this really knocked me for a loop

[fpb]

And it throws an interesting light on JK Rowling's own understanding of Christianity. In this article, she claims that the HP series is basically Christian. But she also claims - read the last three paragraphs - that the current Pope belongs to "the lunatic fringe" of Christianity. I'm afraid that what we have here, however incredible it may seem, is a survival, in the twenty-first century, of that English pathology that led nineteenth-century religious writers to call Catholicism "sectarian"; the ecclesiastical version of the "Fog in the Channel, Continent cut off" mentality.

Comments

[dustthouart.livejournal.com]

She doesn't claim it. You'd have to read the actual transcript of the interview to know who she thinks is the lunatic fringe. Read it over carefully again. The Pope reference comes from the writer, and there's no indication whatsoever that it's something that Rowling mentioned or was even brought up in the interview.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

But it is by far the best known of all the negative views. Not to mention it would be like ignoring the classic elephant in the room.

[shezan.livejournal.com]

She *is* a Labour Luvvie.......

[helixaspersa.livejournal.com]

I agree. I think it's very likely that JK Rowling is anti-Catholic in that standard lazy British fashion; but I don't think she meant the Pope here. Much more likely that 'lunatic fringe' = American fundamentalists. I suspect the interviewer is revealing his/her own prejudices by inserting the bit about the Pope at that point.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

What I meant by the elephant in the room is that it is at best an assumption that the interviewer did not mention Cardinal Ratzinger as was; and it is an assumption that clashes with the fact that of all the Christian figures who expressed disapproval of the novels, he is by a million miles the most prominent. The only reason to assume that the interviewer lied is to take the benevolent view that JKR cannot possibly have said anything so stupid and provincial. Ah, but she can. She is the one who claimed that CS Lewis had condemned Susan to Hell "because she had discovered sex". I think JKR is a genius - the excellence of the Beadle the Bard tales confirms it - but I also think that she can be sensationally stupid.

[helixaspersa.livejournal.com]

I'm sure you're right that he's the most prominent single figure to condemn them; but to be honest if I think of "Christian condemnation of Harry Potter" I think of American Protestantism, not the Pope, and my *guess* (though it is just a guess) is that the average religiously-fairly-uninformed British quasi-Anglican would have the same response. The American perspective may well be different of course, in which case you may well be right that the interviewer is likely to have mentioned it in the interview him/herself. You could try writing to her and asking whom she had in mind? She's probably much too grand to reply to that kind of thing these days but it would be interesting if she did.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Both you and shezan stand a better chance of getting a response, being, in your own charming way, rather grand yourselves. However, I did write a long and very contentious essay in which I argued that the HP world is not basically Christian, whether or not JKR herself is. Unfortunately, with Fictionalley pretty much in its death throes, it is not currently accessible.

P.S.: welcome back, long time no see, and thanks for dropping in!

[fellmama.livejournal.com]

An American would certainly read Rowling's statement as a reference to fundamentalism. I'd agree with dustthouart here. You say "best known of all the negative views," but I suspect that's informed by your Roman Catholicism; an American who was not RC (offering myself as Exhibit A) mightn't automatically think of the Pope when thinking of religious condemnation of HP. And this is an article written for an American audience.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

An American audience does not necessarily mean an Evangelical audience. And JK Rowling is not American. And given that the article mentions the Pope - and the Pope alone, personally - all the other nay-sayers are passed over as one nameless massa damnata - the burden of arguing that he was not mentioned in the interview lies on you. I just have to assume that the journalist is not lying. (True, that is quite an assumption where journalists are concerned.) Anyway, without further evidence, it remains a matter of opinion. You say potayto and I say potutto, you say tomayto and I say tomutto, tomayto tomutto, let;s call the whole thing off.

But I stand by my published view that the imaginative world of HP is not Christian. Unfortunately, because of FictionAlley's ongoing troubles, the most recent version of my essay on the issue is not accessible, but you can read the first draft here.

[eliskimo.livejournal.com]

Perhaps you should upload the finished article to LJ as well.

[rfachir.livejournal.com]

I'm not going to read the interview (since I don't care what JKR intended to write, and I didn't much like the end of the series since I couldn't finish the last book.) My impression as a reader is that there was a sad lack of religion in the Wizarding Word. (Christmas and the saints are traditions and historical footnotes, without any context in history or faith. Comfort comes to Wizards from faith in Magic and Greater Wizards.) So long as there is a Dumbledore to protect and explain, a child need look no further. It is unsatisfying to me as an adult - as is much of the extra-Hogwarts world. That's why I enjoy fan fiction so much.

essay on JKR

[dr-dgo.livejournal.com]

As usual, your insights are a delight to read. Makes wish that I had had a better education and spent more time on the classics of western literature. As it now stands, the only reason that I understand English (american style) as well as I do is the various languages that I have learned (and since forgotten) in the past. I have yet to read the last book of the series, and have had it almost since it became available. Someday.

Re: essay on JKR

[fpb.livejournal.com]

>blushes<
I haven't read all the classics by a long shot. I do know how to make use of what I know, which may make it sound as if I knew more than I really do. (If you want really terrifying learning, try atheneglaukopis, for instance.) But reading the classics should be a pleasure, not a duty, and you should do it because you enjoy it. Most of them would be very disappointed otherwise.