I've participated in and watched from the sidelines plenty of "blog swarms" in my time.

Bloggers on the political side of the blogosphere constantly swarm around issues important and trivial. On the business side, bloggers can get pretty nasty with the flaming, if you can believe it (Business blogging seems so benign, doesn't it?).

There's one currently brewing in, for lack of a better word, the literary side of the blogosphere. Some college kid writing for The Stanford Daily Online tried to be clever with a malicious, un-funny bit of satire titled, A guide to effective terrorism?, written by Christopher Lin, who must be regretting his decision to write it by now.

The site will probably be slow-loading because Melissa Anelli at The Leaky Cauldron (impressive stats) got wind of it, wrote an excellent response, and linked. Here's an excerpt of Child Christopher's piece:

Just when international tension is running at fever pitch, the terrorists should move in with their piece de resistance — kidnap J.K. Rowling and hold her hostage. It’s the perfect climax for this unfortunate series of events. The world has gradually nursed a cancerous addiction to Harry Potter over the last decade, and tension is running high as the entire world awaits the seventh chronicle with bated breath. When the terrorists release footage of Rowling gagged and tied to a chair, surrounded by vaguely Middle Eastern-looking men carrying large firearms, blood will run in the streets as Potter fans accidentally stab each other while waving plastic wands in an attempt to curse the terrorists to death. Meanwhile, soldiers at the front, terrified that they’ll die before Ron gets a chance to pork Hermione, will lay down their arms, and fighting will come to a standstill until Rowling is safely recovered. Angry citizens throughout the United States and the United Kingdom will rally at their capitals, demanding concessions to all terrorist demands.

Pretty offensive stuff (the part about JKR, not Middle Eastern-looking men). Here's an excerpt of Melissa's response (wait for the jump):

It is highly inflammatory, vivid and at times grotesque, and purports to give ideas to terrorists who wish to run effective terror campaigns. Press being (thankfully) free, it does of course have every right to exist and be published - but that precious, sacred right does not exempt anyone from responsibility for what they pen.
…

I was a college journalist, and so I know where Mr. Lin is coming from; it's an exciting thing, to get your first taste of free speech, to test the boundaries with your audience, to be inflammatory because you can be, and not because it contributes something intelligent and worthwhile to the national debate. In our college newsroom we were as arrogant as any other college newsroom - we were right, the world was wrong, and why could no one see that? That time is important - it's an exhilarating and crucial pressure cooker, during which many journalists develop their tone and sense of responsibility.
…

You don't like Harry Potter? Fine, that's your right, and your right to say. You think a Harry Potter love is something to be called cancerous? Fine, that's your right, and your right to say. No one is asking everyone in the world to understand why this series has such an avid following - no one is making apologies for loving it, either. But to use such a love, such an example of fun and goodness in literature, a worldwide community who are rarely anything but understanding and loving, and the figure who means the most to them, as a reason to will violence, is horrendous.

Are HP fans too sensitive? Perhaps. To understand the weight of it all, read Melissa's entire post.

With a high-profile and beloved site like Leaky blogging about the article, I predict the mainstream media will get in on the action by tomorrow morning.

I'd read that J.K. Rowling's mother died of multiple sclerosis, but it didn't occur to me how strongly it influenced her books:

"I know I was writing Harry Potter at the moment my mother died," she says. "I had never told her about [him].

"Barely a day goes by when I do not think of her. There would be so much to tell her, impossibly much."
…

The death left her "a wreck", she says, and was the inspiration for Harry's orphan status. (Source)

I love theorizing about Harry Potter, and I'll blog about my "Who is R.A.B." theory later this week. Today I want to blog about an article I read in the Scotsman titled, "Will Harry meet his maker in final chapter?"

IT APPEARS that JK Rowling has dropped the biggest hint yet that the final Harry Potter book will spell the end for her boy wizard hero….

She said: "I contemplate the task with mixed feelings of excitement and dread, because I can't wait to get started, to tell the final part of the story and, at last, to answer all the questions."

Bloggers do it. Fans do it. Even newspaper journalists do it. We love to parse and dissect anything J.K. Rowling says about her books. Rowling's remarks give no indication to me that she plans to kill off Harry Potter, but just as Jim Dale's opinion fueled speculation, so has Rowling's hints.

The real focus of this post is the title of the story. We know that "meeting your maker" is a euphemism for death, but I think it's curious how the mention of "Harry's maker" hasn't sparked a discussion among Christian fans. In fact, I often wonder why Christians don't talk about the many references to God found in the books. Characters have been known to use words like "Lord" and "heaven," though there isn't any mention of religion per se.

What do you think about this? Have you ever discussed whether wizards and witches in Harry Potter believe in God?

The miracle of the Harry Potter series is that it keeps getting better. The genius of Ms. Rowling was her decision (probably never even seriously considered at the time) to follow Harry through his schooling. As a result, Harry's fans have never left him behind. The question is whether Ms. Rowling will be bound to him for life, as Arthur Conan Doyle was bound to Sherlock Holmes.

— Stephen King's 10 favorite books of 2005

Poor J.K. Rowling (in a figurative sense). She's always getting sideswiped by literary critics who think she's a bad writer or by Christians who think she's a witch.

A Reverend Mike Turner adds a new idea: J.K. Rowling is an inferior writer to C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien because "she has no understanding of holiness." He writes:

Holiness is a hard concept to grasp, especially in our secular world. Rudolph Otto, in his classical book on the subject, "The Idea of the Holy," said that behind all religious experience is the sense of awe and majesty that he called the numinous. This sense isn't an ordinary feeling that's simply intensified; rather, it's something that stands alone and is experienced only when we encounter the divine. We realize we're in the presence of something larger than ourselves.

That sense of the holy permeates both Narnia and Middle Earth and is the source of the wonder and delight we feel when visiting both places. In Narnia, Aslan is obviously holy as a Christ figure and, because of that holiness, stands out as the central figure in the story. The other figures in Narnia respond to that holiness either in reverence or in fear. (Source)

I agree that Aslan is represented as a Christ figure, and although we may not feel a sense of "awe" about him, so does Albus Dumbledore in the Harry Potter books. I really liked Richard Harris's portrayal of Dumbledore. Harris was obviously frail at that point in his life and probably knew the end was near. This gave his character a certain otherworldliness and quiet dignity. Dumbledore is a Christ-like figure, and Harris brought out that quality much more than Michael Gambon does.

Turner adds that Rowling's good characters are flat while the evil ones are much more interesting. For a children's book, he insists, this is disturbing. Well, he may have a point about the good characters.

But I'll put a different spin on it. No doubt evil itself can be intriguing. Knowing what I know of God, as revealed in Scripture and in my own life, he is awesome (to understate the matter), and we would do well to fear him in that sense. Knowing that there will be an accounting when Christ comes and that every man will be judged for everything he's ever said and done, I'm astounded that wretched man continues to live in rebellion against his Creator.

The Bible teaches that one day, everyone will know that Christ is the Son of God. What will the unrepentant feel at that moment? It will be too late for repentance. Will they be sorry? Will they make excuses? Will they remain defiant? They will suffer in damnation forever, apart from God. Yet while they're still living, they continually reject God in spite of the suffering to come. To me, such a person is foolishly interesting. I pray for them, but at the same time, I'm left speechless by their nerve. It's like slowing down to watch a horrible accident with blood and limbs strewn about. I can't bear to watch it, yet, I can't turn away.

Turner points out that Lewis and Tolkien were "devout Christians" who understand that "the world is a fundamentally moral place where the presence of the divine can be experienced," and he implies that Rowling isn't a "devout" Christian.

There's much to be said about that statement, but I'll save it for a different post. I'd like to say, though, that Rowling is a member of the Church of Scotland, but she's never talked about her faith. John Granger posits that she hasn't done so yet because learning details about her faith may give away the plots in her books.

J.K. Rowling has become such a guarded woman through the years that when she speaks publicly about her books, it's a big deal. As I'm sure is the case with most celebrities harassed by the press, Rowling has a cynical view of journalists.

The character Rita Skeeter (blood-sucking mosquito?) is probably a composite of all the bad reporters, particularly tabloid journalists, she's had to deal with over the years, especially the ones lying in wait outside her home in Scotland to catch a glimpse of her and family.

Rowling was recently interviewed on BBC radio by Stephen Fry, who provides the voice for the United Kingdom version of the Harry Potter audio books. Download the MP3 here, or you can also read the transcript at the Leaky Cauldron.

(By the way, I haven't read the transcript. Notes are based on the interview.)

Continue reading Notes on J.K. Rowling's Interview with Stephen Fry

I saw this article in the sidebar news ticker this morning about whether young children should see the Goblet of Fire, and it reminded me of e-mails from folks asking if I think young children should read Harry Potter. This is a sensitive area because I think reasonable parents know what's best for their own children.

Author J.K. Rowling said:

I didn't write with a target audience in mind. What excited me was how much I would enjoy writing about Harry. I never thought about writing for children– children's books chose me. I think if it is a good book anyone will read it. (Source)

I'm not a parent, so I can only tell you what I think I'd do if I were parent. My opinion on this issue presupposes that the children in question are growing up in a Christian home and are part of a Christian community with regular church attendance and Bible study. My under-12 child would not read the Harry Potter books. Children can sometimes confuse fantasy and reality, and I'd want them to understand the difference before I'd let them read fantasy literature like Harry Potter, which does contain supernatural and often "scary" graphic depictions. At age 12 they may be far beyond such confusion, but I'd use that age as a cut-off point. It really depends on your child and how you're teaching him.

Continue reading Young Children and Harry Potter