if they have nightmares or other "issues" after being exposed to such ideas), then I would not want them to read them- BUT I wouldn't prohibit them from reading them, KWIM?

[kdeno]

We don't read books about witchcraft. That's the short answer.

 

 

That is a WHOLE can o worms :)

[Laura K (NC)]

My biggest reason is that I hate the way they've been promoted as the great salvation of American literacy while other better novels go ignored. I hate the way that kids in public schools get more credit for reading a Harry Potter book, so that's the book that all of them seem to have to read in order to compete academically in middle school. There's something fishy about that.

 

Also, I didn't think they were written particularly well. My kids read the first one out of curiosity, but only because my mom bought it for them (against my better judgment). None of them seemed particularly interested in reading any more of them. They could get them from the library if they wanted to, but I wouldn't put any money into the Harry phenomenon.

 

As far as witches go, I couldn't keep them from Harry on that point than I could keep them from Bedknob and Broomstick (which is much worse on that score than the first Harry), Roald Dahl (which they loved), Wizard of Oz, and other fictional kids books that use magic. My beef with Harry, though I'm a Christian, is not on the score of magic. Discernment is needed in that, but a Christian child in a Christian home isn't in much danger on account of that particular author.

 

Then there were the media reports that Dumbledore turned out to be gay post-publication. I'll be darned if that didn't nail the coffin closed for me. The media is much more spiritually dangerous than Harry Potter.

 

That's my curmudgeonly answer. :)

[gardenschooler]

I felt mine were too young when the first book came out (can't remember - but the first 2 dds were born in '92 & '94. We waited a few years before reading them.

 

Other people don't want their children to read about magic and witchcraft, as that is not acceptable to them.

[GothicGyrl]

While I agree that HP might not be on literary level with the "classic" authors that some cherish, it still has literary function that is higher than some of the trash out there and for that reason alone, it is good enough to keep it on the "kids will read it" list. I don't feel there is any conspiracy out there with these books and getting kids to read, I just think Rowling hit upon a formula long forgotten and that formula struck gold with her and the kids.

 

Kids are tired of reading the same old boring stuff. They are tired of reading fluff and watered down fiction. They want meat and bones, something to keep them entertained and occupied and IMHO, though I do enjoy the classics very much, they are not sufficient for today's audience.

 

Since this is a work of fiction, I cannot agree with the whole "witchcraft" thing and "impressionable minds" bit I hear all the time. It makes me wonder how many of those have actually read the books before they jumped on the bandwagon.

 

And the whole Dumbledore is gay bit? Reading the books would have caused you to find out that this does NOT play into ANY part of the storyline one bit. In fact, Rowling said that she would have told us sooner if she knew it would have made us happy, but since she didn't write the stories based on anyone's love life, it never figures in to any part of any of the books. It's not even a footnote. It just doesn't exist in the books at all.

 

But that's ok, really. I won't begrudge anyone choosing to not read them--it means more for sale for me when they come available. :)

[ncmomo3]

I honestly don't understand the witchcraft argument. Snow White has a witch that casts a spell. Little Mermaid has the same. This is not meant to be a confrontational statement. I just don't know what the difference would be. I can see how the tone may be too dark for sensitive children. Mine have not read it for that reason--just personal choice.

[Old Dominion Heather]

They will certainly read them if they want to when they are older. My oldest doesn't handle character death well yet. He still needs to wait a few years.

[abbeyej]

Um, because *I* was busy reading them? ;) (Okay, now that all the books have been published, that's not going to be a problem any more...)

[GothicGyrl]

I honestly don't understand the witchcraft argument. Snow White has a witch that casts a spell. Little Mermaid has the same. This is not meant to be a confrontational statement. I just don't know what the difference would be. I can see how the tone may be too dark for sensitive children. Mine have not read it for that reason--just personal choice.

I was told that the difference was that HP were "real" kids, in "real" time, in a "real" place, and since the bible says witchcraft is real, then this is a bad thing.

 

The "witchcraft" in say Tolkien's novels (because Tolkein was a Christian) don't count because "you can tell the difference between the good and bad and the bad suffer" but in HP "the lines are blurred between the good and bad".

 

That's how I was told it. It still makes no sense, but that's how they justified it. However, you will find that some don't even do Disney for various other reasons, so you can't use Snow White or Little Mermaid as your examples because they might come back with "we don't do Disney either".

 

That's just how I was told. Many times.

[j.griff]

Well, my understanding is that there is a difference between the type of withcraft portrayed in Snow White- that witch is an "evil" witch, while the witches and witchcraft practiced in HP is not "evil", though there are "some" evil characters. Does that make sense? I think it is the thought of any witchcraft being portrayed in a positive light, as a good thing, as an acceptable thing- which bothers some (I'm not saying THAT is WHAT bothers everyone that disallow the HP books, just *some*)

[mcconnellboys]

I don't know, at first I thought that they weren't on the same sort of level as someone like Tolkien, but as she got more into the series, I began so recognize a lot more in the way of symbolism within the works. And the last one pulled everything together so beautifully for me that I was won over to classifying her up there with the big guys....

 

Regena

[Tutor]

Actually, I am encouraging my 9yodd to read them because I think she would enjoy them, but I am not sure how my 11yodd would handle some of the scenes in the later books (she scares easily), so I am not encouraging or discouraging her. I know a few people who have not allowed their children to read them because they feel their children aren't ready to handle them yet.

[Daisy]

I've read two of the books to see what all the hubbub was about. We don't read other books with witchcraft either. We don't even see it as a "protecting" our "children's" minds thing. We think the whole "I will set no evil thing before mine eye," should be taken literally and is applicable to any age group, any book, any movie, anything and everything. We believe in self-censorship and do not feel it is necessary to read a book that so blantantly goes against our personal beliefs. Okay, that was the slightly longer answer.

 

I readily acknowledge that people have varying degrees of conviction in this regard and am not by any means passing judgement upon those who would choose a different approach to the books. I'll add that my MIL (pastor's wife) loves them and sees no problem with them.

[Harriet Vane]

I was told that the difference was that HP were "real" kids, in "real" time, in a "real" place, and since the bible says witchcraft is real, then this is a bad thing.

 

The "witchcraft" in say Tolkien's novels (because Tolkein was a Christian) don't count because "you can tell the difference between the good and bad and the bad suffer" but in HP "the lines are blurred between the good and bad".

 

That's how I was told it. It still makes no sense, but that's how they justified it. However, you will find that some don't even do Disney for various other reasons, so you can't use Snow White or Little Mermaid as your examples because they might come back with "we don't do Disney either".

 

That's just how I was told. Many times.

 

I am not arguing with you Toni.

 

I also want to be clear that I totally respect others' rights to hold a different opinion than I do on this one.

 

Having given those disclaimers, I will say this:

 

The "witchcraft" practiced in HP in NO WAY resembles anything the Bible warns against. When the Bible discusses witchcraft, it is specifically prohibiting believers from accessing a spiritual power (demons or the dead) other than God.

 

I am a devout, Bible-thumping kind of believer, but I think HP can be read and enjoyed and recognized as NOT promoting the behavior that is specifically warned against biblically.

[Harriet Vane]

I was told that the difference was that HP were "real" kids, in "real" time, in a "real" place, and since the bible says witchcraft is real, then this is a bad thing.

 

The "witchcraft" in say Tolkien's novels (because Tolkein was a Christian) don't count because "you can tell the difference between the good and bad and the bad suffer" but in HP "the lines are blurred between the good and bad".

 

That's how I was told it. It still makes no sense, but that's how they justified it. However, you will find that some don't even do Disney for various other reasons, so you can't use Snow White or Little Mermaid as your examples because they might come back with "we don't do Disney either".

 

That's just how I was told. Many times.

 

Again Toni--I am not disagreeing with you, just continuing the discussion.

 

I read all seven books avidly and repetitively and did not find blurry lines between good and bad at all. There were characters who struggled in very human ways with very difficult choices, but the moral choice is always presented very clearly, in my opinion.

[GothicGyrl]

The "witchcraft" practiced in HP in NO WAY resembles anything the Bible warns against. When the Bible discusses witchcraft, it is specifically prohibiting believers from accessing a spiritual power (demons or the dead) other than God.

 

I am a devout, Bible-thumping kind of believer, but I think HP can be read and enjoyed and recognized as NOT promoting the behavior that is specifically warned against biblically.

 

Then you and I, believe it or not, are in COMPLETE AGREEANCE! ;) Even with all the bible side of it, you and I do happen to totally agree on this one and for that reason, the one you state, is why I can't understand why some won't read HP.

 

Buuuut. this thread isn't about that. She asked why you don't and some stated why they don't and some stated why they did ;)...

 

I read all seven books avidly and repetitively and did not find blurry lines between good and bad at all. There were characters who struggled in very human ways with very difficult choices, but the moral choice is always presented very clearly, in my opinion.

 

 

And again, you and I are in complete agreeance here. I was only stating the "why" as I was told it, not that I believed it. Trust me, I don't.

[Harriet Vane]

I have not allowed my oldest dd to read HP specifically because she has a very, very vivid imagination. I would like her to get a little older and more mature before she reads these, especially because the intensity deepens so much in the later books of the series. I will gladly allow her to read the books later, though, and will greatly enjoy discussing them with her.

[Josie]

My dc haven't read them because there are better books to read. There are books better in terms of quality of writing, subject matter, character building, etc.

[Crissy]

My biggest reason is that I hate the way they've been promoted as the great salvation of American literacy while other better novels go ignored. I hate the way that kids in public schools get more credit for reading a Harry Potter book, so that's the book that all of them seem to have to read in order to compete academically in middle school. There's something fishy about that.

 

 

Hi Laura,

I wonder if you would mind expanding on this thought. I do know the HP books are heavily promoted for financial reasons, but I've not seen them touted at the 'great salvation'. Are there specific schools/bookstores/libraries which are doing this?

 

And what do you mean by 'credit for reading HP'?

My son attends a junior high for two classes each day. His school (and our entire district) has a reading program for which they accumulate points, but it is books like The Count of Monte Cristo and such that garner the big points. I wonder if our district is unique in that way. Do you happen to have sources which bear this idea? I'd love to share them with his librarian if you do (she heads the reading program).

[Storm Bay]

They came out before my dc were old enough. We waited for all fantasy, even fairy tales, until later. This had a lot to do with our dc and their sensitivities. While I don't think any magic is Biblically correct, I don't think I need to shield my children forever. But they don't even want to read it now.

 

I'm leery of anything so highly touted in the media, not just Harry Potter. Anything highly praised in the media undergoes intense scrutiny and thought before we use it here because I have a natural tendency to avoid the crowd's opinion. That's not to say I never accept it. Of course, I tend to question everything anyway. As my children get older they have more and more say in what they read, and they have certainly read books I think are trash literature, but not as a steady reading diet.

 

As for Harry Potter, if any of my kids decided to read it, I'll read it, too, so we can discuss it. But I have no desire to read it--it just doesn't appeal to me.

[Kelli in TN]

We avoided them for our younger children. In fact, when my now 17 year old was in fourth grade she attended school for a semester (we still refer to it as that unfortunate public school experiment) and I did not allow her to go to story time during the Potter frenzy, as that is what the librarian was reading.

 

But she read one or two of them when she was 6th/7th grade or so. By this time her literary appetite was a little more finely tuned and she was not impressed with them.

 

I checked the first couple out from the library about 6 months ago and showed them to my 12 year old. He never got interested in them.

 

So, we hold off on them because I don't think they are appropriate for our children when they are young. By the time our children have reached the age that I think it would be okay, they have no interest in the books.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Probably the only reason would be that I'm an agnostic and it's a Christian apologetic meant to sneak the story of "greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" and the whole redemption scenario into the unsuspecting minds of the general public. (""Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus" -- Never disturb the sleeping dragon. The sleeping dragon idea was C.S. Lewis's, IIRC.)

 

But I don't forbid other religious books, so I let the story sneak on in. We do discuss and dissect the books, however. But coming from an agnostic who used R&S Grammar for three years, I don't suppose this is a big shock.

 

:D

[momo4]

>>>"I honestly don't understand the witchcraft argument. Snow White has a witch that casts a spell. Little Mermaid has the same. This is not meant to be a confrontational statement. I just don't know what the difference would be. I can see how the tone may be too dark for sensitive children."

 

Most likely families who use that argument don't read or watch those stories either. We don't.

 

The world is dark enough and to me witchcraft is "dark", I prefer to expose my children to the light when they are young. It also seems these books get darker as you move along in the series? Am I wrong? There are plenty of real life dark moments in books without all the fantasy and occult.

 

It is during the Rhetoric Stage that teens begin to develop their world view. Self-expression is at its peak. This is not the time to let one’s child go, but to continue helping him flower, guiding him gently. Challenge his thinking skills during this stage and make him defend his intellectual and religious positions. This would be a time when I would think Harry Potter for our family would be worth reading together.

 

I have read a review (not all neg, but mostly) of Harry Potter by an older Christian high school child that I felt was right on. I think as children get older it is good for them to read things that go against what they have been brought up with to help them make their own decisions on such topics.

[Ellie]

if they were still young and at home.

 

It isn't that they are full of witchcraft, which, really, they are not. *Real* witches don't do the kinds of things that Harry Potter and his world do.

 

It's that especially in the early books, there are no good role models; no one is honest or trustworthy; adults are almost always enemies (the ones who aren't are not protrayed as very smart, KWIM?).

 

The books have some very clever writing; I love the way the people in portraits move around from frame to frame :-) for example. But I preferred to have my children read books that illustrate the kinds of values that I thought were important, or at least were purely enjoyable.

[Hillary in KS]

Our dc may read the books when they are in 7th grade, if they choose. (They may not be interested. Oldest ds wasn't.)

 

I worked in a bookstore when the first books came out. I had a real problem with people who bought the books (especially those 4 and after) to read aloud to their preschoolers.

 

I've read the entire series, and dh and I decided that allowing the boys to read them in junior high was a more appropriate age.

[Tracey in TX]

We've encouraged our kiddos to read HP. However, my cousin is opposed b/c they feel Harry represents a defiant child. He ends up on the winning side of the issue, but is repeatedly oppositional to his authority figures. It's an interesting argument.

[angela in ohio]

My dc haven't read them because there are better books to read. There are books better in terms of quality of writing, subject matter, character building, etc.

 

Exactly.

[lovemyboys]

I wonder if you would mind expanding on this thought. I do know the HP books are heavily promoted for financial reasons, but I've not seen them touted at the 'great salvation'. Are there specific schools/bookstores/libraries which are doing this?

 

 

I'm not Laura (but I play her on tv, ha, ha!).

Anyway, I went to a seminar series of children's literature in a major city about 10 years ago when the HP phenomenon was just starting, Phil/Sor. Stone was out and the 2nd one was just published or was coming shortly. This seminar series was well attended by school teachers, librarians, etc., and they were thrilled the month that HP was part of the topic. I had never heard the name Harry Potter til that night. They were discussing the huge interest in reading that HP created, and very seriously calling it a great salvation.

 

My dc were way too young at that time but I read the books with interest. I was then and still am impressed with the author's ability to create her own world.

 

I have no idea how that groundswell from within the schools and libraries manifested itself in the form of reading programs and point systems, but judging from those early days, nothing would surprise me. Those folks were very devoted to JKRowling and the impact she made from the earliest days.

[Crissy]

I'm not Laura (but I play her on tv, ha, ha!).

.

 

LOL!

They were discussing the huge interest in reading that HP created, and very seriously calling it a great salvation.

 

 

Did you get the feeling that these teachers and librarians would be promoting HP to the exclusion of good/great literature?

 

I suppose I'm on the side of making room for a bit of everything. My 13yo loves HP, and has read the series a number of times. But he's also read Fahrenheit 451, David Copperfield, Watership Down, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, To Kill a Mockingbird...

In other words, I see no reason a young person can't find time for a variety of books if they fit within his family's guidelines.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I read them. I thought they were ok but not something to write home about. I disliked the bratty kids, and the attitudes towards adults. I haven't banned them but I haven't promoted them either. There are plenty of really exceptional fantasy books out there. C.S. Lewis and Tolkien are just two - I also like the Redwall series, and I know there are more. I've just drawn a blank though!

[dangermom]

I haven't let my own kid read them yet because I think she's too young. The first couple of books are fine, but they get very dark as the series progresses. That worked well for the kids who 'grew up' with HP, but I don't want to let my 7yo read them all at once, which is what she would want to do.

 

As a librarian, I'm happy that HP encouraged kids to read and broke the big-book-phobia that so many kids had--it used to be far more common to have kids whining at you: "250 pages? That's so looooong, I need something short!" HP was a great excuse to give kids other (better!) books to read. It brought older fantasy classics back into print, which was nice. OTOH it also ushered in a flood of third-rate children's and YA fantasy and made it common for every. single. title. to get turned into a movie. That worked pretty well for Narnia, but badly for most others. And I didn't care for the hype and hysteria. (I did find it bizarre and entertaining to watch HP get vilified by certain groups while Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy flew completely under the radar--right up until the film release.)

 

I'm not a huge HP fan myself; they're OK. There's better out there, and there's worse.

[Donna T.]

We won't allow our children to read the Harry Potter books because we believe they are helping to prepare a generation of children to receive the prophesied mark of the Beast. Harry's scar is a symbol of his occult illumination. In the occult, it is widely stated that Luciferic illumination is accompanied by an electrical force that causes the body to vibrate. Jesus said, "...I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven." (Luke 10:18). The lightning bolt on Harry's forehead is a representation of his occultic baptism - the entering in of a satanic force. If you believe the Bible and read it literally, you know that at some time in history there will be a world-wide Luciferic baptism... that time when all in the world who deny Jesus will take the mark in (the Textus Receptus says on) their forehead or right-hand. If you don't believe the Bible or you don't read it literally, this is hog-wash to you. Do I think that reading Harry Potter will surely cause a child to deny Jesus Christ and receive a mark? No, I don't think it will. But, I think that the books are a part of a larger deception that will cause many to not see the plain truth that is right before their very eyes when that day comes. That's just our opinions about it.

[Harriet Vane]

if they were still young and at home.

 

It isn't that they are full of witchcraft, which, really, they are not. *Real* witches don't do the kinds of things that Harry Potter and his world do.

 

It's that especially in the early books, there are no good role models; no one is honest or trustworthy; adults are almost always enemies (the ones who aren't are not protrayed as very smart, KWIM?).

 

The books have some very clever writing; I love the way the people in portraits move around from frame to frame :-) for example. But I preferred to have my children read books that illustrate the kinds of values that I thought were important, or at least were purely enjoyable.

 

What about Dumbledore? McGonagall? Hagrid? There seemed to me to be a lot of adults very much on Harry's side who were honest and trustworthy.

 

Not trying to be argumentative or snarky in any way--I am genuinely curious.

[Harriet Vane]

What about Dumbledore? McGonagall? Hagrid? There seemed to me to be a lot of adults very much on Harry's side who were honest and trustworthy.

 

Not trying to be argumentative or snarky in any way--I am genuinely curious.

 

Also the Weasley parents???

 

Again--not trying to be argumentative, just curious about your perspective.

[Amy in Orlando]

My older boys are "just" the right ages for Harry Potter. My oldest read the frist book when he was 10, nearly 11. For us, it's been a LOT of fun. We've read the books together aloud, the boys have read them on their own (because I read aloud slowly) and we've enjoyed the audio versions to death. I feel lucky to have experienced the entire series with my sons. I cannot describe how much fun we have all had experiencing the series together.

 

When we started the series, we had no idea what it was about. I read the book and thought it was fun and no flags went up on my own radar. As my sons got older, I continued to pre-read and still found nothing to object to from a moral or religious standpoint. If one book (or a series of books) can undo my faith or my child's faith, then we didn't have much faith to begin with.

 

 

The kids and I agree that HP is probably NOT great literature, but it opened the doors for two of my sons as far as approaching large works. If that is what it takes to ease them into larger, more complex literature, I'm all for it. Plus for me, it was all just fun. I love the HP series and I'm sorry it's over. I'll continue to read the "classics" But, I love a fun read, even better a fun series, and Harry Potter will probably be tops on my list for a long time.

[Ellie]

What about Dumbledore? McGonagall? Hagrid? There seemed to me to be a lot of adults very much on Harry's side who were honest and trustworthy.

 

Not trying to be argumentative or snarky in any way--I am genuinely curious.

 

But Harry and his friends didn't really trust them (except for Hagrid, whow often came off as a bafoon....bufoon???), did he? Not for a long time. Their relationship was adversarial, at least on his part. Harry and his friends lied to them (as well as to each other).

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

But Harry and his friends didn't really trust them (except for Hagrid, whow often came off as a bafoon....bufoon???), did he? Not for a long time. Their relationship was adversarial, at least on his part. Harry and his friends lied to them (as well as to each other).

 

I imagine it's hard to completely trust adults when your only family despises your very existence for the past ten years. :)

 

Hagrid isn't very bright, it's true. And his childhood wasn't all that great either. But even with those flaws, he's got a kind, loyal heart and a generous spirit.

[Laura K (NC)]

Her kids used to go to public school, and she just started homeschooling last year. The students in her son's class would get points for reading books, and the more pages a book had, the more points it got. The biggest books are Harry books, so the kids read the books and reap the reward. I've heard of this system in our own county schools too. In order to read competitively, which is encouraged, the kids have to get as much points as possible. That encourages the Harry books. Her son was 10 at the time. Now, there's a whole other problem with reading "competitively" based on the size of the book, as if size marks a book's worth. IMO a bigger book in a younger child's hand trains the child to read quickly and less accurately, leading to more complex literacy issues, but I digress because I have a bee in my bonnet about the whole thing.

 

The Redwall books are big too, but they're complex. And they're marketed a completely different way. And they're just... better. :p

 

I came to the impression that Harry Potter was the great cure for literacy by going to bookstores and libraries, by reading literature guides written for public school teachers, and by reading the newspapers when Harry Potter first came out. I could probably dig up some pertinent articles, but it wouldn't do much good if you didn't agree with me, because anyone can find some fool somewhere to corroborate her claim, including me.

 

I admit that the stink has died down somewhat about the Harry Potter books in the past year or so, but it left a bad taste in my mouth. I first heard of Harry Potter only a few years after I first fell hook, line, and sinker for the WTM method. I don't think they're incompatible, but SWB did give me a sense of the importance of good literature and put an idea in my head of the primacy of the classics over more "recreational" reading. When I didn't find the Harry books even "recreational" I really resented what I was hearing in the news and in the bookstores and libraries (and even in this thread), that these books, like no others, had turned reluctant readers or even non-readers into bibliophiles.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

When I didn't find the Harry books even "recreational" I really resented what I was hearing in the news and in the bookstores and libraries (and even in this thread), that these books, like no others, had turned reluctant readers or even non-readers into bibliophiles.

 

 

Can you think of a similar phenomenon? I'm trying to, but I don't remember one.

 

I'm wondering why you resent hearing it? I mean, unless it's not true. Is it the content, mostly, that you resent that the kids (and adults) were reading?

[Laura K (NC)]

You mean, like Star Wars? or Spider Man? If Pirates of the Caribbean was written into a big heavy novel kids would similarly read it and overlook most mediocrities in the prose. It is the marketing that makes the book, not the quality of the book itself.

 

Popularity based the book's own virtue is won slowly and over the course of years. Ivanhoe. The Pilgrim's Progress. Pride and Prejudice (even before the movie version came out). These weren't artificially brought to the public's attention by the media. They won admirers in their own right.

 

I don't resent the content, if you're implying that I object to the magic. I've made that clear in another post in this thead. I resent the media's ability to affect the public consciousness to such an extent as to make a mediocre book into one of the Great Books, or on par with those of J.R.R. Tolkein and C.S. Lewis. It seems unjust. All those reluctant readers... it seems they should have been offered a great book with the same enthusiasm.

[Peek a Boo]

We won't allow our children to read the Harry Potter books because we believe they are helping to prepare a generation of children to receive the prophesied mark of the Beast. Harry's scar is a symbol of his occult illumination.... The lightning bolt on Harry's forehead is a representation of his occultic baptism - the entering in of a satanic force.

 

Hm. It seems to me that there is a big difference in receiving the mark of the Beast willingly or out of ignorance vs having it involuntarily slammed into you to kill you. This "Beast" in HP did not want Harry as a follower, but Dead. It was only Love that saved Harry from this "occultic illumination" and it is Harry's survival [by Love / God-- not of Harry's own power] that ultimately defeats Voldemort [the "satanic forces" in HP].

 

i do think the symbolism about the Deatheater's willing symbol on THEIR hands makes great fodder for discussion. But i haven't read the last couple books yet so i can't attest to exactly how she wraps that up :-)

 

My biggest problem w/ the books is their darkness. My favorite parts are the comic relief and that they are NOT typical fantasy. I am sooo not a fantasy kinda gal, lol. ...and Pam: don't forget that the story of redemption has been around a looong time and doesn't necessarily depend on Christ to fulfill the plot line. but you knew that, I think. Or i think i remember you mentioning that. I could be wrong :eek: I do agree that THIS author has Christian biases tho.

 

 

momo4 --I regret to say that I have come across MORE families that have "witchcraft issues" unless it's witchcraft in CS Lewis or Narnia. Then it is "ok". I can respect a consistent position, but if you [general you,lol] aren't going to make your decision on the witchcraft issue, i wish they'd just say so!

 

 

stuff that has come up repeatedly in discussions:

Scriptural witchcraft represents a choice against God. Miracles/magic seem to be fine as long as it is absolutely From God. The problem and warning repeated in scripture is with the choice to turn away from God. In the HP books, there is no choice: you are either born a witch or a wizard or you aren't. You can not call upon any power except whatever skills you were born with, and even those are limited. That's like saying a strong man is calling upon "occultic forces" when he uses the strength he has trained his body to have. The books simply don't recognize any higher authority at all. I'd say the absence of God is the most noticeable and distressing part for me --except that this absence confirms there is no choice against God. But again, i haven't read the last two yet --I hear there's scripture somewhere.... on a gravestone? Is it referenced in the book as scripture?

 

My guys have loved the HP books. I have liked them so far, tho Goblet of Fire was rather tedious. I think these are the first fiction books my dh ever bothered reading on his own. he hates to read. So i have to side w/ pam on wondering when we've had a phenomenon where kids that didn't normally like to read were picking up a book enmasse. but I'm only 33, so I don't have too much experience witnessing that ;) i wouldn't think a movie is teh same thing though. There are plenty of books about Star Wars and they just don't get the same reading. i do agree that media attention is very often in play, but I disagree that some of those 'great' books weren't also sensationalized. They had a pretty strong media back then. Little Women was specifically written to be marketed. Frankenstein was the result of a contest. I might look it up a bit more just to see tho.

 

I certainly don't think they are BADLY written. Good vocabulary for the age it's geared to, clear sentences, predictable plot. Fun reading. Better than Moby Dick!!!

 

For Christians who are planning on utilizing HP as a discussion tool, I would recommend the book "What's a Christian to Do With Harry Potter?" She makes a case that beautifully defends Daisy's POV, offers explanation for those of us who do read them, addresses Ellie's concerns, and even touches on a few other things i hadn't noticed:

 

why do we not get in an uproar over A Christmas Carol??

 

salvation by works, visiting and discoursing w/ dead spirits, astral projection, etc. I knew there was a reason I never liked that book, lol. Dickens just ain't my cuppa.

 

Happy Reading to all...whatever it is you're reading!

[dangermom]

I resent the media's ability to affect the public consciousness to such an extent as to make a mediocre book into one of the Great Books, or on par with those of J.R.R. Tolkein and C.S. Lewis. It seems unjust. All those reluctant readers... it seems they should have been offered a great book with the same enthusiasm.

Well, sure. But the fact is that they weren't and they never will be. That kind of hype will never surround a true work of great literature. The mania around Tolkien's Middle-Earth is the closest you will ever get. The media is about making money, not encouraging deep thought or true enjoyment of a good book. Those things are not lucrative enough for the media to get excited about.

 

Librarians liked HP because it did at least get kids excited about reading a book instead of playing a video game (though there were plenty of kids who waited for the movie). That effect could be used to introduce kids to other good books--thus the booklists titled "If you liked Harry Potter, you might like...." Kids were actually voluntarily picking up a book and reading it for fun, not because they had to read a 300-page biography and do a report on it (awwwww). (Librarians are all about the enjoyment part of reading.) Now IMO it's ridiculous to make HP a part of any school curriculum, but teachers are always trying to find hooks to make school more "fun" and yet compulsory and measureable and all sorts of un-fun things.

 

Librarians are constantly trying to improve the world with no money and no street cred. If something like HP comes along and looks like it will help, we'll take it. It's a gateway book; we offer the harder stuff once they're hooked. ...So, have you tried Diana Wynne Jones?;)

[Colleen]

I think with this new board format, it's easier to "stick to the topic" at hand (although I still may go off on a bunny trails, myself!:)). Here, the simple question was asked, "Why would you NOT allow your children to read Harry Potter". No sooner does someone answer that question, than counterpoints are raised by others. On the one hand, that can make for interesting dialogue. On the other, I feel people should be given room to answer a clear-cut question without immediately being called to defend that position.

 

Just an observation. Oh, and speaking of the clear-cut question;), I've preferred that my boys not read HP and until just recently, it was a non-issue as they had zero interest in the books (or the rest of the HP phenom). My oldest (12.5) said a couple of months ago that he wanted to check out the first one. I felt he's old enough and said fine. He read it quickly, enjoyed it well enough, and moved on to the second. Read that one with a bit less enthusiasm. Started the third, observed it was much darker and slower than the first two, and suggested the author should have stopped while she was ahead.;)

[lynn]

I use to have an issue with it because I was I should. However, my opinions on the series have changed over the years and I no longer have issued with it. My children enjoyed the series and the movies and did not turn to the dark side not did they have any interest in trying witchcraft or anything having to do with cults it was just another series of stories they looked forward to reading.

[Plaid Dad]

Do you mean not read them at a given age, or not at all?

 

Our dd has read the first three, but we want her to wait until she is older before reading the rest. The atmosphere and subject matter of the books gets increasingly dark and intense, and we do not think she is ready for that. When she is older, we will have no problem with her reading them.

 

I'm sure other posters will explain why some families do not allow their children to read the books at all.

[Laura R (FL)]

ooohhh, my first post!

 

I guess I'm on both sides. When HP first came out, I forbade my children to read the books or see the movie. I had all the common reasons: witchcraft, rebellion, etc. Mostly I didn't want the family involved in something so controversial. When my oldest was 10 and in youth orchestra, her group was playing the HP theme in a concert. The music was lovely and all the kids were excited...except for my dd who was clueless. It was then that I decided to watch the first movie. We loved it!! We ended up watching the second and third movies and then going through all the books via audio.

 

We are huge HP fans, went to see HP5 on opening night and went to our one and only midnight book party for the release of HP 7. Last year I decided to go back and reread all the books. My dh bought me 6 for Christmas (the only one we didn't own), and I'm re-reading 7 now.

 

Is it classic lit? I don't know. Is it fun? Yes! As a Christian, I don't feel threatened by it.

[readwithem]

 

So, we hold off on them because I don't think they are appropriate for our children when they are young. By the time our children have reached the age that I think it would be okay, they have no interest in the books.

 

 

This has been our experience as well. So many books, so little time. The Harry books while not banned have never risen to the top of the "to be read" stack. They're not as compelling here as Jane Austen.