| Great and terrible|
|On our shelf:|
| As performed by|
|By the powers of woo|
“”Harry's world says that drinking dead animal blood gives power, a satanic human sacrifice and Harry's powerful blood brings new life, demon possession is not spiritually dangerous, and that passing through fire, contacting the dead, and conversing with ghosts, others in the spirit world, and more, is normal and acceptable.
|—Harry Potter: Witchcraft Repackaged, a DVD incapable of making a distinction between fantasy novels and the occult or even getting what is in said novels right.|
Harry Potter, a series of seven (or so) fantasy novels by British author J.K. Rowling, relates the adventures of a teenage boy and of his two best friends who attend a school of "witchcraft and wizardry", learning a whole range of magical skills and fighting Dark Magic and evil, and how Alan Rickman got snubbed of another Oscar.
The series portrays good triumphing over evil and became a literary and critical success. Nevertheless, fundamentalist religious groups condemn it as a harmful work which will seduce children into the occult and witchcraft. In the United States (the so-called "great land of liberty") the books have become the most challenged of the 21st century. Fortunately for Harry Potter fans, magic and witchcraft are only a concern if you're living in the 17th century or living in Africa or Indonesia or Papua New Guinea in the present century.
There have been dozens of legal cases concerning copyright infringement, libel and breach of contract involving the Potterworld. Flocks of religious leaders (plus Jack Chick) have fulminated against the series.
Note however that many moderate and some evangelical Christians have spoken out in favour of the books. While the Catholic Church has no official position, many Cardinals are against the books. It seems that once people make the distinction between fiction and real belief in magic, they can see past any objections to demons and witchcraft to realise what the series actually supports.
Islamic fundamentalists have denounced the series. The Islamic preacher Sheik Feiz Muhammad regarded the books and films as "Satanic" and claimed they were introducing young children to pagan rituals (such as the drinking of goat's blood) which Islam forbids. The esteemed Sheik also criticized Muslim parents who allow their children to watch the films or read the books, claiming they were being irresponsible.
Furthermore, the drinking of dead animal blood, Satanic human sacrifice, demonic possession etc. described in the quote at the top of the page, are actions practiced by the book's Wilhelm-screaming [note 1] antagonist, Lord Voldemort, the murderer of Harry's parents; the books do not exactly present Voldemort as a morally praiseworthy figure.
As to the claims that the books promote witchcraft by teaching impressionable children to cast spells, well… we hate to break it to you, but the spells described in the books don't work in real life.
Satirical-news source The Onion, in its inimitable style, once ran a spoof of the fundamentalists' claims, saying that children really were converting to Satanism because of the books. As if to prove their own idiocy to anyone yet unconvinced, the fundies took the article as proof that they were right.
And pull out your irony
Rowling is a Christian herself—the final book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, contains an epigraph from the Gospels (Matthew 6:21), Harry's parents' gravestones display another Bible quote (1 Corinthians 15:26) and Rowling also has a scene where Harry sacrifices his own life and is resurrected and then proceeds to save everybody.[note 2] Oops, spoiler....
The Harry Potter novels have also been subject to serious social scrutiny, with studies of the series' political intricacies performed by columnists, professors and doctoral students alike. As of 2007, the catalog of the Library of Congress has recorded 21 volumes of criticism and interpretation, and at least seven master’s dissertations and 17 doctoral theses have been devoted to the Harry Potter books. Seriously.
From the concepts of hierarchy and purity found in the relations between pure-blooded and muggle-born wizards to the struggle for House Elf freedom, equality is a central theme of the books. It portrays dishonest and incompetent government and media and paints war as a great evil in which innocent people die. The school which Harry attends, Hogwarts, is multicultural, multiracial, and (seemingly) secular. Some critics have, however, called the books patronising and conservative, or alternatively sexist and neoconservative. This is odd, since 1. Rowling herself is a staunch Labour supporter (though is very critical of Jeremy Corbyn); and 2. Hermione.
Rowling also outed Dumbledore, one of the stories' most important characters, saying "I like to think of him as gay." Notably, she did so not in the text of the books, but during a PR event after the release of the final novel. This must rank as one of the greatest achievements in having one's cake and eating it too, since Rowling gets credit for standing up for LGBT recognition without damaging her book sales or outraging her readership in a world where gay central characters are still a rarity in mainstream literature and taboo in children's fiction. She however seems to be at least sympathetic towards the TERF cause, though.
Unrelated controversies include comparisons to some older book series such as the Howl's Moving Castle and Wizard's Hall (The Worst Witch is the most commented-on), which have resulted in accusations of plagiarism, or (far worse) being derivative. The works feature frumpy and disaster-prone protagonists, a couple of loyal best friends (one book-smart and rational, one street-smart and slightly problematic), a blond and rich but cowardly and rather inefficient rival, a scary and seemingly unfair potions teacher with hidden depths, a childish headmaster with a penchant for candy, and a big bad guy who desires the destruction of the protagonist after their fateful first encounter. Whether this is more than just a re-hashing of tropes is a matter of debate. Some fans, especially older ones, also believe that Rowling's later additions to the franchise are inferior to the original seven novels, with some outright comparing her work to that of George Lucas on the later Star Wars films, though one could hardly throw a rock within geek culture without running into similar complaints regarding one particular franchise or another.
- Damn you, Rowling.
- Religion in Harry Potter, Skeptic
- Boolean Union Tract Dissections review of The Truth For Youth's Hairy Polarity and the Sinister Sorcery Satire comic
- Harry Potter's big con is the prose
- Harry Potter and the childish adult
- Though, technically, the scream isn't actually the Wilhelm.
- We're kind of over-exaggerating a bit, because it's implied in the final epilogue that he lived a fairly normal life after that.
- Harry Potter tops list of most challenged books of 21st century, American Library Association
- Harry Potter — Sheik Feiz Muhammad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JHc6m3Y2ss
- Avada Kedavra, bitches!
- Harry Potter and Satanism, Snopes
- Pottering Around, Inside Higher Ed
- "Why Harry Potter doesn't cast a spell over me", The Guardian
- "Hogwarts is a winner because boys will be sexist neocon boys", The Sunday Times
- J.K. Rowling at Carnegie Hall Reveals Dumbledore is Gay, The Leaky Cauldron
- JK Rowling Confirms Stance Against Transgender Women, Medium, 24 June 2019
- See the Wikipedia article on Harry Potter influences and analogues.
- Farrow, Max. "J.K. Rowling Is Turning Into George Lucas." ScreenRant, 25 November 2018 (recovered 30 April 2019).