Rowling talks about Christian elements in Harry Potter books

From MTV News:

Harry Potter is followed by house-elves and goblins — not disciples — but for the sharp-eyed reader, the biblical parallels are striking. Author J.K. Rowling's "Harry Potter" books have always, in fact, dealt explicitly with religious themes and questions, but until "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," they had never quoted any specific religion. ...

That was the plan from the start, Rowling told reporters during a press conference at the beginning of her Open Book Tour on Monday. It wasn't because she was afraid of inserting religion into a children's story. Rather, she was afraid that introducing religion (specifically Christianity) would give too much away to fans who might then see the parallels.

"To me [the religious parallels have] always been obvious," she said. "But I never wanted to talk too openly about it because I thought it might show people who just wanted the story where we were going."

And:

"The truth is that, like Graham Greene, my faith is sometimes that my faith will return. It's something I struggle with a lot," she revealed. "On any given moment if you asked me [if] I believe in life after death, I think if you polled me regularly through the week, I think I would come down on the side of yes — that I do believe in life after death. [But] it's something that I wrestle with a lot. It preoccupies me a lot, and I think that's very obvious within the books."

That, by the author's own acknowledgement, "Harry Potter" deals extensively with Christian themes may be somewhat ironic, considering that many Christian leaders have denounced the series for glamorizing witchcraft. When he was known simply as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Pope himself condemned the books, writing that their "subtle seductions, which act unnoticed ... deeply distort Christianity in the soul before it can grow properly."

For her part, Rowling said she's proud to be on numerous banned-book lists. As for the protests of some believers? Well, she doesn't take them as gospel.

"I go to church myself," she declared. "I don't take any responsibility for the lunatic fringes of my own religion."

Really, the silly "Pope Benedict condemned Harry Potter" story is so tiring. And incorrect. But it must have been quite tempting for MTV to bring it up and then follow it with Rowling's quote about "the lunatic fringes." Anyhow, Daniel Pulliam of GetReligion.org does ask an interesting question:

Will other media outlets pick this story up? Rowling, is after all, on a publicity tour. The general idea of those is to pick up media attention, and the big media outlets are not always jumping to publish the latest celebrity gossip. Oh wait — never mind.

In all seriousness, the media coverage this story gets in the next couple of days will be telling. How many times has a Harry Potter book made the front page of USA Today or the cover of one of the big three news magazines? Local newspapers eat the story up when the books come out, often assigning a features writer to get an embargoed copy of the book, read it in one night, and write a review for the day the book goes on sale. Will Rowling’s resolving the religion issue make it beyond the celebrity-entertainment sections of the papers?

My guess: I doubt it. We'll see.

Comments

[Huw Richardson]

Carl -

The article you linked to over at the Ratzinger Fan Club says essentially the same thing as MTV. In fact, it's close enough to verbatim. I'm not sure what is "incorrect" about it. I would replace the verb "Condemned" with, perhaps, "said in private correspondence"... but your average non-Roman Catholic (and likely many RCs) would not be able to tell any differences.

Huw

[Cristina A. Montes]

What the internet media is picking up is JKR's revelation that one of her characters is gay.

[joe]

Sure the books borrow some Christian themes, as do so many tales when it comes to redemption. But whether Rowling or the books are 'Christian' in any unique sense, or closer to an anachronistic fusion of Judy Blume and Edward Eager, is an open question. Despite titles like 'Finding God in Harry Potter' and the heavy-breathing of many Evangelicals in a rush to co-opt one more cultural artifact for their cause. Witness this item from Newsweek:

"J. K. Rowling, author of the worldwide best-selling Harry Potter series, met some of her American fans Friday night and provided some surprising revelations about the fictional characters who a generation of children have come to regard as close friends.

In front of a full house of hardcore Potter fans at Carnegie Hall in New York, Rowling, sitting on the stage on a red velvet and carved wood throne, read from her seventh and final book, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," then took questions. One fan asked whether Albus Dumbledore, the head of the famed Hogwarts School of Wizardry and Witchcraft, had ever loved anyone. Rowling smiled. "Dumbledore is gay, actually," replied Rowling as the audience erupted in surprise. She added that, in her mind, Dumbledore had an unrequited love affair with Gellert Grindelwald, Voldemort's predecessor who appears in the seventh book. After several minutes of prolonged shouting and clapping from astonished fans, Rowling added. "I would have told you earlier if I knew it would make you so happy."

[Mark Brumley]

I think a careful reading of Harry Potter shows the center of its storyline is profoundly Christian because the Christian ideas of charity and sacrificial love are the "core values". Or at least the books are "postChristian", not in the usual sense, but in the sense that Christianity has left a deep mark on the worldview espoused in the Potter books. They are not pagan books in the sense of espousing a pagan philosophy or values. They are not, contra Michael O'Brien, secular humanism because they affirm the reality of Good and Evil, and of transcendent orders of existence. Nor are they antiChristian, as the Pullman books are. They draw on Christian ideas as well as Christian symbols and even, in the final book, Christian Scripture and eschatology. While the magical elements are problematic for some readers, others easily see beyond the magical shtick to get at the underlying themes.

Nevertheless, they are not Christian books in the sense that the author of the book is an orthodox Christian who intends to encourage readers to consider orthodox Christianity through the telling of a story where issues related to the truth of orthodox Christianity are deliberately raised in the drama or the nature of the characters. Not that all good books must be Christian books or authors worthy of reading orthodox Christian authors. It is a matter of not confusing the categories of writing.

J.K. Rowling professes to be a Christian and I take her at her word. It seems evident to me that she is not an especially orthodox Christian. Nor does she seem to embue her stories with the kind of Christian cosmological ambience of, say, Madeleine L'Engle. Again, that's ok. Christian writers, orthodox or otherwise, are not obliged thusly to endow their subcreations, in order for those works to merit reading, discussion, and valuing.

Now to the business of the Gay Dumbledore. On a later blog item Carl has posted, I raise specific questions re: Rowling's statements. I say here only that it is unfortunate that the author has spoken this way of one of her characters and has thus fostered a reading of the character that amounts to an endorsement of a very harmful moral stance: the view that persons with same-sex attraction not only should be respected as persons (of course they should) but should be regarded as praiseworthy if they act on their disordered inclination (of course they should not). In my view, the issues that exist regarding Rowling's use of magic pale in comparison to her comments' certain influence on the reading by young people of one of her central characters and his fate.

Rowling has said that part of Dumbledore's error flows from the blindness love can sometimes bring to the lover regarding the beloved. Same-sex erotic love by its very nature entails a kind of blindness--no, better--a double blindness, preventing one from seeing what is there by presenting before the heart's eye something that isn't there, something that is at best a phantom of genuine eros. Rowling is reported to have told her audience that her books are about tolerance, but surely it is not a good thing to tolerate ignorance and falsehood, vice over virtue.

[Mark Brumley]

P.S. What is incorrect about the media accounts of then-Cardinal Ratzinger and Harry Potter is the attribution to Ratzinger of a judgment re: Potter when a careful review of his comments indicate that he is accepting at face value the negative judgment of his correspondent and offering a polite reply to her letter on the subject. He assumes certain things based on her characterization; he is not rendering an independent assessment and ought not to be presented as if he were.

Whatever Pope Benedict may think of the literary use of fantasy magic in storytelling, it is certain that he would reject the claim that genuine acceptance of the dignity of other persons obliges us to treat as either morally indifferent or morally good some persons' choices to engage in homosexual activities.

[joe]

All good comments. 'Post-Christian' is a terrific description.