Why does the religious right in the U S condemn fantasy?
Cockrell (2004) discusses many points all of which are intertwined in some way and explain reasons as to why the religious right in the U S condemns fantasy. Firstly, Cockrell (2004) discusses a study by Majorie T aylor and Stephanie M. Carlson who explain the different reactions of mainstream Christian parents and fundamentalist parents when it comes to the idea of their child having an imaginary friend. According to Taylor and Carson’s study (as sited in Cockrell, 2004) Christian parents see their child’s imaginary friend as not being harmful and probably just a little annoying while the fundamentalist parents see this as a connection to the devil. Furthermore the same study finds that parents of children from India see the imaginary friend as a remembering of a past life. The reason why having an imaginary friend and the Harry potter books are condemned by the religious right is because they are both fantasy and fantasy is equal to deceit which in turn is connected to storytelling which amounts to lying and other similar acts of deception which parents have an obligation to protect their children from Taylor and Carson’s study (as sited in Cockrell, 2004). According to Julia Saric’s study (as sited in Cockrell, 2004) another reason why Harry Potter is seen as more of a threat than say J. R. Tolkien’s works’ is that Harry Potter is on our door step while J. R Tolkien’s work is set in another realm.
On what grounds does Cockrell defend fantasy literature, using Harry Potter for exemplification?
Firstly Cockrell (2004) discusses how Rowling is adamant that within the world of Harry Potter, magic has nothing to do with super natural spirits good or evil, or even theology and religion but rather it is the wizard who practices the magic who determines whether it be good or evil just like science. Secondly Cockrell (2004) mentions how the magic of Rowling behaves as a science would and how it is a mystery just like a lot of advanced science is. Furthermore Cockrell (2004) explains how there is no god or devil at the heart of this magic but a mystery and while this idea is no problem for liberal theologians “Harry Potter does frighten those who want the answers to be the same every time the question is asked”(Cockrell, 2004, p. 29).
Hi Shayne
ReplyDeleteThe imaginary friend issue is an interesting one, as is the whole issue of anti-Harry Potter by religious groups. I can understand their concerns. However, if they took it lightly, most children would also take this vein. It’s a parent’s role to guide their children. But by over emphasising aspects of Harry Potter the religious right is making it more real, larger and immediate than it need be (even with all the media-hype). By focusing on Rowling’s work perhaps they are giving it power it would otherwise not necessarily have. I agree with the article on this one.
Hi Shayne,
ReplyDeleteA good post and thanks for your interesting comment Sue.
Way controversial = Does not the Bible have elements of fantasy in it? I think it does and this does not bother me, as the idea seems linked to the very definition of faith??
Shayne, in general I would like to see moe of YOU in the posts - I see lots of you in your commentary on other people's posts, but would like you to add more to your weekly answers.
Keep it up!