Critics of Harry Potter Not So Foolish

In "Wild About Harry—Who's Really Breeding Atheists and Witches?" [January 11], Nicole Chardenet writes that she "find(s) it hard to believe that any kid is going to turn … Pagan because they read Harry Potter." This is because "the two biggest breeding grounds" for Paganism are (Protestant) fundamentalism and Catholicism, she claims. Besides, Chardenet asserts, magic and witchcraft are a central theme of the Harry Potter series only in the "same sense" that they are a theme in classic children's literature. Indeed, Chardenet informs us, "there are virtually no support groups" for former Wiccans, atheists or liberal Christians, but there are "a ton" for ex-Catholics and ex-fundamentalists.

Chardenet may find it hard to believe that reading Harry Potter can lead children into the occult, but there is some evidence to support that argument. According to Michael D. O'Brien, the author of A Landscape with Dragons: The Battle for Your Child's Mind, "Selective searches [on the Internet] turned up more than 100 high profile web sites devoted to the [Harry Potter] series, many of which offer links to advanced occult web sites under titles such as 'Learn More about the Secrets of the Occult' and 'How to Become a Witch.' In an interview with Newsweek, a spokesman for the Pagan Federation in England reported that he receives an average of 100 inquiries a month from young people who want to become witches—an unprecedented phenomenon which he attributes in part to the Potter books. An article in the December 17, 2000, issue of Time magazine reports that a similar organization in Germany deals with an increasing number of inquiries, which it also credits to the Potter factor. Rowling herself [the author of Harry Potter] has expressed surprise at the volume of mail she receives from young readers writing to her as if Hogwarts were real, wanting to know how they might enter the school in order to become witches and wizards."

Chardenet's claim that witchcraft is a theme in Harry Potter in the "same sense" that it is a theme in classic children's literature is also questionable. Historically, witches in children's literature were always portrayed as evil. It was not until the late 19th century, with the occult revival in Great Britain, that this began to change. The best children's literature, in fact, still adheres to the older tradition. The Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis and The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien are two examples of this. In Narnia Lewis unambiguously portrays magic and those who use it as a destructive force, particularly the White Witch. Tolkien's epic does have as a central character a "wizard" named Gandalf, but he is not a witch in the classic sense. Tolkien's letters make it clear that Gandalf is more like a guardian angel, assisting others in the exercise of their free will. It is the villains of the epic who use magic for personal gain. As O'Brien writes, "Supernatural powers, Tolkien demonstrates repeatedly, are very much a domain infested by the 'deceits of the Enemy,' used for domination of other creatures' free will. As such they are metaphors of sin and spiritual bondage."

Rowling's Potter is in certain respects the opposite of Tolkien's Frodo. Frodo must resist using the magic ring to achieve some good because the ultimate result will be destructive. Instead, he finds victory through Christian virtues like humility, obedience and courage. Potter, by contrast, is rewarded for disobedience and defeats Voldemort by using the same powers that Voldemort uses.

I am not arguing that the Potter series is without merit, only that Chardenet's assertion that magic is a theme in the Potter series in the "same sense" as classic children's literature is debatable. It would follow, therefore, that Harry Potter critics are not as foolish as Chardenet would have us believe. In fact, and contrary to the impression given by Chardenet's article, there is no unanimity of opinion among orthodox Christians regarding Harry Potter. The religious journal First Things published a positive review of the series. The review was written by a professor from Wheaton College, one of the best evangelical Protestant schools in the country. Crisis magazine, the conservative Catholic journal, takes on the Harry Potter critics in its latest issue (January 2002). Just in case we might miss the point, the article's charming title is "Harry Potter and the Joyless Prigs." It is also worth noting that Harold Bloom, the secular literary critic and Yale professor, has had some rather unflattering things to say about the quality of writing in the Potter series. So the battle lines over Harry Potter are not quite what Chardenet would have us believe.

Finally, there is Chardenet's assertion that "the biggest breeding ground" for atheism and Paganism is orthodox Christianity. Similar claims are aired with some regularity in The Voice. "I became an atheist at age 9 despite a severely Catholic mother," one of Chardenet's correspondents tells her. Is it possible that the problem was not that the correspondent's mother was Catholic, but that she was severe? And if she was overly severe, is it possible that had she been Protestant, atheist, whatever, she would have been severe about that, and cause her child to embrace an opposing philosophy? The simple truth is that every worldview has among its adherents its fair share of bad apples. If you have been traumatized by someone adhering to a particular worldview, it does not necessarily mean that the worldview is at fault. It may just be that the person who traumatized you is a nasty sort, and would be nasty regardless of whatever philosophy he paid lip service to.

But, Chardenet claims, "there are virtually no support groups" for former Wiccans, atheists or liberal Christians, while there are "a ton" for ex-Catholics and ex-fundamentalists. I find this claim fascinating because I take it to mean the exact opposite of what Chardenet thinks it means. If Catholicism is your problem and you've left Catholicism, then shouldn't you be cured? "I used to be Catholic, but I'm better now," another correspondent tells Chardenet. Then what do you need a support group for? If you are still troubled, is it possible that Catholicism was not the problem after all? By contrast, if ex-Pagans and ex-atheists who converted to Catholicism (and there are many—I have met them) do not have support groups, could it be because they are no longer troubled, but have at last found what they were looking for? As St. Augustine wrote, "You have made us for Yourself, O Lord, and our hearts will not rest until they rest in You."