Harry Potter and the Gargantuan Page Turner

Article by Paula Bardell

Three frustratingly long years after the publication of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, J.K. Rowling's legions of fans were rewarded for their patience with the release of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - launched simultaneously in Britain, the USA, Canada, Australia and in other English-speaking countries at one minute past midnight on 21st June 2003.

This fifth book in Rowling's incredibly successful wizarding series is a challenging 766 pages long, containing over 255,000 words and weighing in at 2.8lb (1.3kg). In Britain alone, it sold 1.8 million copies in the immediate hours following its release - a Nielsen Book Scan estimate revealed that one person in every 28 possessed The Order of the Phoenix. In the US, five million copies were sold during the same period. There can be little doubt that Harry Potter is a global literary phenomenon.

Trivia aside, Potter is no longer the awkward 11-year-old boy wizard that readers were introduced to in the first book. Phoenix sees the tangle-haired Harry in his fifth year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. He is now an angry adolescent, a survivor of various hair-raising escapades who often finds it difficult to control his emotions. He frequently finds himself "consumed with anger and frustration, grinding his teeth and clenching his fists", and occasionally takes his "growling resentment" out on his best friends Ron and Hermione.

Phoenix is an enormously harrowing adventure for Harry and definitely not ideal bedtime reading material for the squeamish or fainthearted. He is attacked by dementors, threatened with expulsion from Hogwart's, banned from playing Quidditch, discredited among much of the magical population, haunted by dreams, visions and stories of his dead parents, accused of being a liar by the atrocious Dolores Umbridge, forced to endure the loss of a dear friend - and all this before his destiny is finally revealed to him by Dumbledore, who sits Potter down in his office and tells him "everything".

The book is considerably darker than the first four novels as Voldemort begins to spread his evil influence, opposed at each stage by the Order of the Phoenix, a protective circle of benevolent witches and wizards.

Once again, serious issues such as slavery and racism are touched upon in subplots such as Hermione Granger's quest to liberate the long-suffering House Elves and in Malfoy's fascistic hatred of "mud bloods" and "filthy half-breeds". Rowling's books reflect rather than condone prejudice and Harry continues to take people at face value. Indeed, in their steadfast determination to shield the weak against the evil forces of Voldermort, characters like Professor Dumbledore quite clearly advocate open-mindedness and empiricism at great personal cost to themselves.

Unsurprisingly, Phoenix, like earlier books in the series, has been subject to intense political and moral analysis. Since Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (the Sorceror's Stone in the US), first took the American reading-public by storm in 1997, there have been vicious attacks by Christian fundamentalists who believe the series is cultivating a generation of "evil-doers". Indeed, the more extreme of these groups have accused Rowling of deliberately "spreading witchcraft". After the release of book four, the Minnesota Star Tribune reported that a New Mexico town had actually held a book burning, and the People Magazine informed its readers that parents across the country were seeking to ban the book from their children's school libraries. Mercifully, the vast majority of American families have taken Harry to their hearts and Phoenix has broken all US sales records, outselling even the biography of former first lady, Hillary Clinton.

In a far more agnostically inclined Britain, critics have tended to complain that Potter and his palls are a tad too "Middle-England" for their liking. However, I can only surmise that there must be a distinct lack of humour amongst present-day literary commentators because Rowling is quite obviously being ironic when she writes of the curtain-twitching residents of Privet Drive and the Minister of Magic in his pinstriped robes.

The Order of the Phoenix is by far the most sophisticated and mature book of the series so far; it is also a more confident work than its predecessors. Although the earlier books were far more comedy-driven, there are still many hilarious scenes in Phoenix that will amuse children and adults alike. The narrative moves at a cracking pace as Harry struggles to convince the wizard world that Voldemort has returned, and the book's prodigious size allows Rowling to weave in serious themes.

With two books to go, it remains to be seen which direction Rowling's storytelling will take, but it seems likely that the link between Harry and Voldemort will lead to ever more elaborate plot-twists and sensational revelations. In the meantime, Pottermania will continue to inspire children across the globe to read - a truly magical achievement in itself.

About the Author

Paula is a poet, essayist and short-story writer who has contributed features
to numerous guidebooks, magazines and journals on the subjects of literature, travel,
culture and history. She lives in North Wales (UK) and is currently the editor of two
popular online guides.

Is Harry Potter a bad influence?

Is Harry Potter a bad influence? Here are a few tentative ideas:

Katie Couric: I'm not sure if we should bite this off, but I'm going to. Tammy in Kansas was wondering: "What would encourage you to write books for children that are supporting the devil, witchcraft and anything that has to do with Satan?" You've heard that before.
J.K. Rowling: Well nothing would encourage me to do that because I haven't done it so far, so why would I start doing it now?
Katie Couric: You have heard criticism along those lines ever since the beginning, and I think it also grew since more and more books came out.
J.K. Rowling: A very famous writer once said: "A book is like a mirror. If a fool looks in, you can't expect a genius to look out." People tend to find in books what they want to find, and I think my books are very moral. I know they have absolutely nothing to do with what this lady's writing about. So, can't give her much help there.
from the transcript of a "Today Show" interview, October 20, 2000.

With the release of the first "Harry Potter" movie, the debate among Christians over the books, and the movie, has intensified. Should Christians read/watch these? Some say "No!--Scripture forbids dabbling in wizardry." Others say "Yes! This is great stuff! It entertains kids, and gets them to read." My own view, certainly not original with me, is that both these views are too simple. Here are a few ideas, and some links that may be helpful, with brief annotations.

1. Our mind should be the temple of the Holy Spirit. (I Corinthians 3:16) That being true, we should be careful what we put in it.

2. Philippians 4:8 exhorts us to think on what is good, beautiful, true, etc. Literature can present the good, beautiful and true.

3. Scripture does have exhortations to avoid witchcraft (Galatians 5:19-20, Revelation 21:8)

4. My time is not mine, but God's, and I should be careful how I use it. Reading for recreation, if not overdone, or reading for inspiration, can be good use of time.

5. Some things may tempt one person, because of that person's particular personality or background, that are not serious temptations for others.

6. There are some things that I personally have decided that I am not going to do (and some that I have decided that I will do) because I think I should avoid them (or do them.) There are, for instance, some sorts of TV that I won't watch, some kinds of books and magazines that I won't read. My choices are not binding on others, although if I were a parent of young children, I would have responsibility to guide them in making choices. One of the things that I have decided to do is to frequently read fantastic literature. I believe that I have been spiritually uplifted by such reading, including Watership Down, the Narnia books, and some of Tolkien. I believe that I have been entertained wholesomely by the Harry Potter books.

7. It is usually foolish to condemn things that we know little about. ("I haven't read the Harry Potter books, but . . .") This doesn't mean that there aren't some things that I can condemn without having personal knowledge of them (murder and child pornography, for example), but usually, if I am ignorant, I should keep my mouth shut.

I have read the first six Harry Potter books. I have seen the first two movies. Only once. I'm not an expert. The books, nor the movies, didn't tempt me into dabbling in witchcraft. They do present conflicts between good and evil, and Harry and his friends are clearly presented as good. The powers that they are learning at the Hogwarts School for Wizards are used to try to achieve clearly good ends. Two events in the first movie that particularly struck me as resonating with the Christian story were:
1) The statement, made by a person who was clearly evil, that "there is no good and evil, there is only power and those too weak to seek it¹" No Christian, of course, would make a statement like that about good and evil, but the blurring of the two by the Lord of Evil and his servants goes back at least as far as the Garden of Eden, and the movie makes clear that this is an evil suggestion. Harry rejects the idea.
2) Harry's friend, Ron Weasley, sacrifices himself for others, for all he knew, to death, in a wizard's chess game.

There are a number of other ideas in the books that are compatible with Christianity. Here are some:

One of the conflicts, in all the books, is over how wizards should treat muggles--non-wizards. The good wizards treat them with special care. The evil ones, or those that are tending toward evil, do not. They even hate, and try to hurt, not just muggles, but wizards born to muggles. Another conflict is over how wizards should treat other magical creatures, such as house-elves. Albus Dumbledore, the headmaster of Hogwarts, says "We wizards have mistreated and abused our fellows for too long, and are reaping our reward.2"

Throughout the books, one character, Severus Snape, the potions professor, is portrayed as having repented of his association, probably even worship, of Voldemort, before the books begin, although I don't believe that the word "repented" is used. In the fifth book, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Harry learns that his now-dead father treated Snape very badly when they were both students at Hogwarts, which is why Snape has treated Harry badly throughout the books. ". . . at the sight of him Harry felt a great rush of hatred . . . Whatever Dumbledore said, he would never forgive Snape . . . never.3" My guess is that Rowling is setting up a scene in a later book where the two of them will forgive each other, and repent of their attitudes.

The fifth book presents many of the characters, in particular Cornelius Fudge, the Minister of Magic, and most of those under him, as having deliberately ignored the existence of evil--they refuse to believe that Voldemort, clearly a very evil wizard, has come back to power.

Harry has some crises of conscience in the fifth book. For example, he debates with a voice in his own head about Ron having been made a prefect, when he hasn't been.4

Albus Dumbledore, the Headmaster of Hogwarts, the school for wizardry, confronts Voldemort, and tells him that "Indeed, your failure to understand that there are things much worse than death has always been your greatest weakness--" To the Christian, there are things more important than death, and dying for a righteous cause is not nearly as bad as living for a wrong one.5

Dumbledore follows the theme of I Corinthians 13:13 when he tells Harry that the greatest power of all is the one in his heart, that Voldemort has none of. Clearly, although he does not name it, he is speaking of unselfish (agape) Love.6

None of these are peripheral matters. The books show a conflict between good and evil, both on a wide scale, and within the hearts and minds of the characters. It is clear which side Rowling is on, and it's not evil.

John Leonard put it this way, in his review of Harry Potter and the Order  of the Phoenix:

In one way, the Leviticus-quoting fruitcakes who accuse Harry of Satanism have a point: there is not much Christ in Rowling's pagan pages. On the other hand, there used to be many more miracles and magics in that old-time religion of St. Teresa and St. John of the Cross than there are today. On the third hand, those of us who had to explain ''The Chronicles of Narnia'' to our children will be grateful that Harry isn't Parsifal. And on the last hand, any series that celebrates courage, friendship, owls and brooms does more good than harm. Trust (of Dumbledore) and forgiveness (of Wormtail) are also recommended. And all of us could do worse than to model ourselves on Rowling's centaurs, who refuse for any reason to kill a ''foal.'' The New York Times, July 13, 2005

Addendum, September 19, 2005. I have just read Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, and, again, it is clear that there is a conflict between good and evil. This exchange, in which one of the evil characters is asked to turn to the other side, reminds me of Gandalf's similar proposition to Saruman, and other moral choices in The Lord of the Rings:

". . . I can help you, Draco."
"No, you can't," said Malfoy, his wand hand shaking very badly indeed. "Nobody can. He told me to do it or he'll kill me. I've got no choice."
"He cannot kill you if you are already dead. Come over to the right side, Draco, and we can hide you more completely than you can possibly imagine. . . . Come over to the right side, Draco . . . you are not a killer. . . ."
Malfoy stared at Dumbledore.
"But I got this far, didn't I?" he said slowly. . . .
"No, Draco," said Dumbledore quietly. "It is my mercy, and not yours, that matters now."
Malfoy did not speak. His mouth was open, his wand hand still trembling. Harry thought he saw it drop by a fraction -- pp. 591-2

As with Saruman in The Lord of the Rings, Malfoy does not make the right choice.

¹J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. (New York: Scholastic, 1997,  p. 291) I believe that the movie used the very same dialog at this point.

2Rowling, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. (New York, Scholastic, 2003, p. 834)

3Rowling, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. (New York, Scholastic, 2003, p. 851)

4Rowling, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. (New York, Scholastic, 2003, pp. 166-7)

5Rowling, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. (New York, Scholastic, 2003, p. 814)

6Rowling, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. (New York, Scholastic, 2003, pp. 843-4)

Here are some links:
Jerram Barrs of the MatthewHouse project, which is linked to the Frances Schaeffer Institute, writes about "Harry Potter and His Critics," addressing three criticisms issued against the books, namely that they encourage exploration of the occult, that they encourage rebellion against authority, and that any fantasy, not just these works, is dangerous. He goes on to explain why he likes the books, and, at least in part, deals with the criticisms. (The first page of this article has a web link to the second.)

Wizardry may be taken as a form of technology. Like technology, it can be used for good or evil, as it is shown in the Harry Potter books.

Steven Greydanus, of Decent Films, compares the uses of magic in the works of Rowling, J. R. R. Tolkien, and C. S. Lewis, at considerable length.

Douglas Leblanc, in Christianity Today, reflects on the film, and offers reasons why a continuing debate about Harry Potter among evangelicals isn't so bad.

Michael G. Mauldin, in Christianity Today Online, wonders why the positive reaction to Tolkien's Ring books, and the negative one to Rowling's Potter books, and suggests that they have a lot in common, but if either has led people into the occult, it's Tolkien, not Potter.

Jeffrey Overstreet, in Christianity Today Online's May 6, 2002 article on Spider-Man, still upset about how some Christians accused Harry Potter, spends a paragraph comparing Spider-Man with Harry. 

The Focus on the Family Organization has reviews of the first and second movies in Plugged In.

The Onion, an on-line humor magazine (one of the ones I have to be careful in reading!) published an article claiming that J. K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter books, was trying to promote Satanism, and that children, including children from Easley, SC, who had read the books, were becoming Satanists. The article also claimed that the American Family Association had condemned the books. Like all of The Onion's articles, this one was fiction. Unfortunately, this fictional article has been forwarded as the truth in e-mail many times. My guess is that the original forwarder knew that he was forwarding fiction, but I can't be sure. This is a disclaimer from the American Family Association.

The American Family Association has published an article by Berit Kjos, entitled "Twelve Reasons not to see the Harry Potter Movie."

Connie Neal has written a book (which I haven't read) entitled What's a Christian to Do with Harry Potter? which apparently says that the books are a great witnessing tool. Here's an excerpt from another book by Neal, The Gospel According to Harry Potter: Spirituality in the Stories of the World's Most Famous Seeker, which title strikes me as a bit too much (the "World's Most Famous Seeker" part). The second link in this paragraph is to an excerpt about Snape as a stand-in for redeemed Christians. Neal agrees with me (independently) that we are probably going to learn more about Snape in books yet unpublished. I personally find Snape, Dumbledore and McGonagall at least as interesting as Harry, Hermione and Ron.

Christianity Today book review "Virtue on a Broomstick," recommending Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Christianity Today movie review of "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban," with some parental guidance material.

Christianity Today compilation of excerpts from the reviews of "Prisoner" by several Christian movie critics, positive and negative.

An analysis of the books from Christianfantasy.net, pointing out that "the HP books tend to promote rule-breaking, lying, and revenge." The author also claims that there are holes in some of the plots.

A roundup of Christian opinion on the Harry Potter books from Christianity Today, including a positive statement from Charles Colson.

"Surrounded by Sorcery: 10 ways to protect kids in an occult-filled popular culture" from the Christian Reader, condensed from Today's Christian Woman, has some ideas on how to guide children in making choices.

Christianity Today isn't only pro-Potter. Here's an article "The Perils of Harry Potter."

An article, "Harry Potter and the Inklings: The Christian Meaning of The Chamber of Secrets," is posted on the George MacDonald web site. (George MacDonald was a Christian writer who wrote fantasy. C. S. Lewis said that MacDonald was a great positive influence on him. The article was originally presented to the New York C. S. Lewis Society.) John Granger, the author, claims that Rowling's writing is really complex and uses Christian symbols a lot, and is the modern equivalent of medieval morality plays. He has also self-published a book, The Hidden Key to Harry Potter: Understanding the Meaning, Genius, and Popularity of Joanne Rowling's Harry Potter Novels. The MacDonald site posting of the article includes chapter titles from the book. The Amazon page on this book includes a review which points out that the book is self-published, hence probably could use quite a bit of constructive criticism, and suggests that some of Granger's conclusions are real stretches. I suspect that the reviewer is correct.

Azusa Pacific University, a Christian institution, has published articles by two of its literature professors. Emily Griesinger, in "C. S. Lewis and the Potter Debate," draws on her experience using Rowling in the classroom, and, as I have, concludes that, although there are dangers, the books are good influences. She also believes that Lewis would have approved of them.  James Hedges, in "Family Matters in the Harry Potter Novels," writes about the portrayals of good and bad families in the books.

Here's a sermon comparing Voldemort to Judas.

Here's a comparison of Lily Potter (Harry's mother) to Christ, which is part of a site on Christianity in the Potter series.

"Harry Potter and the Half-Stumped Critics" claims that, although postmodernists and conservative Christians (some, not all, of each, I suppose) have embraced the Harry Potter books, they don't exactly support either type of view.

An academic, but readable article, "Is Harry Potter Christian?" covers the Bible, Tolkien, Lewis, and a lot more.

I cannot possibly link to every web site examining Christian symbolism in the Potter books, or warning against witchcraft in them. Try Google if you have more interest. My most recent productive Google search was using both "Voldemort" and "Christianity."

Most any book or movie can harm me, if I read or watch it when I should be doing something else, for example. Conversely, people have, and do, find Christ in all sorts of strange places. The Harry Potter books, and, I guess, the movie, can be one such place. I haven't seen Christ there--maybe I wasn't looking closely enough. I have seen goodness.

I have added bits and pieces as I have read the books, or seen the movies.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

Article by Donna Schwartz Mills

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
review © 2004 by Donna Schwartz Mills

Studio: Warner Brothers
MPAA Rating: PG for frightening moments, creature violence and mild language
Mom Rating: 5 out of 5
Kid Rating: 5 out of 5

Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Michael Gambon, Gary Oldman, David Thewlis
Writer: Steve Kloves
Director: Alfonso Cuarón

It's shaping up to be a wonderful summer for family films.
Hot on the heels of "Shrek 2," which is still breaking box
office records, we now have the third installment in the
"Harry Potter" series. I firmly believe that years from now,
our children will be showing these films to our
grandchildren with the same reverence we now hold for "The
Wizard of Oz"... only with Harry, we will ultimately have
seven classic fantasy adventures to enjoy.

Many Hollywood types were surprised when young hotshot
director Alfonso Cuarón accepted this job after the success
of his racy hit, "Y Tu Mama Tambien." It was later revealed
that J.K. Rowling herself was such a fan of Cuarón's filmed
version of "A Little Princess" that he was actually *her*
first choice to helm Harry's debut. Chris Columbus ended up
bringing the first two novels to the screen, and some
critics lamented that Columbus was a little too faithful to
the books. There was much speculation that Cuarón would
bring a more daring touch to "Azkaban." However, Columbus is
still on hand as a producer, and this film doesn't veer too
far away from the world he already created for the screen.

The one big difference between this film and the previous
ones are that so much of the action takes place outside
Hogwarts castle, but that's as much a reflection of
Rowling's book as any decisions made by Cuarón.

"The Prisoner of Azkaban" is a transitional chapter in Harry
Potter's story, bridging the wonder and discovery of the
first two books into the darker, more dangerous tone of
those that follow. Harry and his friends are now 13 years
old and fully experiencing the emotional ups and downs of
adolescence. Because of his tragic history and difficult
living situation, Harry's feelings are a little more
intense. Where a normal teenager may have the urge to slam
a door in anger, the rage of a teen wizard can do some
actual harm (which he demonstrates to comic effect).

Once again, Harry arrives at Hogwarts under the vague threat
of mortal danger. Sirius Black (Gary Oldman), a legendary
murderer, has escaped from Azkaban prison, and we soon find
out that the entire wizarding world expects that Harry will
be his next victim. Searching for Black are the prison's
creepy guards; ghostly creatures known as Dementors, who
disturbingly take an interest in Harry. In the course of the
year, Harry learns more about his past -- and gets closer to
the understanding the circumstances that led to the death of
his parents, Lily and James.

Much of his new-found knowledge is provided by Professor
Lupin, a new teacher with a dark secret, portrayed by David
Thewlis. It turns out that like the dreaded Professor Snape
(Alan Rickman), Lupin was a classmate of Lily and James
Potter. Unlike Snape, he was their friend -- and he takes
Harry under his wing.

The "Harry Potter" series seems to be employing the entire
population of good British actors. In addition to Thewlis
and Oldman (who are both wonderful), this film brings us
Emma Thompson as a flakey teacher of prognostication and
Julie Christie as a witchy pub owner. Michael Gambon
replaces the late Richard Harris as headmaster Albus
Dumbledore. Gambon's is a more robust and mischievous
portrayal, and while he's very good, Harris' frailty brought
more poignance to the role.

Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint (as Harry,
Hermione and Ron) are growing into very attractive young
actors who can really carry the action, and director Cuarón
gets the most out of them. This is good, but it's at the
expense of veterans Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane and Alan
Rickman. Rickman makes the best of his diminished presence
by stealing every scene he is in with drippy malevolence.

Like the previous "Harry Potter" films, this one is rated PG
for some frightening moments, so parents should evaluate
whether their younger children can handle it or not. I felt
this one was a lot safer for the little ones because the
dangers Harry and his friends face are more psychological:
There is no face-off with the evil Voldemort (just wait
until movie #4!) and nothing as graphically scary as the
giant snake and spiders we saw in the last film. What you
have here are the spooky Dementors and a werewolf; if your
kids could handle "Scooby-Doo" without nightmares, they
should be fine with "The Prisoner of Azkaban."

The movie feels a little more disjointed than the previous
two, which may be due to the need to condense the action
into 136 minutes (which is pretty long for a film these
days, especially one targeted to families). Potter fans may
miss some of the details revealed in the novel, and those
who aren't familiar with the book may have a few moments
when they have trouble following the story. My eight-year-
old daughter, who enjoyed it very much, left with several
questions about what was motivating Professor Lupin and
Sirius Black. She wants to see it again... but in the
meantime, she is actually reading the book. A movie that is
entertaining *and* inspires your kids to read? There's
nothing better than that...

About the Author

Former entertainment industry Donna Schwartz Mills now feeds her movie habit by dragging her little girl to every family film that comes out, often on opening day. She says
she can't wait for her daughter to turn 17. Read more family film reviews at http://www.Family-Content.com.