The Hairy Potter

Welcome back Friar. After a long absence, we have all three abbey members posting in the same week. This is great!

Just so everyone is clear, I have not read any of the Potter books. However my opinions are not of the nature that make others think I wear tight pants. To address the fair friar’s first question, yes, there is a difference between Tolkien and Rowlings, and no its not simply a difference in gender. To put it simply, Tolkien and Lewis are 32oz Porterhouses, with AuGratin potatoes and a side of broiled asparagus, finished off with a fine, mellow glass of Pinot Noir. Rowlings is like Slimfast. There is still nourishment there, but of a different degree. This is explained by my response to his next question.

The presuppositionalist will readily see the underpinnings of Christianity in Harry Potter. This is natural, and holds true for any good story. Christianity is the only worldview that works, that is consistent with nature, and our experiences in this world. Science and the demigods in white coats, followed by the relativists of our own generation will say differently in print. However, they will not, cannot live their life consistently, if they wish to live their life. As I said, the story of Scripture is the only story that works. Therefore, if you wish to write a fiction that works, key elements of the Story need to be intact. For instance, if you end a story with a nihilistic death, with nothing afterwards and no meaningful outcome, nobody is going to read the book. It simply wont sell. However, if there is some sort of resurrection following the death, whether actual or symbolic, there is a sense of rest, that resolves the tension of death. You don’t have to be a Christian to understand this. This is something that is hardwired into mankind. Only believers, however, have the resources to explain why this is so.

So back to Harry and Frodo. The reason why Potter works (again, at least from what I have heard) is because it borrows elements from the Real Story, such as good beating evil, though evil is real and nasty. To my knowledge, Rowlings does this unintentionally, mixing in her own thoughts. To use another analogy, the Potter books are like cupcakes made with the flour and baking powder of Christian thought, but mixed with the flavor and frosting of Rowlings own personal worldview. Here is where we Christians practice our discernment. Just because she uses two cups of truth, does not make the whole cupcake good. There might be some redeeming value in reading it, and it can simply be a lark in a park. But if we only see the two cups of truth and not the sprinkles of disbelief, we are setting ourselves up for a fall. This is simply a call for us to be aware. Reading Potter is not a sin, and we should read them. But I agree with the JF that a steady diet, and a narrow diet of Potteresque books is dangerous for the soul.

That said, a few comments on Tolkien and Lewis. I have not read Potter, but I have had a steady diet of these two greats. Similar subject matter, right? So what’s the difference? Tolkien and Lewis both wrote their fictions from within the paradigm of faith. Their own personal convictions were such that they believed Scripture and the Story of the Gospel to be the Story of all Stories. This inevitably shaped and molded their own hand as they wrote. This is clearly evident in reading their works. The more Truth they personally took in, the more Truth came out through their fingers. It is simple proportions. Rowlings swallows two cups truth, and puts out two cups truth. Tolkien and Lewis daily eat loaves and loaves of truth, and therefore put out rich and meaty works, overflowing with the richness of their diet. We cannot separate a work from its author, as some have tried. We cannot separate a creation from its creator. Therefore we must study both, as each informs us of the other. So the call is to read, but to read wisely and with a mind to engage and discover.