Wanna Buy Some Thiotimoline?

Wanna Buy Some Thiotimoline?

By Joseph W. Harnett, Goshen

I've read all four Harry Potter books and hope to read three more (which should get Harry his O.W.L.) before I shuffle off this world. I've also read Zimmer Bradley's Mists of Avalon (and her entire Darkover series). I've even babbled some responses to some of the more vehement religious submissions I've read in The Voice. Thus, I found myself in agreement with much of Nicole Chardenet's "Wild About Harry …" article [January 11]. But I found I had one large question. What religious fuss was she talking about?

Back when Goblet of Fire (Harry Potter #4) was released I read some articles and saw a couple of TV news snippets about an alleged Christian furor over Harry Potter. One TV bit even featured someone who might be called a nut case ranting, "Harry Potter books are dangerous to children." Now I've been handed a few Watchtowers in my time, but I don't subscribe to the "Daily Angel" or "Religious Weekly" (just a joke), so I figured I musta missed something.

So, I asked various friends and acquaintances of a religious nature, and two "men of the cloth" about it. They were uniformly mystified. None knew of controversy over Harry Potter books. In fact, many endorsed them. One Christian homeschooler observed there were "good Christian values" in the Harry Potter books. She noted as an example that the books make it very clear that talent matters—but also show that education, study and practice are necessary for mastery. She also approved of Ms. Rowling's handling of ethical considerations and her approach to delineations of good and evil. However, she specifically stated that her opinions would be very different if the "magic" in the Harry Potter books was based on idolatry or satanic ritual!

Similarly, as far as I knew, Christians were no more concerned about the Harry Potter movie than they were about Broomsticks and Bedknobs. (Or was that Bedknobs and Broomsticks?) To tell the truth, I almost wrote Nicole Chardenet a literary habeas corpus to please document the fuss Christians were supposed to be making. But I don't need to. Peter Wolfgang has done a fine job of demarcating the difference between concern and/or criticism versus a fuss [Critics of Harry Potter Not So Foolish, January 18]. I also think Mr. Wolfgang made it quite obvious he believes Ms. Chardenet deliberately misrepresented a rather scholarly (including literary critiques) discussion among Christians just to set up a "strawman" she could knock down prior to evangelizing for the anti-Christian community. He may be correct. Even if he isn't, I must congratulate him on his superb response to Ms. Chardenet's hypothesis that support groups are a measure of trauma. If this were a wrestling match (real wrestling—not the so-called professional wrestling) I'd award him two points for a reversal!

However, I must take exception to Mr. Wolfgang's interpretation of C.S. Lewis. Although the White Witch in the Narnia series is evil, magic in and of itself is not presented as evil. Example: the magic wardrobe that whisks the children to and from Narnia is mystical and mysterious, but it isn't evil. Further, it should be noted that the White Witch takes advantage of weaknesses or defects of character (gluttony for sweets, envy, pride, anger) in using her magic. It's clearly the motives and objectives of utilizing magic that determine evil. After all, in his Space trilogy (beginning with Out of the Silent Planet), C.S. Lewis brings Merlin back to life in the 20th century—as a Christian and a good man who aids the modern Pendragon in defeating demonic evil in That Hideous Strength (the final book in the series). No, Lewis does not "unambiguously portray magic and those who use it as a destructive force."

Further, while Mr. Wolfgang is correct in asserting that in classical literature witches are almost universally portrayed as evil, I must note that "magic" is not. For example, the goose that lays golden eggs is magical. But the goose isn't evil. Nor is its magic. The evil portrayed is greedy people. The magic which transforms the little mermaid's fins to feet isn't portrayed as evil—though she must pay a price of pain for every step she takes. In classical literature one finds good fairies, helpful sprites and, ever and always, the wise old farsighted sage, who acts primarily as mentor and advisor while sparingly giving minor magical aid but refraining from restraint of another's free will.

Yep, the archetypal Merlin of Arthurian legend is often recast, such as in the guise of Tolkien's Gandalf, and since he is "supernatural" this archetype could be interpreted as a metaphor of a guardian angel. But Mr. O'Brien (whatever he has done that supposedly makes him an authority) to the contrary, Tolkien does not present the supernatural as a metaphor of sin and spiritual bondage. No, in Tolkien, as in Lewis and almost all classical literature, the supernatural is presented as a metaphor of power! And the obvious parable, again and again, is that power corrupts and only those who use power sparingly, judiciously, and sagaciously for good purpose (without crushing free will in others) can remain uncorrupted. This simple allegory is applicable to all forms of power, including power derived from religious authority or position. But no power is presented as inherently evil. Misuse of power is the evil.

Incidentally, it's easy to understand why modern women find the dichotomy of "wicked witch" versus "wise wizard" woven throughout classical literature to be sexist. This is why modern women novelists are rewriting Arthurian legend. The Crystal Cave trilogy by Mary Stewart rehabilitates Nimue from evil enchantress to apprentice, companion, lover and designated successor to Merlin. Mists of Avalon rehabilitates Arthur's half-sisters from wicked witches to one basically benevolent pagan priestess and one merely politically ambitious, self-centered bitch. However, both stories correctly utilize the supernatural as a metaphor for all power, and they tell a good yarn in the process. (Note to Nicole: If you haven't read Bradley's Darkover series, check out Oath of the Renunciates. You'll love it!)

Finally, I offer a little story. When Isaac Asimov was writing his doctoral dissertation for a Ph.D. in chemistry, he found himself frustrated by the confining requirements of format and detail. He took out his frustration by writing an alternative thesis presenting research on a fictional compound with a fictional property in proper format and detail, including a thorough but entirely fictional bibliography. Having sneered at the entire process of writing a doctoral dissertation, Isaac was able to return to his real thesis in good cheer and received his Ph.D. He also submitted his fictional thesis to John Campbell, who published it in his science fiction magazine. Within days of its release, librarians across the country were being swamped with requests for the fictional references on physically impossible "endochronic properties," and chemical supply houses were besieged with orders for nonexistent "thiotimoline." So, I ain't surprised by a bit of credulity regarding Harry Potter. But the credulous aren't gonna get to Hogwarts, and no "Secrets of the Occult" web page is gonna tell 'em where they can buy a "zoom broom." Hmmm?