A Little More Potter Debate

I found the entire row over the Harry Potter books tiresome (endorsement of black magic, great children's tale, etc.). But I found this commentary interesting:

Rowling's disregard for the virtues of obedience, truth telling, and self-restraint cultivated in traditional children's literature show that she consciously rejects its moral framework. One of the reasons for this is her stated belief that children are naturally good. As one gripped by this dream of the Enlightenment who, nevertheless, is shrewd enough to observe that schoolboys often lie, cheat, fight, and break the rules, she apparently believes that these things are not real evils. Real evil is murder, especially when based on discrimination by ancestry, and misuse of authority, especially authority over the naturally good children. And the moral instruction children most need is just to see real evil, as exemplified by Voldemort.

Thus, J. K. Rowling is a clever Pelagian who has created a fantasy world that runs according to the Neopagan continuum of immanent power for good or evil popularized in Star Wars. But how did Rowling fool the panoply of non-Pelagian moral gatekeepers who have hailed her works? This is yet another Harry Potter mystery, but Harry's military virtues of bravery, boldness, and loyalty to his friends have certainly helped blind conservative religionists to his vices. (Some claim to have discovered a mystical Christian symbolism in the books, a symbolism unapparent to those children lacking a Ph.D in classics.)

Traditional children's literature sought to moderate the natural, evil tendencies of children to disobedience, lying, and revenge. Unfortunately, Rowling fails to recognize the evil inherent in our race and effectively does the opposite. Because stories are the most powerful means of teaching morality known, parents should be aware of the vicious examples that Rowling's heroes set for their children before they countenance these books.

Link.