Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
325 of 351 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Not worthwhile for either HP fans or skeptics, June 14, 2001
In my judgment, this book is poorly organized in that the author gets confusingly sidetracked into tangents that have no bearing on the discussion at hand. The narrative includes repetitive phrasing, making the same basic points in numerous places. Most all of the favorable reviews of this book cite its extensive documentation, even to the point of emphasizing that the book includes hundreds of footnotes. Perhaps these reviewers are more impressed by quantity than quality as even cursory examination of the author's sources should raise some reasonable doubts about the nature of the underlying research. Abanes relies heavily on sources of questionable authority for the propositions he sets forth. A 6th grader doing his/her first research report uses encyclopedias and dictionaries as sources; a scholarly "expert" in a field should be using more credible sources. He quotes the Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology over and over. He also relies heavily on websites as sources. He doesn't cite sources for some of his less credible claims (such as his assertion that numerous Christian experts on occultism object to the HP books - if this is true, why no source?). Abanes has asserted (and at least one review notes) that Rowling said that one-third of the material in the HP books is based on "actual occultism." Perhaps I don't understand Mr. Abanes' definition of "occultism," but Rowling's actual words in the interview he cites were that approximately one-third of the material in the books is based on British folklore and legends. Myths, legends and folk tales hardly constitute "occultism," in the mind of the average person; they are rather part of our rich cultural and literary heritage. He also stretches logic beyond credulity with his statement that Rowling has failed to disavow all forms of magick in her interviews. Abanes chooses to put a very strained interpretation on her exact wording to sow seeds of doubt among less-informed readers. Reading the actual interviews that Abanes cites is advisable before jumping to conclusions. He also states that Rowling has refused to divulge her religious beliefs (although he acknowledges several chapters later that she has said she believes in God). Abanes is misstaken in this research however, as she has stated clearly in one interview that she attends the Church of Scotland. The summaries of each book are hardly objective. Abanes omits or glosses over scenes and dialogue that detract from his basic points about the moral relativism and questionable ethics the books promote. While he should be commended for reading the books since so many of the books' critics have never read them, it appears to me that he read them with an eye to finding critical points that could in turn be worked into this book. In each of the chapter summaries, Abanes includes a Heading that reads: "Age 6 and Up?" I was baffled by this heading, since he doesn't elaborate as to who promotes the books for 6 year olds. The publishers market them to 9-12 year olds, and Rowling herself has said she wrote the books as something she herself (and presumably other adults) would enjoy. Abanes' primary problem with the books, and with Harry in particular, seems to center around rule-breaking and lying. Abanes makes frequent reference to the fact that the characters don't adhere to the Biblical definitions of "good" and "evil." Funny, I must have missed it if the Bible has a definitions section. He charges that Harry doesn't suffer consequences for his actions and that he acts only out of self-interest. I can't help wondering if Abanes read the same books the rest of us have if he believes that Harry suffers no consequences for misdeeds and acts only out of self-interest! For example, when he sneaks into Hogsmeade in the third book, Harry doesn't get expelled or detention, but the harsh reprimand about his parents' sacrifice from Professor Lupin was no doubt a heavier punishment by far than receiving detention. How Harry's quest to stop the sorcerer's stone from falling into the hands of the evil Lord Voldemort, his rescue of a fellow student in the second book, his rescue of his godfather (and Buckbeak) and his show of mercy to the man responsible for the murder of his parents in Book 3 and his escape from a resurrected Lord Voldemort in the fourth book constitutes a "selfish agenda" is a mystery to me. Abanes also argues that the books include gratuitous violence, but he never elaborates on which scenes might be considered gratuitous. Since he charges the books with humor that borders on perversity, it should be no surprise that Abanes has completely missed Rowling's points about divination, which is conveyed through humor. Much of the authors' arguments against the book center around their promotion of what he terms "magick" (occultism, including astrology, divination, fortune-telling, etc.). He must have been so bent on finding some element of "occultism" to seize on as evidence of the problems with these books that he missed Rowling's sarcastic jibes at divination. At one point in the third book, Professor McGonagall remarks that "True Seers are very rare," which is a pointed but diplomatic criticism of Divination instructor Sibyll Trelawney, yet Abanes asserts that her remark implies that McGonagall is endorsing divination. He misses the point entirely. He states that astrology is blatantly practiced at Hogwarts, but fails to notice that it is used as comic relief. Rowling is clearly making fun of it! Abanes compares and contrasts the HP series with the Chronicles of Narnia and the works of Tolkien. I found this section to be alarmingly conclusory given that the HP series is only half-way finished. Abanes makes several judgments about the HP series and its ultimate resolution that simply cannot be supported given current information. In conclusion, I obviously don't recommend this book.
|
|
|
218 of 246 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Two Thoughts for Ten Bucks, July 24, 2001
Richard Abanes takes almost 300 pages to convey two main ideas.... Way too much, in my humble opinion.MAIN IDEA 1 The Harry Potter books will/may encourage kids to take an interest in the occult. That is bad. -- Abanes provides anecdotal evidence that suggests a spike in English kids' interest in Wicca and other non-mainstream spiritual paths. -- To his credit, Abanes distinguishes between Wicca and Satanism. He stops short of saying that HP drives kids to the devil, but his dwelling on Satanism (including a lengthy digression about a teen on death row) seems implicitly to suggest that today's Harry Potter readers are tomorrow's devil worshippers. -- Abanes bases his objection to occult practices on the assertion that the Bible forbids them. And I'm sure it does. But I'd hoped for more thoughtful reasoning that just "The Bible says...." Why are occult practices harmful? Are they all equally harmful? And so forth. -- Abanes never really engages the key point of WHY kids are so into Harry Potter. (Chalking it all up to marketing is a cop-out.) Clearly, Rowling connects with many modern readers in ways that Christianity doesn't. Why? How? If, as Abanes clearly believes, Christianity has better stories to tell, how can Christians set about telling them effectively? MAIN IDEA 2 Rowling's books do not accord with biblical ethics. That is bad. -- Much of Abanes's unhappiness on this front stems from his unexamined and highly flawed premise that a children's story is (or should be) a normative portrayal of human behavior. In particular, he laments that Harry and co. don't "suffer" as a result of their rule-breaking. Well, life ain't normative. The race is not always to the swift, the election not always to the guy who got more votes. Rowling's ability to reflect reality is a big part of her strength as a storyteller--and of the books' popularity. (I increasingly see HP not as fantasy but as satire.) Abanes seems to assume that Rowling approves of Harry's every move, which I rather doubt. -- In slamming Harry Potter's failures to respect authority, Abanes takes a pitifully simplistic approach to the immensely complicated question of obedience. (At one point, he approvingly quotes the loathsome Snape, which I found interesting.) Like it or not, we all know that earthly rules are neither perfect nor absolute. Abolitionists rightly defied the authorities by helping slaves escape. Resistance workers in WW2 rightly broke the law by hiding Jews. (In "The Hiding Place," Corrie ten Boom talks movingly about doing "wrong" to fight the Nazis.) And let's not forget that Jesus clashed with Snape-like critics about broken rules. A key part of the moral journey--or of a good story--is learning whom, when, and why to obey. Only cardboard characters follow rules without questions. -- Abanes's simple pronouncements aren't much practical help to parents and teachers whose kids are reading or hearing about Harry Potter. Instead of just wishing the books would go away, why not use them as an educational tool? Talk about what Harry does wrong--and right. Compare these stories with other sources. (How does Harry's lying, for instance, stack up against Jacob's getting Esau's inheritance by fraud?) Teach kids to ask and answer moral questions. BOTTOM LINE The more I reflect on Abanes's work, the more I think it constitutes the first rough notes toward what could be an enormously interesting book. Maybe someday he'll write it.
|
|
|
72 of 79 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
I read Harry Potter. Did Abanes ever read it?, May 25, 2002
I think not.The author of this book twists and distorts the Harry Potter books into an almost unrecognizeable shape, and then criticizes the inaccurate representations he created. His arguments are one straw man after another. Here are just a few examples: Page 16: "Muggles are consistently portrayed by Rowling as a narrow-minded and callous group of persons unable to grasp the glory of magic." This is entirely untrue. Harry's best friend is Ron Weasley. Ron Weasley's father is a low-level bureaucrat in the wizarding hierarchy, whose duties lie in hiding the use of magic from muggles. He is repeatedly amazed at the ways muggles manage to accomplish things without the use of magic, and finds muggle items like telephones to be absolutely ingenious. After Ron Weasley, the second major supporting character in the Harry Potter books is Hermione Granger -- a muggle who comes from a family of muggles, and is the first person in her family to ever study magic. The only person in the books who holds muggles in contempt is Draco Malfoy, a student at the school who comes from a long line of wizards, and who Abanes himself describes on page 17 as "mean-spirited, arrogant, and deceitful." Draco Malfoy, not J.K. Rowling, consistently holds muggles in contempt, and the protagonists of the stories argue against that notion at every turn. There's no way a rational person can miss these facts in reading the Harry Potter books. Chapter 2 of this book supposedly deals with the occult elements in Harry Potter, but only 4 of the first 31 references are from the Harry Potter books. The other 27 are from other sources. Abanes blows smoke like this throughout the book -- he will mention the Harry Potter books, then make citations about some other book, then mention Harry Potter again, and make another irrelevent citation. It's an attempt at guilt by association. He also cites connections to Greek language and mythology as though they are ties to the occult. Abanes's other main argument in this chapter is that Harry is a bad role model for children because he displays poor ethics in the book by repeatedly breaking rules at Hogwarts. Pinocchio had Jiminy Cricket, The Little Mermaid had Sebastian, and Harry Potter has Hermione. This is a fundamental character structure found throughout children's literature -- the flawed main character disobeys authority and is constantly reprimanded by a supporting character who serves as the protagonist's conscience. The interactions between Harry Potter and Hermione that Abanes cites on pages 34-36 are identical to those in Pinocchio or The Little Mermaid. If Abanes intends to condemn Harry Potter on these grounds, then he is making a sweeping condemnation of virtually all classic children's literature. And if he thinks heroes who make poor ethical decisions are unbiblical, he obviously has never read the bible. Adam, Moses, Jonah, King David, Joseph's brothers... Need I continue? To show how magical fantasy stories can be done consistently with the bible, Abanes cites Tolkein and C.S. Lewis, and claims on page 234 that "Tolkein's stories do not include episodes of good characters doing bad things (e.g. lying to friends or stealing from authority figures) in order to accomplish a good task." Once again, however, Abanes is 100% wrong.
In The Hobbit, Bilbo lies repeatedly about the magic ring to the dwarves and to Gandalf, until he is forced by circumstances to reveal the truth. And later, when Thorin Oakenshield is searching Smaug's lair with the other dwarves for the Arkenstone (which rightfully belongs to him), Bilbo steals the Arkenstone, hides it from the others, and lies about it for days. Then, after lying once more to his friend Bombur who was on sentry duty, Bilbo hands the Arkenstone over to Thorin's enemies in order to force Thorin to negotiate for its return. There you have multiple examples of Tolkein's characters doing precisely what Abanes claims they never did -- lying to their friends and stealing from authority figures. How did he possibly overlook these when he made that patently false claim? It seems to me that Abanes began by concluding that Harry Potter was bad, and tried desperately to find justification for his position in the Harry Potter books. If you've never read Harry Potter or Tolkein, Abanes is probably very convincing. But if you have read these books, you've got to wonder whether Abanes ever did.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by John Granger
by Connie Neal
by Francis Bridger
See all Editorial Reviews
