July 2007 Archives

By Orson Scott Card

Spoiler alert: This post reveals the ending of Book Seven.

So we’ve lived in J.K. Rowling’s moral universe for a decade now, seven volumes worth. Where did she take us, and to the degree that we have been reshaped (or reaffirmed) by that moral universe, what has she made of us?

What hath Harry Potter wrought?

In a response to my previous post, Janet Zuk wrote: “I also do not think that Harry truly represents a "Christ" figure in the books, and more especially in Book 7. I do however think that there is much evidence that the characters act in the spirit of Christ.”

Zuk then makes a sound case for this. And we could speculate for a long time about just how much Christianity permeates the moral universe of J.K. Rowling.

One does not have to be a Christian, or a believer of any kind, to have a strong influence from the public religion of the culture one grew up in. Unlike Philip Pullman, for instance, who is so obsessed with Christianity that he spent the third volume of His Dark Materials making savage, one-sided attacks on a religion very much like the good old C of E, J.K. Rowling seems to ignore Christianity itself, including only the superficially Christian aspects of Christmas — the gift giving, the decorations, the bangers, but not much in the way of mangers or angels.

In fact, though, one can see in this, not hostility, but rather a kind of reverence.

If Rowling thought of Christianity as a quaint cultural phenomenon merely, she might have been tempted to have funny stuff from Christian folk culture as well as pre- and extra-Christian European folk culture.

For instance, I can imagine a version of Harry Potter where, right along with the castle ghosts, all the students had funny little guardian angels paired with devils trying to turn them toward right or wrong.

And along with the portraits on the walls, the Virgin Mary might be popping up in sightings everywhere — in woodgrain patters on furniture, in figurines found by schoolchildren on the Hogwarts playing field.

There could be a professor of hagiography, teaching students which saint to pray to for particular miracles to counter spells and curses.

Do you see how easy it would have been? Now, one could speculate that Rowling’s motive in not literalizing Christian folk beliefs in the Harry Potter universe was to keep from alienating Christian readers. But considering how some Christian readers responded to the book as it is, one could only conclude that any such aim was only partially successful.

In fact, though, there is no reason to posit some venal motive for Rowling’s choices here. She knew that for most of the worldwide anglophone culture (for she certainly was not thinking of translations of her first book when she wrote it and was thrilled with a 500-copy first printing), witches and magic were part of the cultural memory but not a matter of serious belief.

Witches were part of Halloween, or of long-past superstitions. It was fun to for her to explain just when the Wizarding World went “underground” and show wizards and witches as living among us yet blissfully unfamiliar with our ways. Her story was funny and scary by turns.

Yet she never even approached the line between these lightly-held beliefs and the more deeply-held beliefs of Christianity. This says nothing about what she herself believes about particular doctrines of Christianity, but it says much about what she treats with respect.

The result was that most readers were immediately comfortable in the world of Harry Potter and stayed that way. Only a few people in our culture really believe in witches of the Halloween or Salem varieties (and those mostly condemned the books). So she could redefine them how she wished.

I have had people ask me why, as a believing (nontraditional) Christian, I didn’t show God taking action in the worlds of my science fiction. My answer was simple enough: I don’t take sacred things and make light of them. When I take stories from scripture, I treat the source material with great respect; and, above all, I do not invent cool stuff for God to do in my stories.

As with Lord of the Rings, there might be an offstage purposer (Gandalf’s assertion that certain things were “meant” to take place), never named or seen; but his hand remains invisible, and the mortals are left to work things out pretty much on their own, with no certainty about what was “meant” or even fated to take place.

Rowling keeps about the same distance from God that Tolkien did in his great fantasy work. That is, she is willing to have quite astonishing confluences of events that lead to fortunate outcomes. Cynics might call them coincidences, but not so, or not in the pejorative sense. If Harry had just happened to get the want that was the twin of Voldemort’s, we might groan; but instead we are told that the wand chooses the wizard, so the confluence of events is not random coincidence, it is instead the natural outcome of what has gone before.

When Rowling first told us that it was “love” that saved Harry Potter from Voldemort’s killing curse, I almost gagged. Oh, no! I inwardly cried. She’s going to sink into maudlin banality!

By Patrick Rothfuss

Spoiler Alert: Jesus Dies.

Fair warning: I'm going to speak plainly about book seven here. Also, I'm going to talk about what happens in the end of the Bible, and give away some of the major plot points of the Tao Te Ching. So if you're worried about having the endings ruined, you'll probably want to go finish those books first and come back later.

Harry as Jesus

I agree with Orson. I think we can very comfortably put the whole issue of Potter-as-Christ-Figure to bed.

When answering the question "Is Harry a Christ figure?" Orson exhibits wisdom and moderation, giving a qualified no. I, however, being neither moderate or wise, am willing to go all the way and answer with a unhesitating "no." Extra no. Double-plus no.

Yes, yes, there are a few similarities. Yes Harry is willing to sacrifice himself for others. He dies (kinda) and comes back.

But after that, you really have to start scrabbling to come up with connections. I spotted a chart where someone lists all the multifarious similarities between Harry and Jesus. The list includes the fact that they both had father figures. (Harry: Dumbledore. Jesus: God the Father.) They both suffered. (Harry: Cruciatus curse. Jesus: Hung on the cross.) Both of them even had a decent into the "nether regions." (Harry descends into the Chamber of Secrets. Jesus descends into hell.)

Well, this brilliant and insightful list got me thinking. Last night I had a descent into my basement where I did some laundry. It was dark down there, and I stubbed my toe really hard. (You know how much that hurts when you bang your little toe? I bet it's as least as bad as the Cruciatus curse.) Then my dad called me on the phone and I realized that I have a father figure too! Wow! What are the odds?

So does this make me a Christ figure? No. Anyone thick enough to believe that would be really shocked to hear the words that came out of my mouth after I stubbed my toe. Trust me, it wasn't anything so noble and plaintive as, "Eloi Eloi...."

Of all the irritating literary games people play, Find-the-Jesus is one of the most wearying to me. Not every book has Christ symbolism. Let it go.

People use stairs. People suffer. People have fathers. People make noble sacrifices. And, in fantastic stories, people come back from the dead. Odin did it. Osirus did it. Sherlock Holmes did it. Buffy did it. Spock did it. Hell... Voldemort died and came back. It takes more than that to make a Christ figure.

By Orson Scott Card

It has truly been a pleasure to converse — or at least take turns speaking — with Dr. Mohler. His attitude of quiet analysis is a refreshing change from the vitriol and slander that I’ve seen from so many of his denomination when they talk about my religion.

His final message is reassuring in many ways. First, his assurance that Mormons can be good citizens and should not be deprived of their right to an equal place in the American political scene should be adopted as the guideline for people of all denominations.

It is hard to think of any religion that is not persecuted somewhere. The world is full of religions because people do not agree about the nature or even the existence of divinity; yet America was founded on a commitment to the idea that differing opinions about God should not be factored into a person’s eligibility for public office.

When Dr. Mohler quotes Paul’s warning that the Church of Christ should reject “a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you,” we Mormons wholeheartedly agree. We believe, and history supports, that the “traditional Christianity” that Dr. Mohler so able explicates is remote indeed from the gospel that Paul taught.

So I am happy to accept the formulation suggested by Dr. Mohler’s last sentence: “Mormonism is not just another form of Christianity — it is incompatible with ‘traditional Christian orthodoxy.’”

Amen! Absolutely correct! We send out missionaries to every country that will allow them to enter precisely because we believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ is incompatible with “traditional Christian orthodoxy.”

By Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

I am pleased to have engaged in this discussion with Orson Scott Card. I will hope to meet him more personally in the future. It appears that we are not really discussing the same question, however.

My response to the question posed to me remains as it was from the start. Mormonism is not compatible with “traditional Christian orthodoxy.” As a matter of fact, this is the essence of Mormon identity, and Mormon authorities going back to Joseph Smith were quick to separate Mormonism from “traditional Christian orthodoxy” as accepted by the Christian churches.

Indeed, the subtitle printed on The Book of Mormon is “Another Testament of Jesus Christ.” A “testament,” that is, other than that accepted by the historic Christian churches.

The debate has never been about whether Mormons are good Americans or would make good neighbors. I dare say that most American Evangelicals and traditional Roman Catholics would find more in common with Mormons in terms of child-rearing, sexual morality, the protection of marriage and family, and a host of other issues, than they would with liberal Catholics or liberal Protestants. No argument there.

The debate is not over Mitt Romney or his right to run for President of the United States. That is a settled constitutional fact – and a fact for which we should all be thankful. Nor is it about whether Evangelicals should vote for Mitt Romney. There is so much to admire in the man’s marriage and family and leadership ability. This question is very complicated – as is the case with almost all political questions.

The debate is not over the right of Mormons to hold their faith, promote their faith, and spread their faith. That, too, is a constitutional right – the same right that protects the religious liberty of all persons of all faiths and no faith.

For me, and as the question was posed to me, the issue is theological. That is why I cannot answer the question except as I have from the start.

Here is the bottom line. As an Evangelical Christian – a Christian who holds to the “traditional Christian orthodoxy” of the Church – I do not believe that Mormonism leads to salvation. To the contrary, I believe that it is a false gospel that, however sincere and kind its adherents may be, leads to eternal death rather than to eternal life.

Indeed, I believe that Mormonism is a prime example of what the Apostle Paul warned the Church to reject – “a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you” [Galatians 1:8-9].

And thus I must end where I began. Mormonism is not just another form of Christianity – it is incompatible with “traditional Christian orthodoxy.”

By Orson Scott Card

(I’m assuming that anyone reading this essay has already finished "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows." If you haven’t, stop reading now, and get back to J.K. Rowling so you’ll know what I’m talking about, and I won’t spoil the story for you.)

Until this seventh book, the answer to “Is Harry Potter a Christ figure” has been “no.”

And even now, despite the obvious similarity, I still say a qualified no.

Yes, Harry does voluntarily go to his death in order to save, not the lives of his fellow war fighters (for no one believes that Voldemort will actually keep his word), but rather the future of the human race, from domination by irresistible evil. And he does so knowing that his “father”—Dumbledore—wishes him to do it.

Yes, after being slain by the evil enemy, he spends a short time in a sort of nonce world and then returns to life. In a sense he has already beaten Voldemort, but there is yet a final battle between them, in which Potter is triumphant and the world is saved. Not only that, but he continues to bear, not the stigmata, but still a stigma—the lightning scar.

But these similarities are relatively very slight, and such hero-sacrifice myths are common to many cultures.

Let’s take just a moment to note the huge dissimilarities:

By Patrick Rothfuss The day "Deathly Hallows" came out, I was a family vacation in the distant northern corner of Wisconsin. I found myself in a cabin with no internet. There was a small town with no library. No public...

By Orson Scott Card Editor's Note: This blog post reveals plot points in the first third of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows." Good people doing bad things — or rumored to have done them. Bad people doing noble things...

By Orson Scott Card Editor's Note: This blog post does not reveal any plot points in "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows." "Jane, you ignorant sl--..." Oh, wait, I'm showing my age. Just because I'm in a two-person debate in...

By Patrick Rothfuss I knew anticipation of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" had reached ridiculous levels when one of my friends uttered the words: "Accio Book Seven!" What was truly surprising is that instead of being shunned by everyone...

By Orson Scott Card A few days from now, J.K. Rowling will bring the Harry Potter series to an end. Well, actually, she brought it to an end months ago. But by the end of this week, we will finally...

Patrick Rothfuss is the author of the acclaimed first book The Name of the Wind, a fantasy novel which details the adventures of a young magician. He lives in central Wisconsin where he teaches at the local university. In his...

Best known for his science fiction novels "Ender's Game" and "Ender's Shadow," award-winning writer Orson Scott Card is also a committed Latter-day Saint. He has written screenplays for animated children's videos from the New Testament and Book of Mormon, and...

By Orson Scott Card There is a sort of comfortableness that can settle in with majoritarians. A complacency that allows one to be picky and exclusive. I remember getting this feeling when I lived in Utah. I moved to the...

By Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. I appreciate Orson Scott Card’s response to my first entry, and his rather lengthy essay can serve to move the discussion along. The first matter of concern is to clarify the question. When I...