[Emni Windrunner]

I find it very interesting, Mornie, that you know these isolated scenes without having read the books or seen the movie. In my Biblical exegesis class, we call that proof-texting, and it's not a good practice. You can edge yourself into a really difficult place by throwing out an isolated statement or scene without knowing, considering, and taking into account the context of that statement or scene.<BR>Consider for a moment that evil tends to take on a uniform appearance after a certain point. I'm not talking about an isolated sin, like lying, but rather the devotion to and practice of evil. At the root of any true portrayal of evil, a true narrator will eventually have to deal with the fact that evil comes from demonic sources. A denial of this would be a denial of the very Judeo-Christian values you're defending. Devotion to the demonic, as exemplified by the villains in both LOTR and HP, starts with a desire to destroy or to co-opt what has been created by good, and continues with someone acting on that desire.<BR>In <B>The Silmarillion</B>, Melkor Morgoth acted on that desire by destroying all of the good things that the Valar created, and by twisting and corrupting (since he could not destroy or completely re-create) what Iluvitar created, e.g. the Elves.<BR>Rowling uses the same principle and goes a different, but wholly legitimate, direction with it. God commands throughout the Pentateuch that, since life is contained in blood and life is sacred, blood is not to be drunk or eaten. God commands that since human life is sacred, human life is not to be taken by another human because it would profane the Image of God. God commands that we are to have nothing to do with spiritism because it opens us to the influence of demons, who are opposed to God and will lead us in opposition to Him.<BR>In the first case, the only person who consumes any blood, human or animal (and he does both), in HP is Voldemort, who, as I've said more times than I can count, is about as lovable as Sauron. Furthermore, when he consumes unicorn blood, he brings a curse on himself for it, and the scene in which it takes place is so frightening and so dark that no one in their right minds would take it into their head that it's a positive thing. And when Voldemort drinks Harry's blood, that scene makes the one with the unicorn look downright warm and fuzzy! Rowling makes it clear that this practice is evil, and that evil is undesirable.<BR>In the second case, the only people who actually take human life in the HP books are villains, and the ones who aren't Voldemort himself are almost as unsavory as he is. There are two characters (Sirius Black and Harry) who consider murdering, but Sirius (at least in my opinion) isn't a good guy, either, and Harry thinks better of it long before he actually tries to pull the trigger. Furthermore, Rowling pulls no punches here; she makes it clear that the hatred driving Harry's desire for revenge is a poison and it is unequivocally wrong. Based on the context of the confrontation (the end of Book 3), I think a case could be made for saying that Rowling considers murder unjustifiable in any context. Confronted with the man who all but killed his parents and nearly got him killed at least once, Harry is still not justified in killing him.<BR>And finally, as I pointed out in an earlier post, Ginny Weasley's tampering with things that shouldn't be messed with put her in a very bad narrative light. She, like many people who tamper with the supernatural (in the REAL world), started out innocently enough, writing to someone she thought to be harmless and friendly. You could compare Tom Riddle's diary to any number of gateways to demonic activity that are out there--Ouija boards, for example. The fact that she started out innocently did not save her, and in fact probably further endangered her. She opened herself up to Voldemort's influence, and in that way unleashed a whole world of trouble, both for herself and for her classmates. Ginny is not portrayed as a villain, but she does come across as a victim of her own naivete and wilfullness--both very bad traits when dealing with Voldemort (just as they're detrimental when dealing with demons). "Tom" did not have her best interests at heart; he was using her, just as demons use people as hosts and tools. I think that the climax of Book 2 is one of the best arguments out there for being wary of what spiritual influences we knowingly or unknowingly open ourselves up to. Whether Rowling specifically intended to convey that message, I don't know; I haven't talked to her or seen any quotes on the subject. What I do know, however, is that the things that many people scream about as being evil and reasons not to read the book, are good reasons <B>to</B> read and discuss the book, <B>because</B> they deal with the very real subject of the existence and activity of evil.<BR>Anyone who does a serious treatment of the subject of evil will have to take into consideration the Occult. Why? Because the Occult is the embodiment of evil in its most unadulterated form. Tolkien pulled no punches, and neither does Rowling. So far, they are equal in that regard. Literarily, there are obviously differences, but that's a whole other can of worms.