Brynna Giadrosich September 5, 2006

Harry Potter and the Woman behind the Curtain

“White heads and hands were emerging from the dark water, men and women and children with sunken, sightless eyes…” This disturbing sentence comes from a popular children’s book, Harry Potter, advertised for age’s nine to twelve. The publisher of this book is Scholastic. Scholastic is the largest publisher and distributor of children's books in the world. The Company is the largest operator of school-based book clubs and school-based book fairs in the U.S., and is a leading publisher of children's books sold through the trade channel.

The literature that Scholastic is producing is one of the ways children are acquiring knowledge and learning to make choices in life. But what are we letting them read? Good books help them learn how to process information in the real world. In Language and Learning, James Britton describes storytelling as “an assimilative function through which we balance out inner needs with external realities.” In the vernacular of the common day, our culture is shaped by our literature. If you control what is in the books, then you control how people think. We should never underestimate the power a piece of literature can have over an entire generation. Since children are easily influenced by stories, it seems reasonable that we should exercise their imaginations. What are we teaching them? We are allowing young children to read and enjoy series like Goosebumps, Fear Street, and Harry Potter; even letting them watch frightening series such as Goosebumps on DVD. Just as crimes against children wound us, so too should shock fiction and series, for their role in desensitizing the very young.

A 1999 Newsweek article poll showed that 58 of Americans felt “the need to experience spiritual growth”. By the year 2000 more than 80 desired spiritual growth. During the same year 54 were calling themselves religious and 30 were just spiritual. Given these statistics, it comes to no surprise that the production of books on religion and spirituality rose 112 from 1991 to 1996. Religious book sales hit an all-time high of $2.15 billion, which is 16 of all books sold.

Among these “spiritual” books lie dangers that we should be aware of. Books on magick have risen significantly with the release of a popular children’s series, Harry Potter. Of the many children’s books out there, Harry Potter is the most famous. J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter novels are about an orphaned boy-wizard, Harry, and his struggles against an evil sorcerer, Lord Voldemort. Fans of the series say it is a classic “good vs. evil” tale, complete with lessons that exalt courage, loyalty, and selflessness. The author herself says the theme running through the books is “a fight between good and evil.” Each book covers another school season where Harry finds himself in various predicaments with dangers to avoid; due to the schemes of Voldemort. Meanwhile, he and his friends, Ron and Hermione, are learning to become more powerful and competent witches and wizards.

Rowling claims that while she does not necessarily accept the full efficiency of witchcraft, she does state, “I know a lot about it.” She has expressed sympathy for occult/magick notions, such as the importance of the number seven. The belief in the mystical powers of ‘seven’ is consistent with occult teaching. Rowling also placed a reference to Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, the founder of Theosophy, an occult blend of Eastern philosophy, metaphysical thought, mental healing, spiritualism and pseudo-science, in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Blavatsky’s name is in an anagram, Vablatsky, and then it was used for a character, Cassandra Vablatsky, the author of a divination volume mentioned in Book 3, Unfogging the Future.

Another thing that makes one wonder how close Rowling is to the occult and magick world is a comment made in 1999: “The Scholastic book cover looks the most like the way I had fantasized. It looks like a spell book because of the colors and style of illustrations.” A spell book in the occult world is known as a Grimoire. Grimoires, which take many forms, are books containing instructions on divination, spiritism, and magick, including both private journals and published volumes. Because these spiritual diaries contain spells, they are often called “spell books.” Why would Rowling be so excited that her books resemble real occult spell books?

Whenever Rowling is asked whether she believes in witchcraft or magick, she often avoids answering with an unqualified “no” and leaves room for belief in some sort of magick. And this isn’t the kind found in storybooks. During a July 2000 Canadian Broadcasting interview, she said that Wiccans feel her books show she is “wholeheartedly on their side.” Rowling also has said, “Practicing Wiccans think I’m also a witch.” The fact that Wiccans believe Rowling is a witch indicates that her books must contain an accurate representation of at least some of their views. Yet she continues to dismiss any views that people express in saying her books contain types of Wiccan arts as absurd.

Harry Potter contains the neopagan concept of magick. “Magic is magic—it is neither good nor bad, it just is!” This belief was articulated by many occultists, including the infamous Church of Satan founder, Anton LaVey. This belief is found in the words of one of Voldemort’s followers, Quirrell: “There is no good and evil, there is only power and those too weak to see it.”

But is there any evidence that children are venturing toward occultism due to Rowling’s material? Yes. In an August 4, 2000 article titled, “Potter Fans Turning to Witchcraft” which appeared in the British Publication, This is London, Pagan Federation officer Andy Norfolk explained, “Every time an article on witchcraft or paganism appears, we had a huge surge in calls, mostly from young girls…it is quite probably linked to things like Harry Potter, Sabrina the Teenage Witch, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer.”

Many bookstores are now displaying real occult volumes next to Harry Potter volumes. The Witch and Wizard Training Guide is an appeal to child readers of Harry Potter. Here is an original review by a child. Spelling and grammar is not corrected.

“My Subject” July 2, 2002 “This book is the best subject. It's the number one magic book on my list. Harry Potter is so simalar to the world of magic. Out of the book, My favortie spell is a Sudden Sucess Spell. I tried one potion before. I think this is a great book for all ages, well at least the ones who like or love Science.”

The whole attraction to occultism is power, excitement and entertainment—all of which is available in Harry Potter. Yet, J.K. Rowling has out rightly dismissed any suggestion that some children might be turning to occultism because of her books. Ironically, on the website of Scholastic, there is a message from multiple children expressing their desire to be a witch or wizard.

“I dream about being a witch so I could get revenge on a few people.” (Rebecca, 12 years old)

“I thought the story really made you feel like you could be a witch or wizard.” (Lilly, 11 years old)

Because children are moved by powerful images and characters, they often insert themselves into a book’s characters and envision themselves doing what they see or read. They forget what they are reading is unreal. In an interview with Newsweek, Rowling confirmed this: “I get letters from children addressed to Professor Dumbledore, and it’s not a joke, begging to be let into Hogwarts, and some of them are really sad. Because they want it to be true so badly, they’ve convinced themselves it’s true.”

Even for older children who can distinguish fact from fiction, there is still a danger that some of them may become so interested with Magick and wizardry, they seek out neopaganism, which is available in the real world. A 2001 article in The Times (London) had a story that discusses how teacher’s groups in England are “worried that nobody is monitoring the effect this fascination with the occult is having on its teenage followers.” The Times also had a formal poll that “in a recent study of 2,600 children from 11-16 years old, more than half said they were interested in the occult.”

Most people rebuttal these claims with “it’s a book about good vs. evil.” This isn’t exactly true; countless articles have applauded the morality and ethics of Rowling’s “good” characters, and Rowling herself says, “I think they’re very moral books.” However, when you look at the books in depth, the morals and ethics displayed are at best inconsistent and unclear; at worst, utterly confusing. In many instances, Rowling’s “good” characters behave contrary to anything considered “good.” Harry, Hermione, Ron, Hagrid, and other “good” characters habitually lie, steal, cheat, ignore laws, break rules, and disrespect authority, as well as swear in later books. Most, if not all of Rowling’s “good” characters indulge in unethical conduct that is either rewarded or ignored. The following instances occurred in the story when no such behavior was necessary in order to combat evil, save a life or avert disaster. (NOTE: page numbers taken from Book I): Harry disobeys teachers (148-150), school rules (153-158, 209-214), and breaks wizard laws (237-241). Harry Potter also contains swearing by good characters. Mr. Weasely (“Damn”); Bill Weasely (“damn”), Ludo Bagman (“Damn them”; Cedric (“What the hell.”) are just some instances of foul language used in this children’s book. Off-color humor is rampant in the books as well, such as in Goblet of Fire, the leprechauns give “the finger” to the opposing side (“…a giant hand, which was making a very rude sign indeed.”). The only individuals who seem to care about discipline and following rules or laws are, oddly enough, “evil” characters like the Dursleys, or mean-spirited characters like Rita Skeeter (a reporter), Snape, and Hogwart’s caretaker, Argus Filch.

Harry Potter also seems to endorse drug-taking for an instant feel-good state of mind. In the Half-Blood Prince, Harry and his classmates are listening to Professor Slughorn, the potions teacher who replaced Professor Snape. He shows them a bottle of golden liquid, which Harry soon “won” by somewhat dubious means.

“…he Harry raised the little bottle and took a carefully measured gulp…then, slowly but surely, an exhilarating sense of infinite opportunity stole through him; he felt as though he could have done anything, anything at all... He got to his feet, smiling, brimming with confidence.” What similar confidence-building, highly addictive "potion" is available to thrill-seeking youth today?

What Rowling has done is a radical redefinition of good and evil. She has obscured the “mildly” evil deeds to her “good” characters behind the “horrendously” evil deeds of her “bad” characters. In other words, Rowling has made Voldemort and his followers so repulsive that the immoral and unethical deeds of Harry and other “good” characters take on an appearance of benevolence, fun, and virtue. At the end of Half-Blood Prince, when Professor Snape kills Dumbledore, this evil deed helps justify Harry’s use of dark magic to finish his mission. This is why the whole “Harry Potter is a battle between good and evil” argument is without merit.

So what can children expect to pick up from these acts of “good” characters? Several are obvious: 1) disobedience is not very serious; 2) try to get around punishment, either by lying or using connections; 3) obedience should be forsaken in favor of one’s desires; 4) sometimes it is acceptable to deceive or conceal evidence from a spouse.

While it is true that unrighteous deeds play a part in most fairy tales and fantasy adventures, there is usually an implied understanding that the characters are involved in either “evil” characters; or “good” characters are undergoing a deep internal struggle over their actions. In some cases, these “good” characters are behaving “badly” only because they are somehow being deceived or bewitched. A classic example from fantasy literature containing a more consistent and honorable morality would be The Lord of the Rings.

Most people wonder how the Lord of the Rings is different from Harry Potter when they both deal with magic and wizards. But, the magic and wizardry found in Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings is vastly different. Rowling’s fantasy includes magick, while Tolkien’s tale employs imaginative, highly stylized fairy tale magic. I pause here to explain the different between “magic” with a “c” and “Magick” with a “k”. Magic is usually put in fairy tales and fantasy, whereas magick is put under occult spells and paganism. The wizards in Lord of the Rings are, in actuality, physical manifestations of angelic-like beings known as Maiar (Silmarillion), which are different from the wizards and witches in Harry Potter; whom children and adults can closely identify to the characters.

Harry Potter contains violence and death just like Lord of the Rings, but in Lord of the Rings, the wars and battles, deaths and loss, are often in linked to any tale that deals with human tragedy and suffering. Gore for the sake of gore is not present in Lord of the Rings. Frodo, unlike Harry, defeats evil by fidelity to truth. He does not resort to lying or deception, nor does he look to the very same powers used by his foe, the evil Sauron. Harry does use some of the very same tactics employed by Voldemort and his followers, even the same magical spells.

Tolkien shows the defeat of evil cannot be obtained by gaining access to evil’s power and using it for good. The Lord of the Rings demonstrates that conquering evil depends on humility, courage, love, self-sacrifice; natural human virtues. Tolkien illustrates right and wrong (good and evil) not only through the choices his characters make, but how they affect others. Tolkien presents magic as a seductive and dangerous foe that does not rightly belong to humanity. Tolkien doesn’t even refer to his magic as magic, as proven by Galadriel’s statement to Sam when she is showing him her mirror. (“I believe this is what your kind would call “magic”.”), referring to it in as a way of life (such as electricity), unlike Harry, who is raised by Muggles (non-magical people). Wizards are human in Rowling’s world, and their powers are tapped and increased by real occultism. So, while a fan of Rowling’s could easily emulate the occult rituals in Harry Potter, the fans of Lord of the Rings would be hard-pressed to copy anything within.

In any case, Tolkien did not write his books specifically for children. Lord of the Rings was going to be a sequel to The Hobbit, but he felt it was too dark for younger children, and instead, marketed it to adults. Rowling herself said that “each Harry Potter book would progressively get darker”, yet she has expressed no desire to take her books off the children’s market and put it for adults only. Time Magazine said, “Some of the parents may want to keep Goblet of Fire away from their younger ones. The rumors that the Goblet of Fire is dark and more violent than the first one turn out to be true.”

Some people may resort to the argument that, “at least our children are reading something. Keeping Harry Potter from schools is just going to produce an illiterate society.” But think about it. It does not logically follow that widespread illiteracy among our nation’s children will be the end result of not allowing children to read one book amongst thousands of volumes unanimously viewed as appropriate for children. Plenty of literature is available. Restricting their reading would also not go against our First Amendment right, contrary to popular belief. Children are already restricted from reading and purchasing materials that state and local governments have ruled as obscene, adult, or inappropriate for children, as well as putting age limits for voting, smoking, drinking, driving, and many other things.

So, what can we do about it? Parents should have a better understanding of what goes on in the Harry Potter series, so they can know what to stop when the behaviors of their children get out of hand. Can millions of book buyers be wrong? Yes.