Can I Still Read Harry Potter?

We haven’t had our old fav a HP (not the sauce or PC manufacturer) thread for some time, so given the furore surrounding Rowling’s view on gender etc. which adds a new wrinkle:-

I mean if they can read a book more than once they have way too much time on their hands :joy:


1 Like

Ceasing to read a children’s book that you already read because you disagree with some later statement made by the author, that appears to have nothing to do with the past book, is about the dumbest thing I ever heard. I can understand if you don’t want to buy any more product put out by that author because you don’t want to give money to someone you disagree with, but presumably you already own all the books if you loved them that much, so this is basically a “Yeah, whatever.”

People who carry on like this are either obsessed with political correctness or just looking for attention and clicks for their “article”.

20 years from now the same people who wrote this article will write another one on revisiting the legacy of Harry Potter and his effect on their childhood, despite the statements of Rowling, yadayadayada, so they can get more attention and more clicks.

There is quite a long history of children’s book authors who had strange/ “politically incorrect” ideas on things, or had unusual revelations come out about them later. The authors of “Mary Poppins” and “Peter Pan” for example. Popular children’s books take on a life of their own separate from the author. After a couple generations, nobody cares about the author, if they even bother to notice who the author was.


I read that some tattoo parlors were making offers to cover over Harry Potter themed tattoos because the assertion that women menstuate is some sort of horrific atrocity :rofl::rofl::rofl:


It’s funny. A couple years ago I actually worked on a hypothesis that the HP universe is one huge LGBT allegory. The Wizards and Witches are gay, the Muggles are straights, the Death Eaters are anti-LGBT, etc. etc. I even had the 7 Deathly Hallows worked out to represent stuff like legal challenges that are overcome.

I don’t know. Is HP gay? Is HP Satanic? I almost don’t care, because it’s so wonderfully delightful and has incredible lessons of bravery and love. I am totally hooked on the fandom and I doubt an exorcist could tear me away from that.

Oh the humanity…

1 Like

I’m a huge Tolkien fan but he has some things to say bout Irish myth and folklore that I find ridiculous. I just view it as, ‘No-one shares everything in common and I’m sure he’d find some of my views ludicrous’. Also, I know he was an external examiner for numerous Irish universities for many years and very well thought of by students and staff.

I’m equally fond of Ursula Le Guin but her views on religion are not mine but there is plenty of stuff worthy paying attention to her in work. If you want to see author who had whacky-doodle moments late in life Arthur Conan Doyle is one, his whole late-life involvement with spiritualism and numerous other things is a classic example of that.


You mean Jk… Rowling … bad joke haha

1 Like

:man_facepalming::joy: nice!

1 Like

While you are certainly not the only one to try to make such connections, the issue is that any time a series or a movie contains any group that is oppressed or kept separate from “normals”, the LGBT crowd will try to claim it as their own. They say it’s clearly a deliberate metaphor for their own lives. It’s just like Elsa in Frozen, because they think there’s no possible way that “let It Go” and trying to hide her powers could mean anything other than LGBT people having to hide their identity. She simply HAD to be gay. They say it’s a fact.

Look I have no problem with them identifying with the issues in the book, but there are other groups it works for too. People with disabilities, different cultures, races etc. LGBT people don’t have the monopoly on oppression. Again, it’s okay if they take away good morals from the stories they relate to, but to say they can only be interpreted as LGBT stories, and that JK Rowling has to be on their side because she must have written the books the way they interpret them is rather restrictive.

The books have an arguably Christian message throughout, I always assumed THAT was the primary point of the story. Sometimes we look into books more than authors do. We see symbols where the author didn’t think that hard. After all, while she said she felt Dumbledore was gay, she never explored that…and they’re shocked she won’t fully support their ideals?


What nonsense. Refusing to read a fiction book just because you don’t like the author’s personal opinions–it’s just nonsense. Over the course of my life I have read a lot of books by Isaac Asimov, even though the author was an atheist. I didn’t agree with his atheism but I enjoyed his fiction and non-fiction books. I read the first two HP books, and they were enjoyable. It never occurred to me to wonder about the authors views on gender or on religion or any other matter.


Yes, I understand P.L. Travers who wrote “Mary Poppins” was into mysticism and paganism and all kinds of weird stuff, was possibly gay, and was arguably an abusive parent towards her adopted child, as well as being a general pain in the neck to get along with. “Mary Poppins” is still a fun book, and the movie adaptations of it are fun movies.

Who cares? It’s a good book series with good movies. End of story.

Don’t look at the origins of Wonder Woman if you’re sensitive to author opinions and lifestyles (though the queer community is more likely to be okay with it)

I’m already quite familiar with Wonder Woman and similar “edgy” pre-Code comics :smile:

I think the difference is it’s pretty clear that the author of Wonder Woman was writing a great deal of subtexts into the scripts. It’s not the type of thing where you’d say well, maybe it is and maybe it isn’t…it was definitely an “It Is”, deliberate.

It’s not even subtext with Marston, he more or less bangs you over the head with it in early Wonder Woman comics, which still rates as some of the strangest stuff ever put out for public consumption in that field. Although that adds to their interest. Mind you the fact Diana actually works to try and reform enemies is a pleasant change, even if it is incredibly naively written by modern standards it is at least better than villains being seen as always irredeemable.

For me the only modern writers to have handled the character with any spark of interest were George Perez and William Messner-Loebs. There is a great back and forth scene in the former’s work from the 80’s where Diana who of course while not strictly Greek does reflect part of that cultural tradition from antiquity has a discussion with an Orthodox priest who initially accuses her of paganism and being a corruptive influence. The whole thing tells you Perez actually went and did some research and also tried to put himself in the shoes of both people having such an argument. He went back to the idea that Wonder Woman is a warrior but as a last resort, she doesn’t hit people as a first choice.

Most people make a dreadful mess of the character and she has had some very some strange moments over the years under various writers. Including a bit with no powers in the 60’s where she was portrayed in a white trouser suite ensemble and was obviously meant to be riffing of the popularity of Emma Peel and similar characters.

1 Like

what will those insidious utero-americans do next?

The man did go on record in support of the heretical notion that there are female dwarves, and that they have mothers rather than springing from rock . . .

Like snapping off your fingers and passing them to children as snacks . . . (not a problem, they’ll pretty much grow back by morning . . .)

That explains why she didn’t have enough fabric left for tights when she went to 80s gymwear . . .
:scream: :roll_eyes: :scream:

True, but if it’s any consolation he also maintained that the females were bearded.

I simply don’t understand the insistence that views on an artist’s life or beliefs should be visited on their art.
I love Wagner’s mature operas, but we’d be hard-pressed to find a more repellent person among the ranks of the great composers.
I disagree strongly with aspects of Lutheranism, but Bach’s Matthäus-Passion is the greatest religious music ever composed and is undoubtedly performed regularly in Heaven.
I can’t stand Messiaen’s music (with one or two exceptions) yet he was a very devout Catholic.

I see you remember the Wonder Woman biker shorts period.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit