.K. Rowling came up with
the idea for her books in 1990 while traveling on a train. Without any warning,
she suddenly just saw Harry “very, very clearly” in her mind. His visible image
actually popped into her thoughts from out of nowhere as a “fully formed
individual.”2 During one interview, Rowling stated: “The character
of Harry just strolled into my head. . . . I really did feel he was someone who
walked up and introduced himself in my mind’s eye.”3
Rowling confesses that she
has no idea why he chose to “come to her” when he did. 4 According to
her account, Harry just stood there looking very much like he now does on the
cover of her books, complete with black hair and spectacles. She somehow
perceived that he was a wizard, and knew that he did not know he was a wizard.
Soon afterward, she began thinking about how this could possibly be, and before
long, was writing about a young boy who did not know he had magical powers. 5
Thus, Harry Potter was born.
Most fans of the Potter
series believe that nearly everything in the books are mere products of
Rowling’s fertile imagination. To these Potter supporters, all of the negative
and controversial talk about actual occultism being in Rowling’s novels is
ridiculous. For example, Dr. Christopher Beiting of the Ave Maria Institute (a
Roman Catholic institution of higher education in Michigan), feels that
Rowling’s creation of Hogwarts is harmless because it exists “in a fantasy
world.” He continues: “I have heard the interviews with Rowling; she says she
doesn’t take any interest in the occult and hasn’t studied it for her novels. I
feel these are just things she has made up in her own head and it is just a
device to tell a story.”6
Christianity Today has taken a similar position, forcefully
deriding any concerns about witchcraft: “[T]he literary witchcraft of the Harry
Potter series has almost no resemblance to the I-am-God mumbo jumbo of Wiccan
circles.”7 (Wicca is the name given to the official religion of
Witchcraft founded within the last century by Gerald Gardner [1884-1964].)
Sustaining this notion have
been the numerous remarks by Rowling about her complete disinterest in
witchcraft and her disbelief in magic. In a July 2000 Associated Press article,
for instance, she said: “I truly am bemused that anyone who has read the books
could think that I am a proponent of the occult in any serious way. I don’t
believe in witchcraft, in the sense that they’re talking about, at all.”8
In an online interview, she explained that when it comes to the kind of magic
that appears in her series, she “does not believe in magic in that way.”9
In another online venue, she remarked, “I don’t believe in magic in the way I
describe it in my books. I mean, I don’t believe in the wand waving sort of
magic.”10
Many people have completely
overlooked the obvious qualifiers in these statements. Rowling says she does
not believe in witchcraft “in the sense” her critics talk about it, and rejects
the “wand waving sort of magic” that appears in her books. The questions arise:
Is there another “sense” in which Rowling does
believe in witchcraft? What brand, of all the different forms of magic that
exist that are not the wand waving
sort of magic, might she embrace? Are there any bits and pieces of paganism
with which she may agree?
Interestingly, Rowling has
stated that she believes the number seven “is a magical number, a mystical
number.”11 Her ex-husband, Jorge Arantes, confirmed this in London’s
Daily Express, saying that Rowling
“had planned the full series of seven books because she believed the number
seven has magical associations.”12 And in the introduction to
Beacham Publications’ educational resource book, Exploring Harry Potter, Walter Beacham makes a similar remark: “Ms.
Rowling has spoken extensively about her plans for future Potter novels, and
stated that the magical number seven will see the conclusion of Harry’s
education at Hogwarts.”13
More significant is the fact
that not everything in the Potter series is imaginary. During a 1999 interview,
Rowling admitted that she had studied mythology and witchcraft in order to
write her books more accurately, stating, “I do a certain amount of research.
And folklore is quite important in books. So where I’m mentioning a creature,
or a spell that people used to believe genuinely worked—of course, it didn’t .
. . then, I will find out exactly what the words were, and I will find out
exactly what the characteristics of that creature or ghost were supposed to
be.”14 Rowling goes on to say that roughly one-third of the sorcery-
related material appearing in her books “are things that people genuinely used
to believe in Britain.”15
What Rowling fails to
mention is that a vast amount of the occult material she has borrowed from
historical sources still plays a
significant role in modern paganism and witchcraft. Consequently, her writings
merge quite nicely with contemporary occultism. This could easily present a
spiritual danger to children and teens, or even adults, who are either leaning
toward occultism or who may be vulnerable to its attractions. Also, it is
noteworthy that some of the information Rowling uses is not widely known by
persons other than those who are actually involved in occultism. She, in fact,
has an extremely well-developed and sophisticated knowledge of the occult
world, its legends, history and nuances.
In fact, Rowling’s thorough
understanding of occultism’s intricacies is so obvious in her books that during
one radio call-in interview show, a self-professed “magus” (a male practitioner
of magick) excitedly asked Rowling if she herself was a member of the “Craft”
(i.e., Wicca). When Rowling answered no, the caller seemed shocked and replied,
“[Well], you’ve done your homework quite well.” This particular caller went on
to express his love for the Harry Potter series not only because it contained
so much occultism, but because its positive portrayal of magick had served to
make his daughter more comfortable with his own practices as a witch-magickian. 16
Rowling seamlessly weaves
into her novels countless references to ancient and modern occultism, sometimes hiding them in people’s names or
disguising them in minor characters. Such inclusions certainly do not teach the
precise doctrines of witchcraft, nor do they explicitly instruct children to
purchase a step-by-step guide to Wicca. But the allusions could easily stir a
child’s curiosity about occultism—perhaps enough for that child to one day
dabble in it.
R. Abanes |
The very title of Book I, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone,
hearkens back to a set of occultic beliefs about the “Philosopher’s Stone.”
(Rowling’s first volume was originally released in England as Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone.)
In the Encyclopedia of Occultism and
Parapsychology, the Philosopher’s Stone is described as a legendary
substance that supposedly enabled medieval alchemists to turn base metals into
gold or silver. But unlike the literal stone sought for in Rowling’s novel, the
stone coveted by real alchemists was an essential powder of some kind, often
designated “Powder of Projection.”17 The author of a Treatise on Philosophical and Hermetic
Chemistry, published in 1725, wrote:
It is necessary
then to proceed first to purge the mercury with salt and with ordinary salad
vinegar, to sublime it with vitriol and saltpetre, to dissolve it in
aquafortis, to sublime it again, to calcine it and fix it. . . . This is the
first operation in the grand work. For the second operation, take in the name
of God one part of gold and two parts of the spiritual water, charged with the
sal-ammoniac, mix this noble confection in a vase of crystal of the shape of an
egg: warm over a soft but continuous fire, and the fiery water will dissolve
little by little the gold; this forms a liquor which is called by the sages
“chaos” containing the elementary qualities—cold, dryness, heat and humidity.
Allow this composition to putrefy until it becomes black; this blackness is
known as the “crow’s head” and the “darkness of the sages,” and makes known to
the artist that he is on the right track. . . . It must be boiled once more in a vase as white as snow; this
stage of the work is called the “swan,” and from it arises the white liquor,
which is divided into two parts—one white for the manufacture of silver, the
other red for the manufacture of gold. Now you have accomplished the work, and
you possess the Philosopher’s Stone. 18
But alchemists were far more
than metal-workers. They were spiritual-minded individuals who pursued their
science as a means of purifying the soul and achieving an unclouded
understanding of their own divine nature. Transmuting base metals into gold was
merely a process used to transform themselves and obtain what they called the
“fifth element,” which was thought to be God’s “creative power” by which all
things received life. 19
Consequently, alchemists
also believed that creating the Philosopher’s Stone produced a sort of natural
by-product of the chemical procedure: the Elixir of Life. As Rowling writes in
her book, “The stone will transform any metal into pure gold. It also produces
the Elixir of Life, which will make the drinker immortal.”20 This is
not the only parallel between Rowling’s stone and the stone sought by medieval
alchemists. In Book I, Harry and his friends learn that the Philosopher’s Stone
they are seeking (the only one ever made) was created by Dumbledore’s partner
in alchemy, Nicholas Flamel. 21
Nicholas Flamel really existed.
He was a French alchemist who allegedly succeeded in making the Philosopher’s
Stone in the late 1300s. According to historical documents and occult
tradition, Flamel learned how to make the Philosopher’s Stone through the
esoteric Book of Abraham the Jew.
This text, supposedly written by the Jewish Patriarch, contained various
directions in hieroglyphic form. Alchemists throughout the centuries have
believed that after deciphering these drawings, Flamel did indeed create the
Philosopher’s Stone, and by doing so, never died. 22
Rowling also mentions
Flamel’s wife, Perenelle. Again, this is not fictitious. Nicholas’ wife, in
agreement with the Potter “fantasy” novel, was named Perenelle (also spelled
Petronelle). Rowling even correctly identifies the approximate era of their
lives. Book I takes place in late 1991-1992 (a school year cycle), a date
easily discerned by calculating subtle time markers in Book II (Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets).
In Sorcerer’s Stone, Flamel is 665
years old. This number subtracted from 1991/92 comes to the year 1326/27 for
Flamel’s birth (as recorded by Rowling). In the real world, Flamel was born in
1330, give or take a few years. 23
Book I goes so far as to add
some of Flamel’s religious beliefs about death. Toward the book’s conclusion,
after Nicholas and Perenelle know they will die, Dumbledore tells Harry that
they are not afraid because to them dying will simply be “like going to bed
after a very, very long day.” Dumbledore continues: “After all, to the well-organized
mind, death is but the next great adventure.”24 The book Magicians, Seers, and Mystics reports
that Flamel, in fact, felt this way: “Nicholas Flamel, after his discovery of
the Philosopher’s Stone, would have had no temptation to evade death; for he
regarded death merely as the transition to a better state.”25
Such a position echoes
current pagan/Wiccan thinking. Anthony Kemp, in Witchcraft and Paganism Today, writes: “The one who has departed
has left for the Summerlands, the fairy realm in the west where he or she will
be refreshed before the cycle of rebirth [reincarnation] starts again. . . .
Death as we know it is but a transition—an initiation.”26 Celebrated
witch, Starhawk, declares: “Death is not an end; it is a stage in the cycle
that leads on to rebirth. After death, the human soul . . . grows young and is
made ready to be born again.”27
To Christians, of course,
this is an inaccurate and spiritually dangerous view of death. Christians
believe that only those who die “in Christ” (i.e., those who have received
Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior) will enjoy eternal bliss
(Romans 10:9; 1 John 5:11-13). Others will suffer eternal separation from God
(Luke 16:19-30; John 3:16; Revelation 20:11-15). Reincarnation too stands at
odds with Christianity. Hebrews 9:27 says we are created to die once and then
to experience our judgment before God. There are no second, third or fourth
chances after death. “Now is the day of salvation” (2 Corinthians 6:2).
Flamel and his Sorcerer’s
Stone are only two examples of how Rowling mixes reality with fantasy in her
series. Book I also refers to Paracelsus,28 a Swiss alchemist who
lived from 1493-1541. He was “one of the most striking and picturesque figures”
in occultism. 29 Another individual Rowling mentions is Adalbert
Waffling, author of Magical Theory,
which is included on Harry’s list of required reading. Again, we have a
fictional character having a real-world counterpart: Archbishop Adalbert of
Magdeburg (eighth century).
Adalbert
was a French pseudo-mystic who claimed he could foretell the future and read
thoughts. The Encyclopedia of Occultism
and Parapsychology reveals that “[H]e was in the habit of giving away
parings of his nails and locks of his hair as powerful amulets [charms used to
drive away evil]. He is said to have even set up an altar in his own name.”
Adalbert eventually showed followers a letter supposedly sent to him by Christ
via St. Michael. He also invoked demons using mystical prayers he had composed.
The Church convicted him of sorcery in 744-745 A.D., and condemned him to perpetual imprisonment in the
monastery of Fulda. 30
A sympathetic discussion of
Adalbert’s plight can be found in the writings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky
(1831-1891), founder of Theosophy, an occult blending of metaphysical thought,
spiritualism, channeling, science, Eastern philosophy, Transcendentalism and
mental healing. Blavatsky, who greatly helped to spread the concepts of
Buddhism and reincarnation in America, wrote the following about Adalbert in
her article “Star-Angel-Worship”:
In the middle of
the VIIIth century of the Christian era the very notorious Archbishop Adalbert
of Magdeburg, famous as few in the annals of magic, appeared before his judges.
He was charged with, and ultimately convicted—by the second Council of Rome
presided over by Pope Zacharia—of using during his performances of ceremonial
magic, the names of the “seven Spirits”—then at the height of their power in
the Church—among others, that of URIEL, with the help of whom he had succeeded
in producing his greatest phenomena. As can be easily shown, the church is not against magic proper,
but only against those magicians who fail to conform to her methods and rules
of evocation. However, as the wonders wrought by the Right Reverend Sorcerer
were not of a character that would permit of their classification among
“miracles by the grace, and to the glory of God,” they were declared unholy. 31
Interestingly, these
pro-Adalbert sentiments expressed by Blavatsky sound remarkably similar to
those voiced by Albus Dumbledore in a speech he gives to students at Hogwarts—
which, coincidentally, was founded at approximately the same time Adalbert and
others were being convicted by the Church (i.e., 1991 minus approximately 1,000
years [800-1,000 A.D.]).
Dumbledore explains:
You all know, of
course, that Hogwarts was founded over a thousand years ago—the precise date is
uncertain—by the four greatest witches and wizards of the age. . . . They built
this castle together, far from prying Muggle eyes, for it was an age when magic
was feared by common people, and witches and wizards suffered much persecution. 32
An equally odd connection
that seems to exist between Rowling and Theosophy can be found in a play on
names in Book III (Harry Potter and the
Prisoner of Azkaban). On page 53 Rowling mentions a book titled Unfogging the Future by a Cassandra
Vablatsky. Could Vablatsky be an anagram for Blavatsky? I believe so. An
anagram, of course, is a word or phrase formed by transposing the letters of
another word or phrase. And this is exactly the kind of word games Rowling
plays throughout her novels.
For example, in one scene
from Book II (Harry Potter and the
Chamber of Secrets), we learn that it was a boy named Tom Riddle who
eventually became Lord Voldemort. Riddle unveils this mystery using an anagram
to taunt Harry:
He [Riddle] pulled
Harry’s wand from his pocket and began to trace it through the air, writing
three shimmering words: TOM MARVOLO RIDDLE. Then he waved the
wand once, and the letters of his name rearranged themselves: I AM LORD VOLDEMORT. 33
Another anagram, this time
in Book I, shows up when Harry finds a mirror in which he sees images of his
family. Inscribed above the looking glass are these words: Erised stra ehru oyt ube cafru oyt on wohsi. 34 Written
backward, they read: Ishow no tyo urfac
ebutyo urhe arts desire. The phrase still makes no sense. But splice the
letters together in a different combination and suddenly we get: I show not your face but your heart’s desire.
It is not only an anagram, but a backward anagram! In my opinion, a similar
trick is used to disguise Blavatsky as Vablatsky.
Pagan and mythological
characters play an important role in Sorcerer’s
Stone as well. One of Harry’s teachers, Minerva McGonagall, is named after
the Roman goddess of agriculture, navigation, spinning, weaving and needlework. 35
Hogwarts’ caretaker, Argus Filch,36 is named after the Greek
mythological giant with a hundred eyes. We also have Harry’s best friend,
Hermione, who shares her name with the daughter of Helen of Troy in Greek
mythology.
From Homer’s Odyssey, Rowling borrows the name Circe. 37
In the Greek classic tale, Circe is a witch who can transform men into animals.
Even the first name of Harry’s nemesis, Draco Malfoy, is significant. It refers
to astrology. Draco, which means dragon, is the ancient astrological term for
the constellation that “used to hold special significance as the location of
the pole star, but due to the Earth’s precession, the pole has shifted to
Polaris in Ursa Minor. The Dragon is usually associated with guardians of the
temples and treasures.”38
And
then there are references to Morgana and Merlin taken from the Arthurian
legends. Merlin is Arthur’s wizard-mentor. Morgana is the evil half-sister of
Arthur. She seduces Arthur in order to give birth to Mordred, who eventual
destroys the king. Morgana is said to be heavily based on “Morrighan,” an
ancient Celtic goddess. “Those who see her washing out bloody linen are
normally warriors whose vision of her presages their pending death in battle.”39
Morrighan is also known as the battle goddess, queen of witches, the goddess of
magick—and the goddess of death. 40
Perhaps
most interesting, though, is Rowling’s passing reference to the Druid/Celtic
goddess Cliodna, 41 who is still worshiped today by contemporary
pagans and witches. According to The
Circle of the Ancient Ways (COTAW), an independent group of witches who focus
mainly on the Wiccan path, “the names of Gods and Goddesses in the Celtic
beliefs are probably the most well known and often used in modern Paganism and
Wicca.”42
Cliodna (also Cliodhna) is
Ireland’s pagan goddess of beauty. It was believed that through her the magic
of “blarney” or the “gift of gab” came to the Celts. 43 She is a
Banshee (also Bean Sidhe), which in Scotland is referred to as the wailing
woman spirit (Behn Nighe) who lives in the hills and glens. In Irish folklore,
this spirit or fairy foreshadows death by wailing:
She visits a
household and by wailing she warns them that a member of their family is about
to die. When a Banshee is caught, she is obliged to tell the name of the
doomed. The Bean Sidhe has long, streaming hair and is dressed in a gray cloak
over a green dress. Her eyes are fiery red from the constant weeping. When multiple
Banshees wail together, it will herald the death of someone very great or holy.
Aiobhill is the Banshee of the Dalcassians of North Munster, Cliodna of the
MacCarthys and other families of South Munster. 44
Finally, Sorcerer’s Stone plainly introduces
astrology through the words of two Centaurs named Bane and Firenze. 45
(A Centaur is a mythological beast with the torso and head of a man, but the
hindquarters of a horse.) Bane says, “Remember, Firenze, we are sworn not to
set ourselves against the heavens. Have we not read what is to come in the
movements of planets?”46 Firenze replies, “Do you not see that
unicorn? . . . Do you not understand why it was killed? Or have the planets not
let you in on that secret?”47 Astrology is clearly being discussed,
given the fact that Hagrid refers to the two Centaurs as “stargazers,”48
another name for astrologers.
Such occult themes are
numerous in Book I. Also plentiful are Rowling’s many references to various
demonic entities deeply connected to magic, witchcraft and sorcery. However,
before taking a closer look at these demonic beings (see Chapter 4), we must
touch upon another set of problems within the Potter series—moral ambiguity and
ethical confusion.
Potterethics
Countless articles, both
Christian and non-Christian, have applauded the admirable morals and ethical
behavior of Rowling’s characters. According to more than one reviewer, Harry
and his companions are brave, true, just, kind, insightful, unselfish and
noble. In a January 2000 article written for the Roman Catholic journal First Things, Wheaton College literature
professor Alan Jacobs saluted the first three books (the fourth had not yet
been published), noting: “Rowling’s moral compass throughout the three volumes
is sound—indeed, I would say, acute.”49 Similarly, a 1999
Knight-Ridder news article reported that Harry Potter is the perfect role model
to teach children lessons about endurance, kindness, wisdom and love. 50
Harry is far from perfect.
The morals and ethics in Rowling’s fantasy tales are at best unclear, and at
worst, patently unbiblical. It is true that there are fleeting moments
throughout her stories where the good characters actually behave in a way
consistent with being “good.” But on many other occasions, these same
characters act quite contrary to the biblical definition of “goodness.” This is
most apparent in Harry.
His image as a “good” boy
begins disintegrating early in Book I when he disobeys Madame Hooch, the
instructor hired by Hogwarts to teach students broom-riding technique. She
directly tells her students, including Harry, not to ride their brooms while
she takes an injured student to the infirmary. But Harry, in reaction to Draco
Malfoy’s jeers, grabs a broom and streaks into the sky. He is caught by
Professor McGonagall, but instead of being punished, is rewarded by being put
on Gryffindor’s Quidditch team. 51 (Quidditch is a wizard’s
soccer-like sport that is played with self-propelled airborne balls and flying
brooms.)
On the same day that Harry
ignores Hooch’s directive, he breaks two more rules by agreeing to fight Draco
in a “wizard’s duel” at midnight in the school’s trophy room. Fighting,
especially fights in which spells are used, are against Hogwarts’ rules.
Moreover, students are to be in their dorms at night. Nevertheless, Harry
sneaks out with his favorite rule-breaking companion, Ron Weasley.
The lone dissenter is
Hermione, Ron and Harry’s acquaintance. She reminds Harry that every time a
student is caught breaking a rule, merit points are taken away from the dorm in
which they live. She tries to reason with the two boys: “[Y]ou mustn’t go wandering around the school
at night, think of the points you’ll lose Gryffindor if you’re caught, and
you’re bound to be. It’s really very selfish of you.”52
But Harry responds: “[I]t’s
really none of your business.”53
During this scene, we also
see Ron casting integrity to the wind as he instructs Harry in the art of
wizard dueling. Both Harry and Draco have agreed to the terms: “Wands only—no
contact.”54 But just before Harry and Ron sneak out at night, Harry
asks, “[W]hat if I wave my wand and nothing happens?” In direct contradiction
to the promise given to Draco, Ron answers, “Throw it away and punch him on the
nose.”55
Draco never shows up, but
the school’s caretaker does. In fact, he almost catches Harry and Ron. They
manage to avoid capture, however, by slipping into an off-limits corridor that
houses a monstrous, three-headed hellhound guarding a trapdoor leading to the
Philosopher’s Stone. But where Rowling could have demonstrated how breaking the
rules can be harmful, she ignores the rule breaking and instead begins the next
chapter: “Harry and Ron thought that meeting the three-headed dog had been an
excellent adventure, and they were quite keen to have another one.”56
Next a very
serious regulation is broken by Harry when he sneaks into the library, yet
again at night, to have a peek at the Dark Magic books kept in the school’s
restricted section. No student is allowed to look at any of these texts unless
they have a request form signed by a teacher. But Harry feels he has a good
reason to ignore this rule: he must find out about Nicholas Flamel. Again,
rather than following any objective standard of right and wrong (i.e.,
Hogwarts’ rules), Harry lets his own self-interests and subjective
rationalizations determine his actions.
Something else happens on
this same evening. He finds the mirror of Erised (a.k.a. Desire), which shows
him movie-like images of his dead family smiling and waving back at him. This
is indeed a touching scene. But it only serves to cause Harry’s “moral compass”
to go further awry. He sneaks out of his dorm on two subsequent nights in order
to go back to the mirror. On the third night, he gets caught by Albus
Dumbledore, Hogwarts’ Headmaster. Does he punish Harry, or even chastise him
for being where students should not be in the middle of the night? No! He
simply explains to him about the Mirror of Desire, then sends little Harry
scurrying back to bed. 57 So far Harry has disobeyed Hogwarts’ codes
at least seven times without suffering any consequences.
By page 225 of Book I, Harry
is doing just about whatever he wants to do, making decisions for himself based
on what he feels is best for him. He even follows Professor Snape—the Potions
teacher—into the “Forbidden Forest” (a dangerous wooded area beside Hogwarts
that is off-limits to all students). 58 Only Hermione, an
oft-ridiculed student, seems bothered by all the rule-breaking. Again and again
she tries to explain why following school directives is important. Harry’s
responses are consistently negative:
Chapter 9
Hermione: “Don’t you care about Gryffindor, do you only care about yourselves, I don’t want Slytherin to win the house
cup, and you’ll lose all the points I got from Professor McGonagall . . .”
Harry: “Go away.”59
Chapter 10
Hermione: “So I suppose you think
that’s a reward for breaking rules?”
Harry: “I thought you weren’t
speaking to us?”
Ron: Yes, don’t stop now, it’s doing
us so much good.”60
Rowling herself, throughout
the narrative portions of Book I, refers to Hermione as “hissing . . . like an
angry goose,” having a “bad temper” and being a “bossy know-it-all.”61
Sadly, Hermione succumbs to
peer pressure after overhearing Ron and Harry say she is disliked at the school
and that “she’s a nightmare.”62 Hermione endears herself to them by
telling a “downright lie” to a teacher in order to cover up for the boys:
“Harry was speechless. Hermione was the last person to do anything against the
rules, and here she was, pretending she had, to get them out of trouble.”63
This morally troubling scene concludes with Hermione and the boys becoming
friends. 64
In an equally tragic tweak
on morality, a small boy named Neville Longbottom tries to correct Ron and
Harry and is basically ridiculed for it. “Don’t you call me an idiot,” Neville
says. “I don’t think you should be breaking any more rules! And you were the
one who told me to stand up to people.” Ron’s answer perfectly illustrates the
message Rowling seems to be communicating: “Yes, but not us.”65
When Neville tries to
prevent Ron and Harry from again sneaking out of the dorm, Hermione (now as
much a rule-breaker as her friends), puts a full “Body-Bind” spell on him:
“Neville’s arms snapped to his sides. His legs sprang together. His whole body
rigid, he swayed where he stood and then fell flat on his face, stiff as a
board.”66
In yet another scene,
Rowling writes: “Excuses, alibis, and wild cover-up stories chased each other
around Harry’s brain, each more feeble than the last. He couldn’t see how they
were going to get out of trouble this time.”67 The option of simply
telling the truth never even crosses Harry’s mind, but he cannot come up with a
lie either. Significantly, this one instance in which Harry’s knack for lying
does not work quickly enough is the one instance that he and his companions are
punished with detention after school hours.
The adults in Book I hardly
act any better. They not only break other people’s rules, but also break their
own rules. Consider Hagrid (Hogwarts’ Keeper of the Keys and Grounds). He
consistently performs spells even though he is not supposed to do magic. (He
was expelled from Hogwarts during his third year, which means he never
graduated to the level of full wizard.)68 He also ignores legal statutes
applicable to the entire wizard world. For instance, he raises an “illegal”
dragon against the 1709 Warlock’s Convention law prohibiting dragon breeding in
Britain. 69
Even worse, Hagrid
consistently asks Harry and his friends not to tell anyone about his
disobedience. On page 64, he makes this request: “If I was ter—er—speed things
up a bit, would yeh mind not mentionin’ it at Hogwarts?” Harry replies, “Of
course not,” because he is eager to “see more magic.”70 Later in the
book, Hagrid actually asks Harry, Ron and Hermione to smuggle his illegal
dragon out of Hogwarts, with the help of Ron’s brother, Charlie (a Hogwarts
graduate), and some of Charlie’s older, postgraduate friends. 71
Professor
McGonagall even persuades Headmaster Dumbledore to allow her to break school
rules by allowing Harry to have his own flying broom and to play on
Gryffindor’s Quidditch team—privileges not granted to first-year students. Why
dismiss these rules? Because Harry is a natural-born broom-rider, and as such,
is bound to be an excellent Quidditch player. Since Gryffindor has not won the
championship in years, the course of action is clear: put Harry on the team.
The threefold moral message
that Rowling presents through her characters is clear: 1) rules are made to be
broken if they do not serve one’s own self-interests; 2) rules need not be
obeyed if no good reason seems to exist for them; and 3) lying is an effective
and acceptable means of achieving a desired end. This latter lesson is implied
in one student’s explanation for why he is half-Muggle: “ ‘Me dad’s a Muggle.
Mom didn’t tell him she was a witch ’til after they were married. Bit of a
nasty shock for him.’ The others laughed.”72
Judith Krug of
the Chicago-based American Library Association has stated,
The storyline is
wonderful. . . . We have Harry Potter as an orphan. There’s no one always
telling him what to do, and what young person hasn’t at one point said, “Oh, if
they’d only leave me alone.” Or: “I wish that I didn’t have parents.” They
don’t mean this in a mean way. It’s just that parents get in the way. 73
In the real world, parents
do indeed “get in the way,” especially when a child misbehaves, or when a child
needs loving guidance away from harmful activities. But children, because they
are children, often do not want to be disciplined. It is no wonder they like
the Potter books so much. As one eleven-year-old girl told me, “I like Harry
because he can do whatever he wants to do.”
Although he may have
benevolent motives (e.g., wanting to keep someone from taking the Philosopher’s
Stone, or trying to keep Draco from hurting a student), Harry ultimately is
simply following his own self-interests. This is consistent with modern Wicca,
as the Wiccan Creed says: “If it harm none, do what you will.” The creed would
apply to such things as unbiblical sexual encounters, use of illegal drugs and
lying. Starhawk, founder of Covenant of the Goddess, plainly says, “In
witchcraft, we do not fight self-interest, we follow it.”74
Whether Rowling realizes it
or not, she is promoting witchcraft/occultism/Wicca in the form of ethical and
moral subjectivism.
Age 6 and Up?
During a National Public
Radio interview with Diane Rehm, J.K. Rowling explained that she did not
necessarily write her books for children. She actually penned them as novels
that she herself, as an adult, would enjoy reading. 75 Rowling also
mentioned that she kept in mind the kind of book she might have wanted to read
as a little girl. Interestingly, Rowling has stated: “When I was quite young,
my parents never said books were off limits. . . . As a child, I read a lot of
adult books. I don’t think you should censor kids’ reading material. It’s
important just to let them go do what they need to do.”76
Rowling
apparently feels that adult-oriented material is perfectly suitable for
children, which may explain why forty-three percent of her books sold in 1999
were to readers older than fourteen. And according to the N.D. Group, a leading
market research firm that tracks book-buying in 12,000 households, nearly
thirty percent of Harry Potter purchases were made for readers thirty-five or
older. Some adult readers are so captivated by Harry that they have begun
concocting their own “fan-written” Potter adult stories.
For example, there is “Harry
Potter and the Paradigm of Uncertainty,” which can be found on the Internet at
e-Groups. Lori Summers, author of this narrative in progress, describes it as a
PG-13 story for adult fans of the Harry Potter series. It takes place twelve
years in the future, is extremely romantic in nature, and puts Harry living in
one big dorm with several other witches (females) and wizards (males). Summers
stresses it is not for children. 77
But adult Harry Potter fans
need not scan the Internet for “mature” material, especially when it comes to
scenes involving gratuitous violence, gruesome images, cruelty and humor that
often borders on perversity. One of the most grisly characters to come from
Rowling is a ghost named “Nearly Headless Nick” who lived 500 years earlier and
died on a Halloween night by being struck on the neck forty-five times with a
blunt ax. 78 He first appears in Chapter 7 of Book I:
“I know who you
are!” said Ron suddenly. “My brothers told me about you—you’re Nearly Headless
Nick!”
. . . “Nearly Headless?” [asked Seamus Finnigan]. “How can you be nearly
headless?”
“Like this,” he said irritably. He
seized his left ear and pulled. His whole head swung off his neck and fell onto
his shoulder as if it was on a hinge. Someone had obviously tried to behead
him, but not done it properly. 79
Then, in Chapter 15, readers
are treated to a horrible scene featuring Professor Quirrell, who is
possessed by Voldemort:
[O]ut of the
shadows, a hooded figure came crawling across the ground like some stalking
beast. . . . The cloaked figure reached the unicorn, lowered its head over the
wound in the animal’s side, and began to drink its blood. 80
Scenes less gory, but
equally disturbing, are those wherein cruelty/vengeance are presented as
acceptable. Hagrid, for instance, performs an illegal spell against Harry’s
cousin, Dudley. (He gives Dudley an extremely painful pig’s tail that has to be
surgically removed.) This is not done because Dudley himself acts improperly
toward Hagrid. It is done to punish Mr. Dursley for insulting Dumbledore. 81
Rather than attacking Mr. Dursley, Hagrid turns his revenge against Dudley (an
innocent individual) as a way of more gravely hurting the father.
Revenge also appears in a
Diagon Alley scene, where Harry finds Curses
and Countercurses (Bewitch Your Friends and Befuddle Your Enemies with the
Latest Revenges: Hair Loss, Jelly Legs, Tongue-Tying and Much, Much More)
by Professor Vindictus Viridian. When Hagrid drags Harry away so they can stay
on their time schedule, Harry says: “I was trying to find out how to curse
Dudley.” Instead of correcting Harry and pointing him in a better direction,
Hagrid replies: “I’m not sayin’ that’s not a good idea, but yer not ter use
magic in the Muggle world except in very special circumstances.”82
A display of similar
attitudes by other “good” characters throughout the Potter series creates a
running theme that is not difficult to discern: It is appropriate to return
evil for evil, and treat others well only if they treat you well. As Rowling
herself has stated about her main character: “Harry wants to get back at
Dudley. . . . [A]nd we readers want him to get back at Dudley. And, in the long
run, trust me, he will.”83 Contrast this approach with what
Scripture says regarding enemies and our treatment of them:
- Thou
shalt not avenge. . . . [L]ove thy neighbour as thyself. (Leviticus 19:18)
- Recompense
to no man evil for evil. . . . If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live
peaceably with all men. . . . Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
(Romans 12:17-18, 21)
- Love
your enemies, do good to them which hate you, bless them that curse you, and
pray for them which despitefully use you. (Luke 6:27-28)
In
yet another scene, Professor Snape—the disliked potions teacher—is seen limping
due to some sort of injury to his leg. Harry wonders what is wrong with Snape,
and Ron bitterly replies: “Dunno, but I hope it’s really hurting him.”84
Again, the Bible reads very differently: “Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth,
and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth” (Proverbs 24:17).
Clearly,
Rowling’s books include a great deal of material that is inappropriate for
children as well as inconsistent with Christian values.
Despite
these flaws, Book I has become a best-seller around the world. According to an
ABCnews.com report, it is because Rowling’s books “show the complexities of
children, and the ambiguities of childhood—the delights and fears of separation
and exploration.”85 But as we have seen, these volumes also contain
material that is both unsuitable and harmful to children. Rowling’s second
volume, Harry Potter and the Chamber of
Secrets, is just as problematic.
Endnotes
1. J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone
(New York: Scholastic Press, 1997), 13.
2. J.K. Rowling, interview
on The Diane Rehm Show, WAMU,
National Public Radio, October 20, 1999, available online at www.wamu.org.
3. J.K. Rowling, quoted in
Reuters, “Harry Potter ‘Strolled into My Head,’ ” July 17, 2000.
4. J.K. Rowling, The Diane Rehm Show.
5. J.K. Rowling, The Diane Rehm Show.
6. Dr. Christopher Beiting,
quoted in Kate Ernsting, “Is Harry Potter’s Magic Kid-Friendly?,” Credo, November 15, 1999, available
online at www.credopub.com.
7. “Why We Like Harry
Potter” (editorial), Christianity Today,
January 10, 2000, available online at www.christianityonline.com.
8. J.K. Rowling, quoted in
Audrey Woods, “Success Stuns Harry Potter Author” (Associated Press), July 6,
2000.
9. J.K. Rowling, quoted in
Judy O’Malley, “Talking with J.K. Rowling,” Book
Links (Vol. 8, No. 6, pp. 32-36: Online Version), available online at
www.northernlight.com.
10. J.K. Rowling, AOL Online
Chat, May 4, 2000. Transcript available through America Online.
11. J.K. Rowling, quoted in
Elizabeth Nehren, “Upward and Onward Toward Book Seven,” Los Angeles Times, October 25, 2000. Available online at
www.latimes.com/living/20001024/t000101702.html; also see J.K. Rowling, radio
interview, October 12, 1999, Talk Connection, WBUR (Boston).
12. Peter Fearon, “A Dark
Flashback in ‘Potter’ Author’s Tale,” New
York Post, July 11, 2000, available online at www.newyorkpost.com.; also
available online at www.foxnews.com.
13. Walter Beacham, editor’s
introduction for Elizabeth D. Schafer, Beacham’s
Sourcebook: Exploring Harry Potter (Osprey, FL: Beacham Publishing, 2000),
statement available online at www.beachampublishing.com.
14. J.K. Rowling, The Diane Rehm Show.
15. J.K. Rowling, The Diane Rehm Show.
16. WBUR interview with J.K.
Rowling, October 12, 1999, available online at www.wbur.org.
17. Leslie A. Shepard, ed., Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology
(Detroit: Gale Research, 1991), 2:1282.
18. Shepard.
19. Kurt Seligmann, Magic, Supernaturalism, and Religion
(New York: Pantheon, 1948; 1971 edition).
20. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 220.
21. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 219.
22. Maurice Magre, Magicians, Seers, and Mystics (Kila, MT:
Kessinger Publishing, 1997; transl. Reginald Merton), available online at
www.alchemylab.com.
23. Shepard, 1:594.
24. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 297. Children are not
simply reading such comments and giving no thought to what they mean. In a
letter to www.yabooks.com, a fifteen-year-old wrote the following comment in
reference to Rowling’s books: “They deal with death, but in a positive way—in
the first book, Dumbledore tells Harry, Ron, and Hermione that death is just
like a rest after a very long day” (“Young Adult ‘Save Harry Potter’ Comments:
Page 1,” available online at
http://yabooks.about.com/teens/yabooks/bl_potter2.htm).
25. Magre, available online
at www.alchemylab.com.
26. Anthony Kemp, Witchcraft and Paganism Today (London:
Brockhampton Press, 1993; 1995 edition), 129.
27. Starhawk, The Spiral Dance (San Francisco: Harper
San Francisco, 1979; 1989 edition), 41.
28. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 103.
29. Shepard, 2:1250.
30. Shepard, 1:6-7.
31. Helena Petrovna
Blavatsky, “Star-Angel-Worship in the Roman Catholic Church,” Lucifer, July 1888, available online at
www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/StarAngel WorshipInTheRomanCatholicChurch.htm
(Blavatsky Net Foundation).
32. J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
(New York: Scholastic, 1999), 150.
33. Rowling, Chamber of Secrets, 314.
34. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 207.
35. Thomas Bullfinch, The Age of Fable (Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1948), Chapter 14, available online at www.bullfinch.org.
36. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 132.
37. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 103 [Note: While the
original text refers to Homer’s The Iliad,
the actual reference should be to another Homer work: Odyssey.]
38. No author. “Draco,”
available online at www.astronomical.org.
39. Terry McCombs, (no
title), available online at the Pagan Homesite (www.pagan- home.com).
40. Statement available at
http://www.cyberphile.net/~taff/taffnet/mabinogion/
gods.html.
41. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 103.
42. Statement available
online at http://www.darkcastle.net/COTAW/celtic.htm.
43. Dira’s Online Pagan
Files, available at http://www.concentric.net/ ~qempa/goddess/cc3.htm#Cliodhna.
44. Statements available
online at www.irishclans.com and www.loggia.com/myth/
ireland.html.
45. Astrology, one of the
most ancient occultic means of predicting the future, rests on the assumption that
the movement and position of celestial bodies (i.e., the sun, moon, stars and
planets) not only affect individual lives, but also nations and even humanity
as a whole (see Shepard, 1:102). It is an extremely popular belief system. A
1997 poll found that only twenty percent of Americans completely disbelieve in
astrology, while forty-eight percent say that astrology is “probably or
definitely valid” (Kenneth Miller, “Star Struck,” Life, July 1997, 40).
Another 1997 poll published in USA Today
gave a slightly lower figure of thirty-seven percent for those who believe in
astrology, but also revealed that this percentage had risen dramatically from
seventeen percent in 1976 (Matt Nisbet, “New Poll Points to Increase in
Paranormal Belief,” available online at www.csicop.org).
46. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 257.
47. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone.
48. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 254.
49. Alan Jacobs, “Harry
Potter’s Magic,” First Things,
January 2000, available online at www.firstthings.com.
50. Quoted in Richard
Scheinin, “Harry Potter’s Wizardly Powers Divide Opinion,” Fort-Worth (TX) Star-Telegram, December 3, 1999, available online
at www.arlington.net.
51. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 148-152.
52. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 154.
53. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone.
54. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 153.
55. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 154.
56. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 163.
57. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 207-214.
58. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 225-226.
59. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 155.
60. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 166.
61. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 155, 161, 164.
62. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 172.
63. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 177-178.
64. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 179.
65. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 273.
66. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone.
67. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 242.
68. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 59, 64.
69. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 230-233.
70. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 64.
71. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 237.
72. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 125.
73. Judith Krug, quoted in
“The ‘Harry Potter’ Books: Craze & Controversy,” available online at
www.familyhaven.com.
74. Starhawk, 76.
75. J.K. Rowling, The Diane Rehm Show.
76. Michael Hatty, “Harry Potter Author Reveals the Secret
to Getting Kids to Read as Children’s Book Week Kicks Off,” November 14, 1999
USAWeekend.com, available online at
www.usaweekend.com/99_issues/991114/991114potter.html.
77. Laura Miller, “Harry
Potter Rumor Watch,” Salon.com, available online at
www.salon.com/books/log/ 2000/07/06/potter_rumors/index.html.
78. Rowling, Chamber of Secrets, 123.
79. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 124.
80. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 256.
81. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 59, 90.
82. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 80.
83. J.K. Rowling, quoted in
O’Malley in “Talking with J.K. Rowling,” available online at
www.northernlight.com.
84. Rowling, Sorcerer’s Stone, 182.
85. George F. Will, “Magical
Mystery Book,” ABCnews.com, July 3, 2000, available online at
www.abcnews.go.com/onair/thisweek/ tw_georgewill_harrypotter000703.html.
_________________________
Richard Abanes, an award-winning journalist, is the author/co-author of nearly a dozen books on cults, the occult, and world religions. He has also written for several periodicals including Christianity Today, Charisma, Christian Life, Ministries Today, Moody Magazine, Christian Research Journal, Christian Retailing, and CBA Marketplace.
From HARRY POTTER AND THE BIBLE by Richard Abanes, Copyright © 2001 by Horizon Books, a division of 
Exclude PDF Files