In Defence of Harry Potter

by Susan Levy, Teacher/Librarian

It comes as no surprise that some Australian school libraries are seeking to ban Joanne Rowling's Harry Potter books from their shelves. The debate has been raging since the books first hit the bookshops, over whether the magic and dark sciences they portray warrant action by libraries to ban them on religious grounds.

Certainly there are verses in the Bible that clearly forbid the use of magic, charms and spells, which are the bread and butter of Harry Potter and the inhabitants of his world, but this is fiction and is not meant to be believed.

So what are these biblical references to the evils of magic and witchcraft? Deuteronomy XVIII, 7 forbids the use of "divination, a soothsayer or an enchanter or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or one that consulteth a ghost or familiar spirit, or a necromancer". This injunction is intended for those who might take this kind of stuff seriously, at the expense of their monotheistic religion, and has no connection with the fictional world of Harry Potter. Rowling's magic is far more pragmatic and opportunistic, and we know it is only a story. Besides, how much difference is there between a soothsayer and a prophet?

Let us remember one thing - Harry is one of the Good Guys, who, so far, have triumphed over the Bad Guys. Those who follow the Dark Side are opportunists of the first water, and the first to defect when things go wrong. A very poor example for children, and Rowling makes the most of the badness of her Bad Guys. True, there have been casualties amongst the Good Guys along the way, and Rowling has hinted at more to come, since the tragic death by magic of one of Harry's fellow students in the fourth book. As the series builds, and the plots become more complicated and serious, the reader is still firmly in Harry's corner, for we know in our hearts that he will overcome the Dark Lord in the final volume and cover himself with unwanted glory in doing so.

I think this is the crux of it - the Dark Lord Voldemort (formerly known as Tom Riddle) is Harry's nemesis, and it is here that biblical teachings run up against the dark forces of evil and black magic as they are portrayed in the books.

So are children at risk from the magical allusions in these books? Should each book carry a warning "Do not attempt this at home"? I don't think so. Children may very well make themselves wands and play games in which they enact some of the scenes in the books, but we all know that magical people don't exist and that we are all Muggles, or non-magical people (well, aren't we?), so there is no danger at all that their spells and charms could possibly work. Nor will their broomsticks fly or their pets turn into humans (or vice versa). Not in our world.

Young children will certainly delight in the ups and downs of Harry's friendship with Hermione and Ron, and in his growing antagonism with Draco Malfoy and his mates. They will laugh at gamekeeper Hagrid's inability to control his magical creatures, and at the antics of the School ghosts, and they will love the magical accidents to Harry's Muggle relations. But at the same time, they will probably miss the point of the clever puns behind most of the spells, the professors' names at the school, and other names and places. Only a well-read adult will appreciate these. Similarly, only an educated adult will grasp the significance of seemingly minor events and allusions, whose importance sometimes only becomes evident much later in the story.

Let us remember something else - these books are written for everyone, and most young children reading them will not see past the magic tricks used by Harry and his fellow wizards. In fact, many children reading them are too young and will not finish them until they are much older, for they really require a reading age of eleven or more plus a larger helping of life's experience, for full enjoyment. By the time the seventh and final volume comes out, the original readers will be old enough to re-read the series and pick up much of what they missed on the first reading. I have read the four books twice already, with lots of re-readings thrown in, and still feel I've missed a lot. A good reason for reading them yet again.

A further point in favour of Rowling's work is her magnificent writing style. These are not simple tales, but rather contain such breadth of descriptive language that one is easily transported to the scene and "sees" everything that happens. What a wonderful example to set, for children whose creative writing skills can be influenced by a favourite author, and whose imaginations are just waiting to be fired up by such richly descriptive prose. No wonder, then, that these books run to several hundred pages and are growing successively bigger. Clearly Rowling is writing for an audience that is maturing at the same rate as her characters, and hence is able to keep up with her successively more challenging narratives.

In contrast, Diana Wynne Jones's Chrestomanci series, currently enjoying a comeback, is a very simple and non-challenging set of novels set in a rather similar magical world, but without the moral dilemmas Rowling imposes on her characters. It also seriously lacks the richness of character and setting which Rowling provides on every page. The Harry Potter books are classics already, and rightly so, for that very reason.

I think we should lighten up a little. And I firmly believe that those who seek to withhold these delightful books from their children should read them first. One cannot pass judgment on a book without reading it, and an adult with responsibility for selecting children's reading materials should be able to do this with sufficient impartiality to set aside religious preconceptions in the meantime.

We must not overlook the fact that Harry Potter and his friends are good children. They are well mannered and polite, they work hard at school and do their homework, they eat their vegetables, and generally set a good example to children everywhere.
On a higher level, they definitely hold the high moral ground, being firmly on the side of good and against evil. In short, they are a credit to their parents, or in Harry's case, to the memory of his parents. Their use of magic is, barring juvenile pranks, always used to further their own safety or for the common good, and never maliciously or with intent to harm an innocent person.

So please, Librarians, don't give in to pressure without being absolutely sure in your own minds that it is right to ban these books. Far better that you should stock the books and give parents the responsibility for their own children's reading, than to withhold them from an entire community of children and adults who are certain to gain great enjoyment from reading them. If we start banning literature dealing with the supernatural, then several of Shakespeare's plays are in danger, and the works of C.S. Lewis and Tolkien, for starters. Furthermore, banning the books is guaranteed to make them forbidden fruit, and thus even more attractive to children from whom they are withheld.

To parents, I would say this: Do not dismiss these books as unsuitable on religious grounds. Rather, read them with your children, so that you can guide them and discuss the supernatural aspects with them. It will be a great experience for you all. Children do know how to distinguish fact from fiction, and with them, you will be able to delight in the antics of Rowling's characters and enjoy them vicariously again and again. After all, the reader has no moral delimma - the choice is quite clear. The Muggles are barracking for Harry Potter every time.

copyright c)2001 Susan Levy