Catholic school bans Harry Potter books
October 25th, 2007A Catholic school in Massachusetts has banned the Harry Potter book series from its library, after the pastor of the church that runs the school removed them, “declaring that the themes of witchcraft and sorcery were inappropriate for a Catholic school.”
I haven’t read any of the Harry Potter books, but I plan to do so. From what I’ve heard, I think I’ll probably enjoy them.
They are great books, Tim, and I enjoyed them. But with the announcement that JK Rowling made in NYC last week, my fondness for the series has definitely decreased. There are so many good fantasy/sci-fi authors out there that I’m not going to waste any more of my time and money, making Rowling any more wealthy than she already is.
In my opinion, you can’t mess with the original: JRR Tolkien.
(Here’s that story I was referring to: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21386203/)
I too have heard they are good books and kind of thought the people who were so up in arms about them were overreacting. However, given last week’s announcement that one of the most popular characters “happens” to be “gay” (which is kind of silly since a literary character doesn’t “happen” to be anything, he or she is the deliberate creation of the author) I have to wonder if this was not the goal all along, to get a whole generation of kids sucked in to the story and then begin to indoctrinate them in this way. My kids have never really expressed interest in them and I don’t plan to encourage it at this point.
She stated that part of the goal of the books was to promote tolerance.
j razz
Read the novels again. Pay careful attention to Dumbledore’s behavior at certain parts of the year, especially during “feast days.” Notice his cameraderie with certain female characters. Does that seem like the behavior of a “gay” character? Not only that, his behavior throughout the entire series gives no indication of homosexuality. Rowling contradicts herself. I wonder if she is purposely trying to ruin her work by doing this.
And yeah, right, the novels are real tolerant. Paragons of acceptance, they are.
You can promote tolerance without advocating a homosexual lifestyle in children’s literature, in my opinion.
I wonder if children will group homosexuality with witchcraft and the like and see it as part of the fable or if they will recognize there is a difference of sorts if left to themselves to discern?
Just thinking out loud here.
j razz
I think branding the Harry Potter series actually helped Rowling’s sales figures. If you want to call attention to a movie or a book, the best way to do that is, ban it. I’m sure a lot of people bought her books just to see what all the controversy was about. Now that her series is over with, what better way to rekindle interest but to say one of the characters was gay.
I never read the series and I really don’t care to. Witchcraft, who cares? It’s fiction within fiction. Come on Catholics, don’t you have more important things to be outraged about, like poverty? Salem, MA was a long time ago, Puritans. A gay fictional character? Didn’t Falwell get bent out of shape because of Tinky Winky the Teletuby? Oh, my! Call out the National Guard!
JK Rowling knows how to sell books, I’ll give her that.
I’m too old to enjoy Potter anyway now. I agree with Luke. Tolkien is the king of the fantasy genre. Frank Herbert for Sci-fi.
branding = banning
Regarding the gay character, Stephen addressed this somewhat, but I’d like to ask others who have read the series: If Rowling hadn’t come out and said this character was gay, would you have known it simply by reading the books?
Tim, if Rowling would not have outed Dumbledore, you would not have known he was gay.
If you enjoy Sci-fi/fantasy it is a good read. Is there better stuff out there? Yes
If you are one of those who are on the fence about the book but have not read it, give it a shot, it is not as bad as the critics say it is.
Tim,
I agree with steve b. I read all of them and I never suspected that this was her intention. This is straight out of left-field.
Dumbledore’s sexual orientation is never brought up in 7 books and 1,000s of pages. Seemingly because it has no impact on the character and his purpose in the tale. He serves his purpose as a father-figure to Harry and is (arguably) the best loved of all the characters.
I think that the comment at the end of the article is the most telling: “Not everyone likes her work, Rowling said, likely referring to Christian groups that have alleged the books promote witchcraft. Her news about Dumbledore, she said, will give them one more reason.” Granted she wasn’t directly quoted as saying that, but it doesn’t seem like she would mind it being attributed to her.
I think that she is simply doing this to cause a ruckus and sell more books (as Cineaste said). It’s just sad she had to add this unneccesary addendum to what was an enjoyable series.
I have read all the books, and it never once occurred to me that he might be gay. Of course, now that Rowling’s made the announcement, people are going back and examining certain passages and finding things to support Dumbledore being gay, but to me they’re reaching for straws. Why is his sexuality even relevant? It has no bearing on the books themselves, in my opinion.
Why is his sexuality even relevant?
Because it’ll give those that want the books banned/burned/branded (for promoting witchcraft) just cause for putting Rowling on double-secret-probabation!
No, you would never have known Dumbledore was gay without this announcement. Erin is right, all this is reaching for straws. It’s like how they suddenly announced Abraham Lincoln was gay and all of a sudden there was all this “evidence” that proved it upon re-examining the biographical research. It’s hogwash, not Hogwarts.
I still say Rowling is just contradicting herself. Is she trying purposely to ruin her work? I hope not.
I haven’t read any of the Harry Potter books, nor have I seen any of the movies. I do have a paperback copy of the first book, and someday, when I start reading books again (:)), I think I might like to crack it open and see if I like it, and then maybe take in the rest of the series from there. Or not.
I think J.K. Rowling’s announcement about Dumbledore was … well, dumb. I always thought half the fun of reading a book was discovering the characters from what was revealed ON the pages OF the book — not in some press conference by the author.
If Rowling was so concerned about homosexuality and tolerance and what-not regarding this allegedly gay character, she could have easily made his sexuality a known part of his character — known to his fellow characters, if she chose to do so, or known only to his readers. That, to me, is part of the beauty of being the author: You’re the one telling the story, so you can tell it any way you wish … again, on the pages of the book.
I always thought half the fun of reading a book was discovering the characters from what was revealed ON the pages OF the book — not in some press conference by the author.
Cineaste: [Cheers in total agreement]
Misawa, I definitely agree that this announcement adds fuel to the fire, and what I was trying to imply with my question is the complete unimportance of Dumbledore’s sexuality to the books themselves. Like others have said, if it was so important, then why didn’t she include it in the books? Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad she didn’t, but I don’t see the point of announcing it now.
I think making the announcement after all the books have been published and the millions made is cowardly on her part; I’m sure she knew she’d receive flack for having a gay character, so she didn’t emphasize it in the books and instead waited to drop the bombshell.
I’ve never read any of the books, but just because I really have never had a desire to. But, its sounds like its obviously just something she threw out there to increase her sales now that the last book is done. Otherwise, why even say it even if she had intended it all along? I would assume most good authors would leave it up to the reader to make decisions about things like that. Although I can say, I’ve never read a book trying to label all the characters either gay or straight, so I’m not sure who would even think to ask her that question.
“I would assume most good authors would leave it up to the reader to make decisions about things like that. Although I can say, I’ve never read a book trying to label all the characters either gay or straight, so I’m not sure who would even think to ask her that question.” — TheTonyDanzaAllstar
It was my understanding that someone asked her if Dumbledore ever found true love or something like that … so it truly wasn’t even a question dealing with his sexuality.
And I totally agree with the “most good authors” leaving it up to the reader. I mean, it’s not as if J.K. Rowling is actually a character in her book! How would SHE know?!?!
Cineaste hit the nail on the head in his first post.
Witchcraft, who cares? It’s fiction within fiction. Come on Catholics, don’t you have more important things to be outraged about, like poverty?…Didn’t Falwell get bent out of shape because of Tinky Winky the Teletuby? Oh, my! Call out the National Guard!
I have a friend who is a jugde. I went up and shadowed (observed him in court) him for a day a couple of weeks ago. The afternoon was the Child Protection cases: mothers who have lost their children due to abuse, alcohol, mental disorders etc. and are trying to get them back. You would not believe the brokeness and pain that is in our very own back yards. It seems like such a needed place for the church to be: taking care of these children and walking beside the parents.
That experience seemed to put these petty arguements into perspective for me. Yet, Christians still seem to waste time argueing about things like whether other Christians should read Harry Potter or whether or not to Trick or Treat etc. Why are so many Christians wasting energy on this (i.e the schoo, in question above)? In addition, we are losing any voice we may have had to the world because we seem like whistle blowers.
I agree Nick. Again, I seem to find myself critiquing (spelling?) too much, but I’ve got to say one thing that saddens me is to see our churches investing millions in huge buildings, etc. Yet our communities have so many homeless, abused, orphans, and all around needy people that we could practically minister to through the use of these funds we spend on, in my eyes at least, an earthly kingdom. I’ve been on a couple mission trips that have meant so much to those we ministered to when we fixed a leaky roof or painted the home of an elderly woman. Huge tangent there for where this began. I just like to pop in occasionally with those, although I do understand, as I’ve said before, that Christ loves the church and died for it, so we do have to be careful of our boundaries on these issues. I just genuinely wish we’d stop arguing about stupid things like whether some fictional guy is gay or not and pursuing some political agenda and do some real hands on ministry that makes a difference in people’s lives and leaves a lasting impression of the love of Christ. Maybe it would be easier for someone like Cineaste, for example (no offense meant at all, sir), to understand and believe in the power of Christ if we actually lived it out? “Religion that God accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” James 1:27, NIV version.
Maybe it would be easier for someone like Cineaste, for example (no offense meant at all, sir), to understand and believe in the power of Christ if we actually lived it out?
Tony, your brand of Christianity I respect so much. I’ve never even come close to taking offense at anything you have said. You’ve never preached to me. You never push your beliefs on others. You just try to live your life the way you think Christ would. You’re a doer and not a talker. You are rational, calm and polite in all your comments, something I’ve been trying to emulate. I can’t help but respect that.
I agree with what Tony and Nick have said above and I too get sooo tired of the critiquing and soap-boxing. There is so much important and critical work to be done in our communities that it makes little sense to talk these issues to death.
That being said, I do think that the world and it’s influences on children are becoming much more subversive. We are still called to be the light and salt to a dark world. This does include speaking out and debating these issues when they arise, in my opinion. Not for whistle-blowing or condemnation, but for the interpretation of current events and their impact in relation to the Word.
Attraction is better than promotion, indeed.
However, if I was about to fall off of a cliff I would hope someone would yell loud enough to get my attention and stop me.
Preaching in and of itself is not a bad thing. Just depends on the topic, and the person’s aims.
I agree Luke and “The” Zoner. We do have to watch for small ways things could infiltrate our lives or those of our families. I was probably on a soapbox myself earlier. There absolutely has to be a line somewhere that we publicly stand against what is wrong and right. But sometimes I think we (as Christians) have decided or thought that the way to evoke change is through the political process. But genuine, real change is brought about through a work from God. There is definitely a balance between private responsibility and public posturing, but at some point, in my eyes anyway, we’ve tipped the scale so far in the direction that, for example, if we don’t have a certain Justice in the Supreme Court, all hope is lost when the reality is that maybe there wouldn’t be a need for us to condemn abortion through our political system if we were doing the “dirty” work of living a holy life and practicing daily evangelism, and ministering to those young women (and men) that need it, and seeing lives changed in the process. And here’s the deal, its easier to stand up and say, abortion is wrong, but harder to stand beside a distraught young woman who has had an abortion and is dealing with the guilt and show her the love of Christ. And, I’m speaking to myself as well. Its much easier to type a blog/chat message about how all these things are wrong, but in our daily lives, we/I struggle with getting involved in the lives of someone who is hurting, because they might end up taking up too much of our time. Whoa soapboxing again… Anyway, I guess it works both ways, the political extremists of both sides end up getting the most air-time anyway. I enjoy the conversation on this chat though, keep up the good work fellas and gals. War Rockies winning 3 at home!