i just commented on a post titled “self”. it struck a taut cord.

i kept hovering close to tears all morning. could be horomones. but horomones themselves don’t do anything. something triggered it. and it was a comment on my manuscript that i posted. i almost deleted it, just because it wasn’t what i wanted to hear. but i try to live by a tenet that all comments, both critical and praiseful, are growing points.

i was riding on a high wave because i got such a positive response from my teacher. it prolonged a wave that was already leaking energy, that is, my happiness that i’m deaf. i was frustrated because i couldn’t hear the guest speaker in one of my classes yesterday. he assumed i was hearing.

i hate that, when people think i’m hearing, until i tell them to speak up or something, because i’m deaf. (or they notice my ci or ha, or find out i know asl, or as in the case of my manuscript, think it’s written so well because it’s something i know). then they think i’m Deaf and not hearing, and act all weird. then Deaf people see the same thing, they know i’m not capital D Deaf, that i’m hearing.

so i’m bouncing between these two worlds. i thought i had a sturdy footing, but i was standing 4 feet into the ocean, always bobbing back and forth, not quite drowning, not quite on dry land. then the huge wave came along and knocked me off my feet. you know the feeling when you’re in the ocean or pool, and that moment when you’re disoriented; you don’t know which way is up or down?

i am lost, and my tears are salt. a bit melodramatic, ya think? but i do feel this way. who am i? i’m not hearing, i’m not deaf. one group thinks i’m part of the other.

it’s my cross to bear. i just hope that God’ll answer my prayers, that St. Francis de Sales will relay the message for me.

 Act of Abandonment by St. FdS

O my God, I thank you and I praise you for accomplishing your holy and all-lovable will without any regard for mine. With my whole heart, in spite of my heart, do I receive this cross I feared so much! (yeah, i feared it. for nearly 20 years i fear it. ‘in spite of my heart’ is right. with my whole heart? i need help!)

It is the cross of Your choice, the cross of Your love. I venerate it; nor for anything in the world would I wish that it had not come, since You willed it. (yeah, yeah, God gives us only what he can handle, ‘but i wish He didn’t trust me so much’. yet i’m glad He didn’t make me blind. i can’t bear not to read books)

I keep it with gratitude and with joy, as I do everything that comes from Your hand; and I shall strive to carry it without letting it drag, and with all the respect and all the attention which Your works deserve. (joy? okay, i did that for a while. i try to carry it. yet it feels like it’s dragging. dragging me down. i’m failing, aren’t i? )

Amen.

i know though that despite my rough time, that God does answer prayers. He’s answered several over the years for me. but i have a hard time telling if i’ve been answered yet or not. i did have a dream last night that i went to go get my cochlear implant out of my dri-aid, but it wasn’t there. and i wasn’t terribly worried. just thought that i must never have had it. to me not having the ci means being quite deaf. and being quite deaf, could that possibly mean my prayers as to my trying to enculture the Deaf culture, as in, will my prayers of attending gallaudet possibly come true soon?

*sigh* i kept checking email all of today though, and no answer as of yet. maybe tomorrow? i feel like such a heel for having an identity crisis. i was raised hearing, i should be hearing, yet i feel unsteady in that world. also, God provides, why should i doubt? yet i keep my faith. it is said a faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains. is it true?

 This needs a bit of introduction. I wrote this for my creative writing class, it was a quick story to write, and I thought it would be bad. But surprisingly I got a favorable response from both my peer group and my teacher. Her comments she made on my manuscript are at the bottom. I haven’t figured out a title for the story yet. I’m bad about titling stories, if I could I would just publish all my stories as “Untitled”  (Edit: man…no matter how I fix it, you can’t copy and paste without some problem in the formatting…hopefully it’s still readable )

Manuscript 2

Creative Writing Class:  

 Hi, Adam signed. How are you?

Good, Jamie replied, one hand keeping her spot in her book, an autobiography.

Can I join you? he said, sitting down opposite of her at the weathered table, on a rusty red chair.

She nodded, reading some more. The wind rustled the pages; the sky glowed with autumn colors, with silhouettes of geese flying arrow-true to the south.

Adam tapped her book with his finger, and she looked up. What are you reading? She lifted the book off the table, showing him the cover. Marlee Matlin? he fingerspelled, forming the shape of the words in the air. Did you see her in “Children of a lesser god?”

Jamie nodded again. That was an okay movie.            

You didn’t like it?           

Not really, she scrunched up her face, too much sex. I like…oh, what’s the name of that Hallmark movie? It was based off the book “In this sign”…do you remember it?    

Adam looked up in the air, trying to recall it, sighing deeply. The air grew chillier, and the passers-by, drawing in their jackets closer, hurried to their cars, bent low under their survival backpacks. Jamie slid in her ILY bookmark into the book, looking at him.           

Was it… “Love Is Never Silent?”           

Yes, that sounds right. Anyway, that was better.            

 Sad!           

Yes, but better; I can totally relate.            

Me too! Adam said, quickly agreeing. Like when the guy came and needed money, but didn’t like talking to the parents through the daughter…           

Ugh! I hate it when people get all weird about having an interpreter. Or like when you use the relay; people get all weird.            

 “Tell her…blah blah blah, tell him…blah blah blah.”           

 I know! But I’m like, you wouldn’t be having this problem if you’d just give me your email.           

Have you tried VRS?           

I’m saving up my money for it.           

I have one. You can come over to my apartment and borrow it.           

 Thanks! I’d love to! I want to talk to my grandma.

 Is she deaf? Adam asked.           

Nope. I’m the only one, Jamie replied.           

 Adam shrugged his shoulders as if to say “That’s what life’s like.” Then he signed, How about tomorrow?            

 Great!           

 See you after class then? Three o’clock?            

OK. Jamie smiled.

The sun set even further; the sky was fiery, casting everything with a red glow. Long shadows stretched on the sidewalk, and in the distance the city lights began to flicker on. A police helicopter flew overhead, making the air and the white metal table pulsate; the sound waves flowing up Adam’s and Jamie’s hands, through their arms, and into their bodies, speeding up their heart rate.

 Do you like comedies? Adam asked, signing a little faster.

Yes, why?           

There’s one in MoPix this weekend—it’s supposed to be good. If you don’t have any homework—          

  That sounds fun, Jamie interrupted him, smiling.

What’s your phone number?

 Here, let’s switch, Jamie said, taking his Sidekick and entering in her contact info; he did the same for hers. The sun set faster.            

Adam signed faster. Where should I pick you up?           

I live in the dorms.            

Which one?           

South campus. You know the one with the gates?           

Is that across the street from—           

The Institute, yes.            

Pick you up at 7?            

OK.            

The sun dipped below the horizon, and it was dark. Only a faint green tinge remained in the west. The fainter Polaris star came into view.

I love you, Adam signed in the darkness.

Jamie drew her finger across his palm, signing what.  

Adam shook his head never mind; the motion was just barely visible against the night sky. He felt around the cool tabletop, found her hand, and clasped it. Jamie squeezed back. The wind blew. It hinted of frost, but neither of them noticed it, sitting very still. It was a mutual understanding, silencing each other’s hands. They sat there until the moon rose above the trees, and then Adam walked her to her car, using his Sidekick to illuminate the way.

____,

This is such a small, sweet moment, perhaps a budding romance, and a study of deafness that makes it so comprehensible. I really hope you write more on this topic, as it has brought out a clear, gorgeous sentence structure-a precision I haven’t seen yet from you. I think it’s because you’re discussing what you know! These characters are fully realizzed, and I can see this fragment unfolding over 10 or 20 pages-these two and their evolving relationship. Thanks!

There are so many inspiring and uplifting books at the library—I just finished “Don’t leave me this way: or when I get back on my feet you’ll be sorry” by Julia Fox Garrison, which was both funny and inspiring. We’re a society that prides itself on continuing on forward, and these sort of books and stories are a result of it. Dave Pelzer (“A  Child Called ‘It’”) could have wallowed in self-pity, but no, he made a decision to rise above his history of being abused.

Same thing for Julia, but an entirely different set of circumstances. She had a stroke that debilitated her, and several doctors gave her a grim prognosis, eventually ending with her death. But Julia didn’t succumb to the strong pressure to move out of “denial” and come to “acceptance” of their prognosis. She, too, made a conscious decision to not only live, but to thrive.

Another example: My parents could have accepted the fact that I would be deaf, mute, and illiterate all my life, but instead they operated “in denial” and did what they think would be best for me. Am I ever glad they did.

The reason that so many people are rising above adversity could be like what my former World Civilizations II professor said—we as a society are rising up Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. We refuse to live on the lower levels anymore, to be driven purely by bodily motives. Instead, by sheer mental faculties, we choose to live by our minds, searching for knowledge. We want to realize our potential in life.

The next step is living by our spirits, our souls. That is the transcendence level. When we’re no longer bothered by the stresses of life, we’re actually living on another plane, by a whole different set of meaning.

It’s difficult to swap out one set of rules for another, to move to transcendence. It’s a leap of faith. And faith itself is difficult to muster up some days. We’re so used to living life our way—whatever we set our minds to, we do. We like that simple cause-and-effect reason.

However, there are some things you cannot control, and we have to accept that. The cause-and-effect chain doesn’t include just us; there must be external forces at play, beyond imagination. We aren’t going through life alone, and we can’t be afraid to ask for help. Though the world seems unsteady at times, and life pulls the rug out from underneath your feet.

But a funny thing happens. When your main support—yourself—is out, you have to rely on other supports—your friends, family, and faith—to keep you up. With so much support, it becomes much harder to knock you down. Also, you know what it’s like to be down, and you’ll try your best to keep that from happening again. It’s a part of constantly pushing forward to the future, and not dwelling on the past.

So, when events conspire against you, just like it did against Julia, Dave, and countless others, reach out and depend on others. Live on a prayer. Place your trust in others, for they will see you through the darkest night until the sun rises again.

This is a report I did in high school: 

The Popularity and Controversy of the Harry Potter Books

November 4, 2005  

The Harry Potter books written by J.K. Rowling were an immediate success; millions of the books were sold and the movies made millions of dollars. There are many reasons why the Harry Potter books are popular, including the fact that they spans many genres, borrow many familiar ideas from famous authors, and are easy to read. While Rowling’s books are immensely popular, they are not without controversy. Many people believe that the Harry Potter books help children foster an interest in the occult, while many others believe that they are a good platform for teaching children morality, spirituality, and that good always overcome evil.

The Harry Potter books chronicle the adventures of the boy wizard who attends Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry to study magic. At the school he befriends fellow students Ron and Hermione, meets half-giants, werewolves, Acromantulas (giant spiders), and centaurs, among other creatures. In nearly every book, Harry has a run-in with the wizard who killed his parents, the one whom every witch and wizard fearfully refer to as “He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named”, Voldemort (Rowling, 1997, p. 85).

When the British publisher Bloomsbury released J.K. Rowling’s book, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone in 1997, neither they nor the author had any idea how successful it would be.  In an interview with Gibb, Rowling (1997) said, “I never expected to make money, I always saw Harry Potter as this quirky little book. I liked it and I worked hard at it, but never in my wildest dreams did I imagine large advances”      ( n.p.).In another interview Rowling (1997) said, “My realistic side had allowed myself to think that I might get one good review in a national newspaper. That was my idea of a peak. So everything else really has been like stepping into Wonderland for me” (Treneman, 1997, n.p.).

            Harry Potter was sold in the juvenile literature section of British bookstores, next to other authors like Dr. Seuss, but the fact that it was a children’s book didn’t keep adults from buying it; Rowling’s books quickly became a bestseller. It was reprinted four times in Britain by July 1997 (Thompson, 1997) and 30,000 copies of the Philosopher’s Stone were sold by November of 1997 (Treneman, 1997). Shortly after it was released to rave reviews, Rowling’s agent, Christopher Little, auctioned off the American rights to the Arthur A. Levine publishing company (an off-shoot of Scholastic, Inc.) for $105,000 (Waters and Mithrandir 2003). Because a well-known publisher bought the Harry Potter series, people began to think that Rowling’s books were good.

            In 1998, the second book, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, was released in the United Kingdom, also to become immensely popular and another bestseller. A few months later, Arthur A. Levine published the first book under the Americanized title, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. The title was changed because,

in the United States the word ‘Philosopher’ conjures up images of boring, stuffy old men, while a ‘Sorcerer’ is an exciting Merlin-type wizard….The first book also was “translated” somewhat for U.S. readers because they would not have understood or related to some British terms. For instance, the British “mum” was translated to “mom” and “jumper” became “sweater.” Now, however, the texts have been “unified” by making slight adjustments only when necessary so that all words are understandable to U.S. and British readers…both versions now use “sweater” while “dustbins” (which is not difficult to figure out) is used in both editions rather than changing it to “trash cans” for U.S. readers. From now on, of course, the titles will also be the same in both countries.” (Waters and Mithrandir, 2003, p.5).

The Sorcerer’s Stone landed on the New York Times’ adult fiction list in December of 1998, the “first hard cover book to do so in Scholastic’s history…Adults, it’s clear, are reading the books as fervently as the kids.” (Glitz, 1999, n.p.). “This year also saw the marketing of a ‘black-and-white’ edition designed to appeal to adults embarrassed at sneaking the gaudier version out of bookshops for their own personal pleasure.” (Lockerbie, 1998, n.p.).

            Chambers of Secrets was published in the United States in June 1999, where it was quickly snapped up and became the #1 bestseller on several fiction-books lists. It was originally scheduled to be released in the fall, but Scholastic rushed it out earlier because so many fans were buying the British version over the Internet, too anxious to wait (Glitz, 1999). This was very obvious during Rowling’s U.S. book tour in the fall of 1998.  In an interview after the book tour, Rowling (1998) said: I lost count of the number of children who told me they had sent away to British bookshops and buying the book on the internet to get the sequel to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. They said they could not wait until it came out in America in a year’s time. (Walker, 1998, n.p.)It is estimated that, according to an unnamed insider, Scholastic lost out on about 20,000 sales. Because of this, Scholastic published the third book, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, shortly after it was released in the U.K.  (Glitz, 1999, n.p.).            Not everybody appreciated the popularity of Rowling’s books, in particular, the publishers, because they thought that the Harry Potter books took up too much space on the bestseller lists. Gray (1999) quoted David Rosenthal (1999), publisher of Simon & Schuster as saying:

There is a big controversy stirring over whether Harry Potter should be on the New York Times bestseller list. There are a number of publishers–I don’t happen to be among them, actually, but I’ve got calls about this–who are thinking about banding together to beg the New York Times not to include the Harry Potter books on the regular fiction best-selling list, since they now take up two slots and will soon take up a third. (n.p.)

            Just as Rosenthal predicted, the third installment topped the New York Times’ bestseller list when it came out in September, the previous two taking up the second and third place positions on the same list.

            In 2000, with the fourth book’s (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire) release due in July, the New York Times decided the time was ripe to create a separate bestsellers’ list for children’s’ books. Charles McGrath (2000), editor of the NYT Book Review, said that“…it is not coincidental that the timing corresponds to the fourth Harry Potter book. …if we were ever going to do this step, this would be the time.” (Corliss, 2000, n.p.).

Barbara Marcus (2000), the president of Scholastic, was annoyed, saying that “Nothing has ever been as popular with families, adults, children, in the history of publishing, and it should be a giant celebration. Instead, the argument is being made that they are taking up too much room on the list.” (Corliss, 2000, n.p.).  Craig Virden (2000), the president and publisher of Random House Children’s Books and Scholastic’s competitor sided with Marcus on the point that if it’s a best seller, it should be on the proper list. He also thought that “3.8 million is an adult number.” (Corliss, 2000, n.p.).

Despite the protests from Scholastic and the many Harry Potter fans, by the time the Goblet of Fire came out, all four Harry Potter books were relegated to the new children’s bestseller list. The release date marked nearly 100 straight weeks the books have been on a New York Times’ list (Mclaughlin, 2000).

In 2001, J.K. Rowling published two more books under pseudonyms, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them by Newt Scamander and Quidditch Through the Ages by Kennilworthy Whisp. Rowling (2001) said that all the profits, over 80% of the cover price, went to Comic Relief, a British charity (Raincoast Books, 2001).

Rowling (2001) spoke in an interview of these two books:

They are two titles that appear in the novels – Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them is a book that Harry buys to go to Hogwarts so it’s one of his school textbooks and Quidditch Through The Ages is a library title. I always write more than I need for the books so bits of them were just written for my own fun. So when Comic Relief asked me to write something I thought I would just love to write them, I just thought it would be so much fun and I was completely correct. It was more fun than I’ve had writing the others. (Raincoast Books 2001, n.p.)Later that same year, the first Harry Potter movie was released, adapted from the

Sorcerer’s Stone/Philosopher’s Stone. It was released under different titles, just like the first book, and every scene in which the Philosopher’s Stone was mentioned, was filmed again, with the actors mentioning the Sorcerer’s Stone instead. The movie brought in a record 90 million dollars in sales on opening weekend, in the United States alone, and opened on more screens (3,762) than any other movie at the time. The second movie, Chamber of Secrets also did well, bringing in 88 million dollars on opening weekend in 2002, putting it in third place behind the first Harry Potter movie and Shrek (factmonster.com n.d.).

            In 2003, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the fifth book in the series, was published. It broke a publishing record by a wide margin with a first printing of 6.4 million copies. It is also the longest book in the series (as of 2005) at 870 pages, three times longer than the Sorcerer’s Stone (factmonster.com n.d.).

            The Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban movie came out in 2004, and had the third best opening weekend with 93.7 million dollars in ticket sales, placing it behind Spider-Man and Shrek 2. The next year the sixth book came out, entitled Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Again the U.S. first printing of a Harry Potter book breaks a record, with 10.8 million copies. Book 6 has a notable first; the Braille and large-print editions were released on the same day as the usual regular and audio book editions (factmonster.com n.d.).

            With these numbers and facts, some people wonder why the Harry Potter books are so popular. Some people believe that all the hype is responsible for the books’ success, but “hype cannot convince people to read a 700 page book”. (wizardingworld.com, n.d., Why Are the Harry Potter Books So Popular?). The first book was published with little fanfare, in fact it was the “word-of-mouth testimonials from parents marveling that their nonreading children (even boys!) are tearing through the Potter books and begging for more.” (Gray, 1999, n.p.).

            There are several explanations for the books’ popularity. One reason is that Harry Potter can be categorized into several genres, so that there is “something for everyone” (wizardingworld.com, n.d., Why Are the Harry Potter Books So Popular?). Technically, it is a young adult (or children’s) fantasy, and is found in that section in libraries, because it has magic, witches and wizards, dragons, unicorns, elves, fairies, and other similar fairy tale creatures associated with the fantasy world.

It is also an adventure (wizardingworld.com, n.d., Why Are the Harry Potter Books So Popular?), with Harry getting into one escapade after another. He explores the school secretly under his Invisibility Cloak, flies in exciting Quidditch games (a wizard game played on broomsticks with four balls and six hoops), and fights Lord Voldemort, among other adventures. .

Another major genre Harry Potter can be classified as, is as a mystery. (wizardingworld.com, n.d., Why Are the Harry Potter Books So Popular?) According to Waters and Mithrandir (2003), “the Harry Potter septology is an epic mystery and is considerably more intricate than it appears. She has challenged us readers (we call ourselves ‘HP Sleuths’) to discover them.” (p. xvii). J.K. Rowling said that “if you read carefully, you’ll get hints about what’s coming. And that’s all I’m saying!” (Scholastic.com 2000, Q and A #5). There are two types of mysteries and clues, a storyline clue and a septology clue (Waters and Mithrandir 2003). A septology is a word Waters coined to describe the seven-volume Harry Potter series, as it is “clearly an aggregate work (not just sequels)”. (Waters and Mithrandir 2003, p. xviii).

A storyline clue “is specific to the book in which it was found.” (Waters and Mithrandir 2003, p. xxi). For example, all through Chamber of Secrets, Dobby the House elf had been trying to keep Harry from attending Hogwarts, for reasons unknown. At the end of the book, readers find out that the elf was only trying to keep Harry safe from the school’s monster.

A septology mystery is “not resolved by the end of the book. This kind of clue relates to the whole seven volume mystery”. (Waters and Mithrandir 2003, p. xxi). One example is that, from the very first book, readers wonder why Voldemort wanted to kill Harry as a baby with the Avada Kedavera curse, and why Harry lived when no other witch or wizard was able survive the Killing Curse. According to Waters and Mithrandir (2003), this is “…THE mystery around which the whole Harry Potter septology revolves.” (p. 8).

Another genre Harry Potter could be is literary satire, because J.K. Rowling creates clever names and titles that give insight to the characters and other things. A Ministry of Magic (the wizarding government) department is called the Office of Misinformation, which reminds readers of George Orwell’s books. Accio, summoning charm, is Latin for “I summon” (mugglenet.com, n.d., Name Origins). Transfiguration is a class Harry has to take; it teaches students how to transfigure things, such as a pig into a desk. The Transfiguration teacher’s, Minerva McGonagall’s, shares her name with a Roman god who has a “famed reputation for being able to morph herself and others into clever disguises.” (Waters and Mithrandir, 2003, p. 11). There are so many names that Rowling created that several Harry Potter websites created dictionaries of the words with their origins or probable origins, most notably MuggleNet (mugglenet.com) and the Harry Potter Lexicon (hp-lexicon.org).

Another reason why Harry Potter is so popular is that J.K. Rowling borrows many ideas, concepts, and themes from other books and stories in literature, gives them a new reason to exist, and combines them all into an all new story (wizardingworld.com, n.d., I Thought That Sounded Familiar…). As Voltaire said, “Originality is nothing but judicious imitation. The most original writers borrowed one from another.” (brainyquote.com, n.d., n.p.).

 All of her ideas come from what she calls a “compost heap” of everything she’s ever read, which is a substantial amount as she studied French and Classical Languages at the University of Exeter, graduating with what would be summa cum laude in America.  (Granger, 2004).

She is familiar and fluent with the languages, philosophy, and literature of the classical and medieval worlds. Her books reflect an understanding of the

truths of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas because she has read these greats—and read them as attentively as reading them in the original languages requires. (Granger, 2004, p. xvi-xvii)

            J.K. Rowling is frequently compared to many other writers as well, like Charles Dickens, Jane Austen, and C.S. Lewis, of which she said she are her favorite authors. She has also been compared to “William Shakespeare, Leo Tolstoy, Franz Kafka, George Orwell, J.R.R. Tolkein, and Fyodor Dostoyevsky.” (Granger, 2004, p. xvii). Others have said that it is a “ripping good yarn of good verses evil that legitimately conjures up the New  Testament, only with characters that recall Roald Dahl.” (Williams, 1999, n.p.). Still others believe that the Harry Potter series is reminiscent of the Star Wars films, Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland books, and L. Frank Baum’s Oz series. (Gray, 1999).

            Even with comparisons to authors like Tolstoy, the Harry Potter books are still very readable because of the “…sheer buoyant zest of Joanne Rowling’s storytelling…” (Lockerbie, 1998, n.p.). Rowling never condescends to her readers, giving them a well-planned story in every book (Jones, 1999), even though some critics complain that her language is not classical (Trelease, 2001). “True, her sentences are largely unadorned and, except for proper nouns, there is less or the reader [to] stumble over…Stumbling over text is a discouragement for young readers, not an incentive.” (Trelease, 2001, n.p.). Trelease also said that while classics, such as Heidi, have more intricate texts, “when was the last time you saw a kid reading Heidi in the airport?” (2001, n.p.)

            Another reason why the Harry Potter books are so readable is because of “its humorous descriptions and dialogue…The awful Uncle Vernon’s face ‘went from red to green faster than a set of traffic lights’ when Harry gets his first owlergramme.” (Johnstone, 1997, n.p.). Another article says that Rowling “can be genuinely scary and consistently funny, adept at both brad slapstick and allusive puns and wordplay.” (Gray, 1999, n.p.) Jones, citing Rowling’s great writing skills, also enjoys the humor found in the Harry Potter books:

As a bonus, she’s funny: the list of things Harry is asked to bring to school includes: ‘three sets of plain work robes (black), one plain pointed hat (black) for day wear…Please note that all pupils’ clothes should carry name tags.” Anyone who reads these novels can’t help but come away with a high standard for what a good story should be… (1999, n.p.)

The readability of the books is a factor in Harry Potter’s popularity, because it is

enjoyable to re-read over and over again. As Jones (2000) says:

We affectionately remember the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew, but try rereading them and their harm burns off pretty quickly. Rowling may not be as magisterial as Tolkein or as quirky as Dahl, but her books introduce fledgling readers to a very high standard of entertainment. (n.p.)

As popular as the Harry Potter books are, it has its critics. The Harry Potter detractors center on the fact that the Rowling’s books contain witches, wizards, and magic. They warn people that since the Bible in many places explicitly forbids occult practice, they should avoid reading Harry Potter. Because the Harry Potter books portray witchcraft in a positive light, it may draw kids into occultism. (Granger, 2004, p.2)

            That is precisely what Beam was worried about in her review of the Chamber of Secrets book for the website pluggedinonline.com:

For many children, curiosity about things such as “parselmouths”, “shrunken heads” and “Moaning Myrtles” cannot be met in a healthy manner. And they can become enamored with what Star Wars calls “The Dark Side” and Rowling calls “The Dark Arts.” (Beam, n.d., n.p.)

Also, in 2000, an email circulated among many Christian families relating the

threat that the Harry Potter books have on children’s souls. The unknown author cited some statistics, saying that “Since 1995, open applicants to Satan worship has increased from around 100,000 to now…20 MILION children and young adults!”, quoting an article that the Onion, an online publication, posted in July 2000. (Urban Legends Reference Pages, 2001, n.p.).

            The Onion article actually said that “more than 14 million children alone belong to the Church of Satan”. (Urban Legends Reference Pages, 2001, n.p.). The article also quoted Rowling praising Satan, and the High Priest Egan of the First Church of Satan in Salem, Massachusetts, as saying “Harry is an absolute godsend to our cause…and we’ve had more applicants than we can handle lately.” (Urban Legends Reference Pages, 2001, n.p.).

            Yet all of these quotes and statistics are false, as the Onion publication is purely satirical. According to its masthead, “The Onion is a satirical newspaper published by Onion, Inc. The Onion uses invented names in all its stories, except in cases when public figures are being satirized. Any other use of real names is accidental and coincidental.” (The Onion, 2000, n.p.).According to the Urban Legends Reference Pages (2001):Apparently the obvious humor of a High Priest of the First Church of Satan’s calling the arrival of the Harry Potter phenomenon a “godsend” went right over more than a few people’s heads. If The Onion’s parody had demonstrated anything, it’s that we should be worrying about the adults not being ale to distinguish between fiction and reality. The kids themselves seem to have a pretty good grasp of it. (n.p.)The question still remains: “Are we contributing to our child’s intellectual andmoral degeneracy by letting him immerse himself in this fanciful world of wizardry?” (Hughes, 2000, n.p.). And the answer is “probably not”. (Hughes, 2000, n.p.). Compared to some of the other options children have, such as TV, video games, and rock music, it is actually better for them to line up at midnight parties to read the Harry Potter books, because it is such a “great yarn”. (Hughes, 2000, n.p.). Most children know the difference between fantasy and reality. Rowling’s books do no actual harm, even with a “dash of the occult” in them, when parents discuss the books with their young Harry Potter fans. (Hughes, 2000, n.p.).Though these young children may say they want to be a wizard when they grow up, Hughes reminds us that it’s “pretty standard daydreaming for children.” (2000, n.p.). After all, at that age, they also decide they want to be football players, basketball players, police officers, Olympians, and tour-trolley drivers when they grow up. (Hughes, 2000).

Also, nowhere in the Bible does it “forbid reading material with occult elements in it. As there are witches, soothsayers, and possessed prophetesses in the Bible…it would be more than odd if the Holy Writ spoke against itself.” (Granger 2004, p. 3).

Mack (1999) said:

Yes, they deal with magic and witchcraft. Their tone is dark. But no less a devout Christian than C.S. Lewis understood the power of pagan imagery in preparing the young imagination for the moral rigors and spiritual comforts of biblical religion. Indeed, if there is something wrong with a “tone of death” in children’s literature, then we might as well jettison all our volumes of fairy tales. (n.p.)

            In a Comic Relief online chat transcript, Rowling (2001) said, “I think the Harry books are very moral but some people just object to witchcraft being mentioned in a children’s book unfortunately, that means we’ll have to lose a lot of classic children’s fiction.” (n.p.).

In an interview with CNN, Rowling (1999) said:

I absolutely did not start writing these books to encourage any child into witchcraft. I’m laughing slightly because to me, the idea is absurd…I have met thousands of children now, and not even one time has a child come up to me and said, “Ms. Rowling, I’m so glad I’ve read these books because now I want to be a witch.” They see it for what it is. It is a fantasy world and they understand that completely. I don’t believe in magic, either. (n.p.)

Rowling (1999) also said, “Wizardry is just the analogy I use. If anyone expects it to be a book that seriously advocates leaning magic, they will be disappointed.” (O’Malley 1999, n.p.).

Some of the books that would be missing from library shelves if all books mentioning magic was banned include J.R.R. Tolkein’s The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the Narnia and Ransom series by C.S. Lewis, the Alice books by Lewis Carroll, Madeline L’Engle’s A Wrinkle in Time, and the Oz series by L. Frank Baum. The last two authors’ books have come under heat themselves in a different time and place.

The Wizard of Oz was criticized in the 1920s’, 50’s, 60’s, and is still being accused today of having communist leanings and a socialist structure, and that the culture of Oz was the approximation of a Marxist dream. L. Frank Baum’s Oz series was banned from several libraries for these reasons, and because they were of no value, encouraged negativism, “misled minds to accept a cowardly approach to life”, and because they were poorly written. (Rising, 2000, n.p.). Baum’s writing was different from the style of writing popular in the 1900’s, because his main concern was telling the story, whereas other writers like Andersen and Robert Louis Stevenson embellished their story with long, descriptive passages and difficult words. (Rising, 2000, n.p.).

Trelease (2001) noted a similar complaint about Rowling’s style of writing:

Some critics have complained that Rowling’s language is not classical. True her sentences are largely unadorned, and except for proper nouns, there is less for the reader [to] stumble over. And that’s good. Stumbling over is a discouragement for young readers, not an incentive. And while classics like Heidi have heavier, more adorned text, when was the last time you saw a kid reading Heidi in the airport? (n.p.)

Judy Blume, another writer whose books have been banned, offered her opinion on the suggestion of banning of the Harry Potter books:

I knew this was coming. The only surprise is that it took so long — as long as it took for the zealots who claim they’re protecting children from evil (and evil can be found lurking everywhere these days) to discover that children actually like these books. If children are excited about a book, it must be suspect.

I’m not exactly unfamiliar with this line of thinking, having had various books of mine banned from schools over the last 20 years. In my books, it’s reality that’s seen as corrupting. With Harry Potter, the perceived danger is fantasy. After all, Harry and his classmates attend the celebrated Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. According to certain adults, these stories teach witchcraft, sorcery and satanism. But hey, if it’s not one “ism,” it’s another. I mean Madeleine L’Engle’s “A Wrinkle in Time” has been targeted by censors for promoting New Ageism, and Mark Twain’s “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” for promoting racism. Gee, where does that leave the kids? (1999, n.p.)

            It was only recently that magic and science were viewed as occupying different realms. “For much of their existence…they constituted a single path in a single history. For both magic and experimental science were viewed as a means of controlling and directing our natural environment.” (Jacobs, 2000, n.p.).

Magic works as reliably in Rowling’s world as science does in the real world. As Arthur C. Clarke, author of many science fiction books, said, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” (brainyquote.com, n.d., n.p.). Understanding the shared history of magic and experimental science is the key to understanding magic’s role in the Harry Potter books, as Rowling places Harry in a “counterfactual history, a history in which magic was not a false and incompetent discipline, but rather a means of controlling the physical world at least as potent as experimental science.” (Jacobs, 2000, n.p.).

Star Trek technology is treated differently from Harry Potter magic, even though the two achieve similar ends. (Olson, 1999, n.p.). For example, both Star Trek’s transporter and Harry Potter’s Apparition spell transports people great distances. Einstein disliked teleportation and quantum theory because of its almost magical features. (Highfield, 2002, italics added).  Olson (1999) quoted Jacobs, and the host, Meyers from the September/October 1999 issue of the Mars Hill Audio Journal (Volume 40):

If we imagine somebody stepping on to a little circle and then suddenly dissolving, and then reappearing instantly somewhere else, and we call this a transporter, and we’re told that it is a device that is created by technology, then we go “oh, that’s cool.” But if we imagine someone waving a wand and then disappearing and reappearing somewhere else, we’re much less comfortable. (n.p.)

“The fundamental moral framework of the Harry Potter books, then, is a familiar

one to all of us: it is the problem of technology.” (Jacobs, 2000, n.p.). Real schools teach people how to harness and employ technology, and the wizardry school Hogwarts teach people how to harness and employ magic, but neither one can “insure that people will use those powers wisely, responsibly, and for the common good. It is a choice…between magia and goetia: ‘high magic’ (like the wisdom possessed by the magi in Christian legend) and ‘dark magic.’” (Jacobs, 2000, n.p.).

As Jacobs pointed out, there are different kinds of magic. There’s mechanical verses occultic magic, or incantational verses invocational magic. As Morse (2004) said:

Harry and his classmate[s] are born with the ability to perform magic—much as real life kids are born with musical or mathematical ability. Students at Hogwarts learn to cast spells, read crystal balls, and transform hedgehogs into pincushions—but they don’t attempt to contact the supernatural world. (n.p.)

Invocational magic literally means “to call in” (Granger, 2004, p.4-5), and magic

of this kind is usually called sorcery. The Bible says that calling in spirits is “dangerously stupid” (Granger, 2004, p.4-5). Stories that do touch on sorcery show how it always leads to the sorcerer’s downfall. The magic in the Harry Potter books are incantational only, and incantational means “to sing along with” or “to harmonize” (Granger, 2004, p. 4-5). C.S. Lewis shows the difference between the two kinds of magic in his Narnia book, Prince Caspian. (Granger 2004).

In Prince Caspian, when a battle is going badly for Prince Caspian, a dwarf named Nikabrik found a hag who can call up the dead White Witch, whom he hopes will then help them defeat their foes. When Prince Caspian finds out, he is mad. “So that is your plan, Nikabrik! Black sorcery and the calling up of an accursed spirit. And I see who your companions are—a Hag and a Wer-Wolf!” (Lewis, 1951, p. 165).

Some Christians dislike the Harry Potter books for another reason besides magic; they think Harry is a poor role model. Harry Potter is “often at odds with some of his teachers” but these teachers are the ones who are at odds with the “wise, benevolent, and powerful Headmaster, Albus Dumbledore… But to Dumbledore, significantly, Harry is unswervingly faithful and obedient” (Jacobs, 2000, n.p.). Harry did say in the Half-Blood Prince that he was “Dumbledore’s man, through and through”. (Rowling, 2005, p.649).

Harry Potter lies, uses trickery and deception, and “breaks a hundred rules”, all poor choices. (Dooley, 2002, n.p.). Harry’s “tendency to bypass or simply flout the rules is a matter of moral concern for him: he wonders and worries about the self–justifications he offers, and often doubts not just his abilities but his virtue.” (Jacobs, 2000, n.p.).

Hogwarts is divided into four Houses, Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, and Slytherin, into which the students are sorted for the entire time they attend the school. In the first book, during the Sorting Hat ceremony, the hat thought Harry should go into the Slytherin house. Harry, having heard enough of the Slytherin legacy—many of the students from that House went bad—told the hat not to put him there. The Sorting Hat placed him in Gryffindor instead. Harry can’t get over the fact that he was almost placed in Slytherin, and in the Chamber of Secrets confided this to Dumbledore. Dumbledore told him that: “It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.” (Rowling, 1999, p.333).

Harry Potter is human, and he makes human mistakes, according to Rowling. On Harry’s moral sense, Rowling (2000), said in an interview with Wyman (2000):

I see him as a good person but with a human underbelly. He is vulnerable, he is frequently afraid, he has a very strong conscience, and it is my belief that with the overwhelming majority of human beings—maybe I’m a wild optimist—most people do try to do the right thing, by their own lights. (n.p.)

Another reason why some Christians dislike the Harry Potter books is because there are no instances of Christianity in the books.  For without God and absolute truths, where do the characters’ concept of right and wrong come from? (Smithouser n.d.). Yet the Harry Potter books have become the subject of many books because of their connection to God, such as Looking for God in Harry Potter by John Granger, The Gospel According to Harry Potter: Spirituality in the Stories of the World’s Most Famous Seeker by Connie Neal, and God, the Devil, and Harry Potter: A Christian Minister Defense of the Beloved Novels by John Killinger. Dooley (2002) quoted Sheridan Gilley (n.d.) as saying:

Christianity is absent from the books…but to condemn this fantasy world would surely be to damn all the vast mass of fantasy literature in which such magic is commonplace. Moreover, bad or irresponsible witchcraft is condemned here, and the actual morality of the works is evangelically of the simplest sort, of good against evil. (n.p.)

Dooley (2002) also quoted Leonie Caldecott (n.d.) from “Harry Potter and the Culture of Life”:

Overall, I cannot help feeling that a writer who calls the arch-enemy of all that makes life worth living “Voldemort” can’t be a million miles away from a Pope who sums up the ills of the modern world with the term “culture of death”. (n.p.)

Caldecott is accurate in her comparison, as Rowling (2000) said that “if you’re

choosing to write about evil, you really do have a moral obligation to show what that means.” (Time, 2000, n.p.). Harry “is constantly thrown up against dark forces, particularly the ultimate evil, Lord Voldemort. So far, despite all odds, Potter and the forces of virtue and decency have triumphed. The moral significance seems clear.” (Wyman, 2000, n.p.).

Rowling didn’t write the Harry Potter books specifically to be moralizing, and they don’t have any references to God. She said in a 2005 interview that she doesn’t think that her books are “that secular. But, obviously, Dumbledore is not Jesus.” She also said in the same interview that “undeniably, morals are drawn.” (Grossman, 2005, p. 64). For comparison, Tolkein didn’t write his Lord of the Rings trilogy to consciously “defend Christian doctrine directly,” either. (The Irish Family, 1994, part II, Christianity section).

            The Harry Potter books don’t need to contain explicit references to Christianity, for, as Tolkein said in Letter 142, “the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.” (The Irish Family, 1994, Part II, Section 1). Granger concurs, as Rowling’s books contain “themes, imagery, and engaging stories that echo the Great Story we are wired to receive and respond to.” (2004, p. xix). This may be the reason why so many people enjoy Rowling’s series, because their “hearts resonate with the deeper stories underlying the surface of Harry’s stories”. (Granger 2004, p. xxi).

            “The magic and miracles we read about in great literature are merely reflections of God’s work in our life…the magic in Harry Potter and other good fantasy fiction harmonizes with the miracles of the saints.”(Granger, 2004, p. 5). Granger’s statements, that the Harry Potter books and other good fantasy fiction all contain some sort of link to God’s creation, are very similar to Tolkien’s claims in his essay, On Fairy-Stories.             Hastings summarized the four characteristics Tolkien said that all true fairy tales have. The first requirement is fantasy; a true fairy tale needs to be internally consistent, though it is free from the restrictions of the real world. After experiencing the fantasy, readers are in the recovery stage. Readers see things from a slightly different angle afterwards, seeing them in a fresher light. Thirdly, fantasies must have escapism; it must not treat what is reality as inevitable, but it should offer alternatives, even though the alternatives are impossible. The last requirement fantasies need is the consolation, the happy ending, or as Tolkien calls it, the eucatastrophe. “This is the moment of joy at deliverance from evil.” (Hastings, n.d., n.p.). Tolkien says that the greatest eucatastrophe is the Resurrection. The escapism stage is much better explained in an article by The Irish Family, “Escape is closely linked to that of Recovery, ‘escape from’ in order to find out what we are ‘created for’.” (1994, n.p.) .Tolkien described the consolation stage in his essay, On Fairy-Stories, as:

The peculiar quality of…”joy” in successful Fantasy can…be explained eas [sic] a sudden glimpse of the underlying reality or truth. It is not only a “consolation” for the sorrow of this world, but a satisfaction…in the “eucatastrophe” we see in a brief vision that the answer may be greater–it may be a far-off gleam or echo or evangelium in the real world. (ssf.net, n.d., n.p.)

Carpenter (1977), in J.R.R. Tolkien: A Biography, quoted Tolkien (n.d.):

We have come from God and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, will also reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Indeed, only by myth-making, only by becoming a “sub-creator” and inventing stories, can Man ascribe to the state of perfection that he knew before the fall. (The Irish Family, 1994, n.p.)

Even though the popular Harry Potter books has its critics, “evidently there is

plenty of room for argument about the books’ merits and their morality.” (Dooley, 2002, n.p.) Rowling (2000) believes that too, and is getting impatient with those think otherwise. “…I feel that you can lead a fool to a book but you can’t make them think.” (Wyman, 2000, n.p.)

Beam, L. (n.d.) Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Retrieved November 4, 2005,

   from pluggedinonline.com. http://www.pluggedinonline.com/articles/a0001776.cfm

Blume, J. (1999, October 22) Is Harry Potter Evil? The New York Times, n.p. Retrieved

   November 4, 2005, from judyblume.com. http://www.judyblume.com/articles

   /harry_potter_oped.html

brainyquote.com. (n.d.) Arthur C. Clarke Quotes. Retrieved November 6, 2005, from

   http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/arthurccl101182.html

brainyquote.com. (n.d.) Voltaire Quotes. Retrieved November 6, 2005, from

   http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/v/voltaire121880.html

CNN.com (1999) Success of Harry Potter bowls author over. Retrieved November 4,

   2005 from http://www.cnn.com/books/news/9910/21/rowling.intvu/index.html

Comic Relief (2001, March). Comic Relief live chat transcript. Retrieved November 6,

   2005, from Quick-Quotes-Quill.org. http://www.quick-quote-quill.org /articles/

   2001/0301-comicrelief-staff.htm

Corliss, R. (2000, July 21) Why ‘Harry Potter’ did a Harry Houdini. Time Magazine,

   n.p. Retrieved November 4, 2005, from CNN.com. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/books/

   news/07/21/potter7_21.a.tm/

Dooley, D. (2002, January/February). Harry Potter: pro and con. Catholic Insight.

   Retrieved November 4, 2005, from catholicinsight.com. http://catholicinsight.

   com/online/culture/article_239.shtml

factmonster.com (n.d.). Retrieved November 4, 2005, from http://www.factmonster   

  .com/spot/harrypottertimeline.html

 Gibb, E. (1997, June 29). Tales from a single mother. The Sunday Times, n.p.       Retrieved November 4, 2005, from Quick-Quotes-Quill.org. http://www.quick-quote-  quill.org/articles/1997/0697-sundaytimes-gibb.html Glitz, M. (1999, July 9). They’re Wild About ‘Harry’: A Popular New Series Aimed At   Kids Works its Magic on Adults. Entertainment Weekly, n.p. Retrieved November 4,    2005, from Quick-Quotes-Quill.org. http:www.quick-quotes-quill.org/articles/1999/07   99-ew-glitz.html  

Granger, J. (2004) Looking for God in Harry Potter. Tyndale House Publishers

 Gray, P. (1999, September 20) Wild about Harry. Time Magazine, n.p. Retrieved

   November 4, 2005, from Quick-Quotes-Quill.org. http://www.quick-quote-

   quill.org/articles/1999/0999-time-gray.html 

Grossmann, L. (2005, July 25) J.K. Rowling Hogwarts and All. Time Magazine, p. 64.

Hastings, W. (n.d.) J.R.R. Tolkien on Fairy Tales. Retrieved from northern.edu.

   http://www.northern.edu/hastingw/tolkienft.htm

Highfield, R. (2002) The Science of Harry Potter. New York, NY: Penguin Group Hughes, J. (2000, July 19) Wise wizards recognize fiction. The Christian Science

   Monitor, n.p. Retrieved November 4, 2005, from csmonitor.com. http://www.csmonitor

   .com/cgi- bin/durableRedirect.pl?/durable/2000/07/19/fp10s3-csm.shtml

Irish Family (1994) Part II: J.R.R. Tolkien—The Fairy Tale Maker. The Irish Family, n.p. Retrieved November 4, 2005, from ewtn.com. http://www.ewtn.com/library

    /HOMELIBR/TOLKIEN.HTM

Jacobs, A. (2000, January) Harry Potter’s Magic. First Things, n.p. Retrieved November

   4, 2005, from http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0001/reviews/jacobs.html

Johnstone, A. (1997, June 24) Happy ending, and that’s for beginners. The Herald, n.p.

   Retrieved November 4, 2005, from Quick-Quotes-Quill.org. http://www.quick-quote-

   quill.org/articles/1997/0697-herald-johnstone.html

Jones, M. (1999, August 23) Magician for Millions. Newsweek, n.p. Retrieved

   November 4, 2005, from Quick-Quotes-Quill.org. http://www.quick-quote-

   quill.org/articles/1999/0899-newsweek-jones.html

Jones, M. (2000, July 17) Why Harry’s Hot. Newsweek, n.p. Retrieved November 4,

   2005, from Quick-Quotes-Quill.org. http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/

   2000/0700-newsweek-jones2nd.htm

Lewis, C.S. (1951) Prince Caspian, 1987 ed. New York, NY: Scholastic, Inc.

Lockerbie, C. (1998, June 27) Mischief with a Magical Allure. The Scotsman, n.p.

   Retrieved November 4, 2005, from Quick-Quotes-Quill.org. http://www.quick-quote-

   quill.org/articles/1998/0698-scotsman-lockerbie.htm

 Lockerbie, C. (1998, November 28). Spell of Best-seller Magic. The Scotsman, n.p.   Retrieved November 4, 2005, from Quick-Quotes-Quill.org. http://www.quick-quote-    quill.org/articles/1998/1198-scotsman-lockerbie.htm Mack, D. (1999, November 9) It isn’t pretty…but is it art? The Christian Science

   Monitor, n.p. Retreived November 4, 2005, from csmonitor.com. http://www.

   csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/durableRedirect.pl?/durable/1999/11/09/fp9s1-csm.shtml

 Mclaughlin, D. (2000, July Harry Potter “madness” stuns author Rowling. Reuters

   News, n.p. Retrieved from Quick-Quotes-Quill.org. http://www.quick-quote-

   quill.org/articles/2000/0700-reuters-mclaughlin.html

Morse, A. (n.d.) The Potter Magic. Retrieved November 4, 2005, from Break Point

   Online. http://www.pfm.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=BreakPoint1&template

   =/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=6271

 Olson, T. (1999, December 13) Opinion Roundup: Positive about Potter. Christianity

   Today Magazine, n.p. Retrieved November 4, 2005, from christianitytoday.com.

   http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1999/150/12.0.html

O’Malley, J. (1999, July) Talking With…J.K. Rowling. Book Links, n.p. Retrieved

   November 4, 2005, from Quick-Quotes-Quill.org. http://www.quick-quote-

   quill.org/articles/1999/0799-booklinks-omalley.html

Onion (2000) Copyright. Retrieved November 4, 2005, from The Onion.com. http://

  web.archive.org/web/20000815224759/www.theonion.com/info/masthead.html

Raincoast Books. (2001, March) Raincoast Books interview transcript. Retrieved

   November 4, 2005, from Quick-Quotes-Quill.org. http://www.quick-quote-

   quill.org/articles/2001/0301-raincoast-interview.html

Rising, G. (2000, November 16) The Annotated Wizard of Oz. ArtVoice of Buffalo, n.p.

   Retrieved November 4, 2005, from acsu.buffalo.edu. http://www.acsu.buffalo.

   edu/~insrisg/bookmarks/bk2000/1116wizard.html

Rowling, J.K. (1997) Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. New York, NY: Scholastic,

   Inc.

Rowling, J.K. (1999) Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. New York, NY:

   Scholastic, Inc.

Rowling, J.K. (2005) Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. New York, NY:

   Scholastic, Inc.

Scholastic.com (2000, October 16) Scholastic interview transcript. Retrieved November

   4, 2005, from http://direct.www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript2.htm.

Smithouser, J. (n.d.) Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Retrieved from

   Pluggedinonline.com. http://www.pluggedinonline.com/articles/a0001780.cfm

ssf.net. (n.d.) Some Excerpts from J.R.R. Tolkien’s Essay On Fairy Stories. Retrieved

   November 4, 2005  from http://www.sff.net/people/Sherwood/reading/fairy.htm

 Thompson, T. (1997, July 8). First Attempt at Fantasy becomes $100,000 reality. The   Scotsman, n.p. Retrieved November 4, 2005, from Quick-Quotes-Quill.org. http:   //www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/1997/0797-scotsman-thompson.html  

Time Magazine (2000, October 30) Essay: A Conversation with J.K. Rowling; A Good

   Scare. Time Magazine, n.p. Retrieved November 4, 2005, from Quick-Quotes-

   Quill.org. http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2000/1000-time-staff.htm

Trelease, J. (2001) The Read-Aloud Handbook, 5^th ed. New York, NY: Penguin Group.

   Retrieved November 4, 2005, from trelease-on-reading.com. http://www.trelease-on-  

   reading.com /rah_chpt 7_p2.html

 Treneman, A. (1997, November 21). Joanne Rowling’s Secret is Out. The Independent,    n.p. Retrieved November 4, 2005, from Quick-Quotes-Quill.org. http://www.quick-   quote-quill.org/articles/1997/1197-independent-treneman.html 

Urban Legends Reference Pages. (2001, December 2) Harry Potter books are sparking a

   rise in Satanism among children. Retrieved November 4, 2005, from Snopes.com.  

   http:// www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/potter.htm

 Walker, A. (1998, October 29). Edinburgh Author is Elated as America goes Potty over

   Potter. The Scotsman, n.p. Retrieved November 4, 2005 from Quick-Quotes-Quill.org.

   http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/1998/1098-scotsman-walker2.htm Waters, G., & Mithrandir, A. (2003). Ultimate unofficial guide to the mysteries of Harry   Potter (Analysis of books 1-4) Niles, IL: Wizarding World Press.  

Williams, R. (1999, January 29) The spotty schoolboy and single mother taking the

   mantle from Roald Dahl. The Independent, n.p. Retrieved November 4, 2005, from 

   Quick-Quotes-Quill.org. http://www.quick-quotes-quill.org/articles/1999/0199-

   independent-williams.html.

wizardingworld.com (n.d.). I Thought That Sounded Familiar… Retrieved November 6,

   2005, from http://www.wizardingworld.com/info/fantasy-themes.html

wizardingworld.com (n.d.) Why Are the Harry Potter Books So Popular? Retrieved

   November 4, 2005, from http://www.wizardingworld.com/info/hp-success.html

Wyman, M. (2000, October 26) ‘You can lead a fool to a book but you can’t make them

   think’: Author has frank words for the religious right. The Vancouver Sun. Retrieved

   November 4, 2005, from Quick-Quotes-Quill.org. http://www.quick-quote-

   quill.org/articles/2000/1000-vancouversun-wyman.htm

I hadn’t gotten around to writing another blog. I should have, I know. I also shouldn’t have had kettle corn after getting my wisdom teeth pulled…so there. If it helps any, I wrote many blogs…in my head. I just never had a chance to write them down. This was one of my mentally written blogs, but now it’s getting written down…

 Writing is harder work than I’d like it to be. It’s not necessarily the writing that’s hard, it’s that life gets in the way. No wonder many writers were “loners”. They have to be in order to write! Then there’s those super-organized who manage to dash off another book in between appointments. show offs. I was writing on one book (that’s been in-process for four years), until I decided I’d have to axe some characters. They just weren’t adding anything to the story. Plus, if I didn’t have that older brother, then the friend (who is the hopeful boyfried–sucessfully in the end) will have a better reason to be brother to this girl’s younger siblings. His acts of kindness to her siblings will win her over, though she’s in denial for much of the book. But this process of axeing characters will take time, and I’m on a fence right now. Should I write on, omitting the characters, finishing the book before I go back and revise? Or should I go back and revise, then finish the book? I am so close! About 3/4 of the way done…that’s why this decision is hard for me.

 So, as a procrastination method, I began another story. I really liked it for a while because I gave it an unique spin. But now, (it’s a fantasy), I’m wondering, is it unique enough to sell? There’s a ton of fantasy stories out there, is it possible that every permutation have been worn out and used up? Is the world quite like the Library of Babel yet, or is there still some hope for asprirng writers like me? Perhaps it’s like the pre-wedding jitters, a few years too early. I haven’t even finished the book yet, and I’m worried about how it’ll sell? I’ll probably get a lot of rejection letters, defeating the point. And yet that’s what I want to know. I want to know if it’ll be “worth it” before I even write it, an impossible wish, yes I know.

We ought to just write for ourselves, and if they just happen to sell, then that’s our luck! But I wish I could have a career of writing, not needing a “day job” to support my dream job. That’s where my jitters are coming from. I shouldn’t be so hard on myself. After all, I’m still a freshman writer. Soon to be sophomore. I should write for myself, but here I am, writing for myself, and yet you all are reading this. There’s a bit of an ego in all of us, wanting an audience, wanting to think we’re somehow famous, somehow worth this life that we’re living right now. Blogging is satisfying my need for readers, while remaining anonymous. And it’s like a public diary, where no-one will ever guess who exactly you are, because, unlike a public school’s limited population, there’s bound to be a thousand more like me in the United States, and tens of thousands of people similar to me in the world.

 I should work on my two stories now. Or I might start a third one. See you at my book signings someday, I hope

I watched Bridge to Terabithia a couple of nights ago, and I cried from the time of Leslie’s death on past the credits. I should have known. It was an award winning book, with a sticker on the cover and everything.

Book law #1: In all books with an award sticker on the front, somebody’s going to die. Corollary #1: In all award-winning dog books, the dog is a goner.

Cases in point: Lassie, Old Yeller, A Dog Called Kitty, Tale of Two Cities, Lord of the Rings, Steel Magnolias, etc etc. Even the age-old story of Jesus ends with His death! I’m sure you can think of more “good” books that you just wonder…what makes them so great? True, we live only to die, whether sooner or later. But why concentrate on death? Can’t we just enjoy the journey of life?

Yikes…if good books are to become great, somebody dear must die. What does that mean for Harry Potter? Uh oh…I’m going to have a box of tissues with me….

Want more proof? Read “No More Dead Dogs” by Gordon Korman.

And feel free to post more “great” and sad books and movies…I want to know which ones to avoid! And which ones are mandatory tear-jerkers…Bridge to Terabithia is one of those mandatory ones, unfortunately *sobs*

I know I haven’t written in a while. But according to my stats, I’m still doing all right! The top posts are about the National Anthem in ASL and the difference between happiness and joy.

 Anyway, summer is busy. It’s supposed to be lazy, I know, but I’ve been cramming in all the stuff I’ve been meaning to do all school year long, and now it’s like a full time job in itself! Redid my room completely, paint, floor, new door, etc. Worked on my story…yet I’m procrastinating…guess why I’m updating my blog? Updated the list of all the books I own…it’s topping 700 books easily  Made my outfit for the Harry Potter release parties…the book and the movie!!!! getting closer and closer…attended Shakespeare…Perhaps I’ll get my first boyfriend this summer? I can only hope This one guy, “Z”, is cute. And sweet. And loves his little sisters. And is Catholic. And supports all the right causes. And likes that I’m learning ASL. And thinks my double major is awesome…and this is the guy with the cool major in art! I almost did that myself…before I decided I liked writing better. I just don’t know, though. Does he like me, too? I mean, he talks to me. He asks questions about me. I can’t believe how stupid I sound, answering some of those questions…I’ve always been really cautious about conversations in general, because I don’t want to talk about the wrong thing (due to my deafness).

“So, where do you work?” <—him    “That sounds great!” <—me   “Uhhhh…” <—him    *blushes*<—me

 Then I get rather flustered sometimes, and forget to ask him questions too…and I’m afraid he’ll think I’m self-centered! Really, I want to learn more about other people (and him, too)! ‘Kay, I understand this may be a simple crush, but I must be honest…I’ve never been in love before. So I don’t know what it feels like as compared to a crush. I’m trying to be really cautious, so I don’t get let down, but at the same time be “available”…But I get excited when he writes to me on Facebook…or when I get a chance to meet him…usually I dread crowds and large groups of friends, but I was excited to go to an outdoor play where everybody was there, just because he was there…:)

Is this pizza love, or is it true love? Pizza love is having a pan of pizza in front of you, and saying “I really love pizza!” but when it’s gone, the love’s gone, too. True love on the other hand….Great distinction, isn’t it? But with people, it’s different.

*does he love me, does he not, does he love me, does he not* does he have a girlfriend? does he even like me? he did say he would come and visit me at work sometime, but that he would have to catch a bus…should i have offered to drive him somewhere? is that why he’s not taking bolder action with me, that he can’t provide on a date if he doesn’t have a car? i should have offered him a ride sometime, because, really, i don’t mind driving if i have to, esp. if it means we have a chance to see if we’re right for each other….but if he doesn’t have a car, then that might me he thinks he can’t provide for me if we’re married, because being deaf is expensive and taxing, not only for me but for those who love me like my parents, so perhaps my deafness scares potential men away because they don’t think they can provide for me and potential deaf children we might have. that’s rather depressing, once you think about it, but someday God will send the right man along, though I’m hoping it’s “Z”! i’ll keep hoping and praying and last night i did the rosary to that end…*

Okay, got this out. You may be wondering…and vocation search has taken a new turn. Now, more than ever, I’m thinking that perhaps my vocation is marriage, instead of religous life. Sure, it sounds great to me, to become a nun, a great sacrifice and all, but it just doesn’t feel right. I prayed a lot. I talked to a lot of nuns on various forums, but there’s no real spark. Then on a forum somebody asked if being single could be a vocation, and that got me thinking…I won’t mind being single! At least for a while. That way, I can help out a lot with my time, talents, and money from my job, since I don’t have anybody to support. Then when I get married, I’ll have lots of kids, adopted, natural, foster perhaps. I love kids. I love doing cookies, reading ,etc etc, though I must admit that sometimes I just get sick and tired…but then, what mom doesn’t?

So, now, I finally wrote a new blog post. I hope you’re happy I’m rather pleased, myself. After procrastinating so long, it won’t keep bothering me for a while. I can enjoy my vacation in relative peace. Remember, women’s brains are like computers…we have a window open per subject, maybe several for each subject, and they’re all running all at the same time, and we can switch among them all, sometimes purposefully, sometimes against our will. And they’ll keep running until we do something to shut down the program. Whether it’s cleaning, or writing, or catching up with a friend, I’m gradually shutting down the windows that’s been pestering me since perhaps September…

If somebody reads this and thinks they know it’s me, feel free to both not tell me, or ask me about something, but please don’t pester me if I’d rather not discuss it. But typically, I won’t mind talking about it, as long as you have an open mind and you don’t bring it up in front of other people, and don’t keep dragging it up later after we’ve already been over the topic. This is the only place I can vent without affecting how some people see me. It’s not to say I don’t trust you, it’s that I don’t trust myself. I like being anonymous to try out ideas without committing myself to a certain path…if that makes sense…

Well, bit by bit my questions are being answered on various forums and threads, such as about cochlear implants (somebody knew a sister who got an implant AFTER entering the order). I also figured out that whatever I join, I need to be doing a variety of things. I’ll get bored if I do the same thing day in and day out…yes, I know the prayers are the same and the pattern of day is the same, but if I can teach one day then do some crocheting, then write for myself, then work with the poor, then paint the convent…you get the idea. I’ve also gotten a lot of encouragement from the online community One lady said, “Don’t walk, RUN to your Bridegroom!”, and another person said I should concentrate on finding an order that fits your charism and talents best, first, then negotiate accomodations for health, implant, etc. Both of these helped me a lot, and another guy posted a couple of links to a list of all or most of the orders.

I’ve been going through each individual order on the list. Automatic ‘no’s are orders who didn’t submit a description of themselves, and contemplative only orders. I say no to most orders who don’t have a website, but not always (depending on their description). I figure if they don’t have a website, they either don’t have money enough for it, let alone for my upkeep, or they’re too cloistered. It is my belief that nuns and religious sisters should take an active part of the community, raise visibility, and dismiss (oh, what’s the word?) cliches? old wives tales? Anyway, sure, praying is important and vital, and I’m all for it, but you must take an active part in getting the prayers answered. In other words, you have to help God help you.

My emotions and thoughts and feelings have been going all over the board concerning vocations, now more than ever, which is odd, because I have at least 3-4 more years of college to complete to get my degree. Yes, I know most orders don’t require a degree, but I feel I can be more of an asset if I have more of a education and background, much how a star employee can make the company soar to new heights, I want to help the Catholic Church soar to new heights in the world. I want to make a difference in as many lives as I can, and that brings me back to the visibility and modernity issue. Yes, habits are important and vital. So are prayers. But prayers aren’t the only tool availiable to us. Do you think XXX businesses stick to undercover brothels? No, they make porn sites, and use ads to get to the masses. We must use these very weapons to faith and turn it to our advantage…in other words, we must make faith sites and use ads to get to the masses. We must blog! We must podcast! Above all, we must enter each person’s heart, the path which increasingly is through media. This is why I’m keeping Daughters of St. Paul in mind, for media is their charism (is that the right word?). Plus they have a publisher, so maybe I can publish some of my books through there…one only hopes!

I do have more questions I will be asking… Can nuns have fun? I’m a amusement park fan, and sure, while we can’t go every year, I’d like to go every 5 years, maybe. Can I be based at one order, but be a sort of a “floating” nun, so I can travel? Can an order own a dog jointly among the sisters? Can I keep my books and some of my movies? (Not just for myself, but to share). Can I keep some of my clothes, for painting and such hot and sweaty work? If I come down with one of my migraines, is it even possible for me to sleep it off, instead of (unfortunately) morning prayers or something? Can nuns still go see movies? (It’s a good tool to use to reach the young…using popular media as a vehicle for a message). Etc etc.

If any of you readers want to suggest a good order, please feel free to leave a comment! I’m interested in pro life, education, deaf and other physical disabilities, cooking, arts and crafts, children!, pregnant mothers, media, writing, reading, promoting books, helping the poor, traveling…The order doesn’t have to cover all these points, but most would be nice, or maybe if the charism leaves room for future ideas and missions, I’d consider those too.

Sure, President Bush was idealistic, and as we could tell from our response of Socrates’ “ideal city” that ideology doesn’t always translate well into facts.

One of the major differences I see between Iraq and the US is that while in America we come from separate backgrounds, we all can get along or at least tolerate others. But in Iraq, I see a lot of hatred and aminosity between the Sunnis, the Shites, and the Kurds, and even though they’re all Muslims, the minor differences to them is worth it to kill, because like you said they’re at the lower level of hierarchy and don’t have the esteem of others yet. I’m just guessing, but that’s what it seems like. Imagine Christianity in America. If all of us Christians fought against other Christians just because they’re different Christians, that’s kinda what’s going on in Iraq.

As far as good and evil, better or worse goes, it all depends on your point of view (like we debated in class today  ) Then, the Iraqis were thinking that they had it bad under Saddam, and wanted change. Then the US came in and gave them change, and while they got rid of an evil tyrant, people changed their minds and said that they had it good under his regime, and that America ruined everything for them. Sure, people weren’t fighting under Saddam’s regime, but they couldn’t do much of anything else. Remember the “elections”? Saddam got 100% of the vote. Now there’s just too much democracay in Iraq, and they don’t know what to do with it yet. That’s just my view of the situation.

Now, I’m getting off my soapbox!

***

Actually, in the newspaper it said that many historians already doubt the validity of the finding. (FYI, one historian in particular is investigating it, and he’s an athiest). It’s happened before, last time somebody found something like “James, brother of Jesus” tomb, and it was proven to be fake. Also, “brother” and “sister” were used very loosely back then to include friends and other relatives. Even cousins were considered brothers and sisters. And, even though generally when we say “Jesus”, we know we mean “Jesus Christ”. But Jesus is just another name that was probably common then just as some Muslims are named Jesus. So, even if it is proven to be Jesus’s tomb, we don’t know for sure whether it is Jesus Christ’s or if it is a different Jesus. So, scientists would have to have a DNA sample of Him to match it to the bones before “chaos” would ensue.

***

Hmm…I know what you’re talking about. But I don’t believe Islam is wholly out to destroy other religions It’s just that it seems like all we ever hear about are these “extremists” and “radicals”. Wait…the same could be said of Catholic and other religions! That is a reason why many dislike Mormons in general…it’s their missionaries going door to door. And after the Elizabeth Smart incident, people tended to think that all Mormoms are weird like the guy who kidnapped her. It’s like falling into the elephant trap. If you build a trap for one kind of belief, that’s all you’re going to find. Or the sterotyping trap. The media likes hyping things up, you rarely hear about things like “In other news today, a Muslim cleric declared “World Peace Day”". That doesn’t have the same ring to it.

It’s not just the Ten Commandments that give a guide to everyday life, there are other passages in the Bible that provides good teaching (or advice, however sounds better). It’s not as if they’re constantly telling us “NO”, it’s more like freeing us so we can actually enjoy life. It’s the difference between happiness and joy. Happiness is fleeting, like eating a dozen cookies in one sitting. But you feel sick afterwards, and hate yourself because now you’re a pound heavier. Joy is more lasting, and usually comes after a trial, some difficulty, or sadness. If you found an endorsed check for $1200 dollars, sure, you can follow your first impulse and cash it. Instant happiness. But if you go against that impulse, search in the paper phone book, then the online versions, before you finally find the person who wrote it or who it was addressed to, call them to give it back to them, true, that may be difficult, but wouldn’t you feel proud to say, “I returned it!” Think of how many people say “I stole 1200 dollars today!”. What sounds better? Yes, returning it provides joy, and yes, this is a true story that happened to my mom, though I did the legwork for her.

Here’s a hypothetical question. Would you rather be in a repressive regime that forbids or at least very strongly discourages other religions, kills whole villages when somebody from it accidentally or purposefully speaks out against you, or would you rather be in an uncertain environment, where yes, there is daily car bombings, but now you can openly practice your religion, or marry a guy of another religion, or not have to wear that stupid, stifling hijab on hot Iraqi summer days? Again, it’s choosing which is the lesser of two evils. I notice you’re not comparing Bush and Gore. I’ll quote some of my graduation speech here, “It does not do well at all/ To sit around and complain,/ To berate the results/ Previous generations have obtained/ For we are a new generation/ Our eyes are fresh, our minds are clear, our hearts are strong/ Let us put our knowledge to work/ And improve the land to which we belong…”

*

True. We just call them “extremists.” There are extremists in every religion (not just Islam). I’m not justifying the war in Iraq or anything, but Bush is going after the extremists, not just because they’re Islamic. (Perhaps he is, but thought I should offer another view of the issue). We jail extremist Catholics/Christians who bomb abortion clinics (the wrong way to go about it…I much prefer the Supreme Court ruling! yay!).

Still, we can’t judge a whole religion based on the few kooks. I mean, Jewish, Christian, and Islam all have a common history (up to a certain point), and they’re all Abrahamic religions. I don’t admire the people who read the Koran to condone violence, but I admire that Islam also believes that abortion is wrong. So long as we find some common ground, some shared history, then and only then will we have the groundwork for peace.

***

The answer is 42. (According to the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.)

I suppose the answer is not to dwell on our demise. It doesn’t do any good to think about our afterlife (or afterdeath) while shunning the present. It only makes us depressed.

The meaning of life is to give life meaning.

“Climb every mountain, Ford every stream, Follow every rainbow, Till you find your dream, A dream that will need, All the love you can give, Every day of your life, For as long as you live!”

“Be the change you wish to see in the world”

We can use the earth’s resources to our advantage, because otherwise we would have died off a long time ago! But true, we also need to take care of the earth. If we’re rich enough to.

“To err is human, to forgive is divine.”

“…For we are a new generation/ Our eyes are fresh, our minds are clear, our hearts are strong,/ Let us put our knowledge to work/ And improve the land to which we belong…”

Who’s to say we’re all going to die anytime soon? “The end of the world is at hand!” If we do things right, our race just might continue to last as long as the dinosaurs, or even longer. Or we might end up like the Galactica, we’ll roam space and try to stay alive until we find the Earth, or we just might be like Captain Picard, and enjoy archaeology on other planets, studying the ruins of other civilizations, possibly including our own.

But…”Do what you can with what you have, where you are”. We can’t worry about that now; that can be a goal for our kind, but what about your personal goal? Striving, striving, striving. What’s the purpose of your life?

***

I agree, technology really has helped in the education arena, even for homeschoolers. A lot of the learning games helped me (and a few didn’t)…like Treasure Mathstorm, Treasure Mountain, Read, Write, and Type, and the Princeton Review ACT. The internet helped to fill in some of the information I couldn’t find in books for my reports. But so long as we don’t train people to rely soley on technology–a well-rounded education is important. Sure, we can watch War of the Worlds, but it’s far better to hold HG  Wells’s book in your hand. Sure, you can find lots of information on the Internet, but it’s my preference to use the Internet to search for books at the library, then go pick up the books. And, like I said, the librarians can’t always rely on the computerized catalog; it fails sometimes (quite frequently in the summer, unfortunately) so they have to keep the Dewey Decimal System in their heads–even the pages have a mental map of most of the books in the library.

We can’t take a blind leap into the future; we must keep a firm foot on the past, just in case. Otherwise, it would be a win-all/lose-all situation, a brave new world, or a steep cliff. We don’t want to be lemmings (which, by the way, is a old wives’ tale, another thing you learn from books!)

***

No, don’t apologize; it’s an interesting topic! (I actually thought you guys might have learned about it last semester…).

Organized religion divides the world only because many choose to divide on the basis of religion. Perhaps it’s the Maslow thingy; most of us aren’t high enough on the Hiearchy to say, “Hey, wait a minute. Why are we fighting? We share the same history and much of the same religious texts. We’re practically family!”. Sure, some families aren’t so great. But some families are. Sure, I may get irritated at my sister for putting the toilet paper roll on backwards. But do I yell at her? No, I just switch it. Or I endure it. It’s not really that  big of a deal. Do you yell at someone because they left their dishes in the sink? No, you either deal with it or you put it in the dishwasher for them (If they’re taking advantage of you, then yeah, talk to them. With your mouth, not your fists.)

True, religion is a little bigger deal than toilet paper or dishes. But it’s only as big a deal as you let it be. Most of us live in harmony with one another. It’s just that in journalism, you don’t have a headline of “Another day of neighbors living peacefully with each other”. The real story is “Israelites bomb Palestinians” (or vice versa). That’s sinking to the belonging needs level. But you can still belong to a religion and progress up the Hiearchy, so long as it’s not your whole life. It’s a facet of your life, that’s all. Just like I’m Catholic, a homeschool graduate, a book lover, a sister, a daughter, a student, a library employee, deaf, an American, etc. None of these take over my whole life. Even nuns and priests and married couples don’t make their life-changing vows take over their own life. Their personality still endures, the other facets of your life still endures. If I became a nun, I’d still be able to read/write/pray/volunteer like I usually do. And I’ll still treat people alike; even if I hate them, I still treat them like I do everybody else. I don’t begrudge Islam. Like I said elsewhere, Jews, Christians, Islamics all have the same background, some common ground that we can find a footing of peace on together. I would have bought a cookie from the Islam Awareness table today, if I had cash with me.

In conclusion (yeah, it’s long enough for a conclusion) the chasm between religions are only as wide as you make them.

***

I agree that the clash of beliefs and ideology are like crossed wires; you don’t get the effect you want from your religion or policy. (Like a few months ago, whenever I shut the microwave door, the back doorbell would ring. Obviously not what I was intending.) I do think that you can fix crossed wires. If you can’t uncross them, you can at least sheath them in a protective covering that keeps the wires from interacting. This is what America tries to do, allow for the multiplicity of religions and ideologies, all while keeping us from being at each others’ throats. We use that sheathing to take a step back and say, “Okay, you don’t believe what I believe. You don’t step on grass. I can live with that. What’s the big deal anyway?”

I agree that today’s conflicts, while having a religious name, are based out of power, land, and political gain. They just use religion to cover up that true meaning.

About the land, what’s interesting is that our textbook says that the Jewish people were there before the Muslims drove them out and took over. So, you side with the Jews if you say that “they had it first, give it back”, and you side with the Muslims when you say, “Survival of the fittest”. Now, reduced to those terms, don’t they sound like a bunch of toddlers whose parents have different ideas of parenting? However, if you side with the latter, then that gives precedence to continual bickering and pushing and shoving until the next person is the king of the hill. (Remember that game when you were little?) Neither response is fair in the long run, however, as our mothers knew. After a while they’d say, “Why don’t you share?” I think that’s what the Jewish and the Palestineans have to learn in order to have peace in the land.

While I’ll admit that I want God to exist, because without Him the world seems cold, evil, and downtrodden, Anslem’s argument isn’t very convincing. Maybe it’s because I didn’t really read it…I just skimmed through it, reading only the sentences that actually made sense. But I see why he might say the same thing over again in different permutations; he did it to make sure there were no holes in his argument. But nobody will poke holes in your argument if they don’t read it… It was only near the end that his argument was more readable. Readable his argument was near the end. Than that of the beginning of his argument… I must admit that after Gaunilo made his counterargument, Anslem was more (what’s the word I’m looking for? Loquacious?)…Anyway, it’s funny how Gaunilo shot down Anslem’s argument (with glee?), and then pretended the rest of his essay was okay, and then Anslem basically called Gaunilo an idiot before thanking him for his criticism.

I read somewhere that all these “proofs” that God exists led people to think He didn’t exist…basically, they started disbelieving when Descartes’ proofs showed how His nonexistence could be possible…talk about irony.

***

Okay, let’s see if I can answer this without stirring up further argument… One can argue that the government does have religious convictions (setting aside the gay argument for a second), because the government bans murder, rape, and stealing, to name a few. Some religions believe in child sacrifice (I read somewhere about how this headless child’s torso was found in a river as a result of a cult’s ceremony.) But, wisely, that is outlawed. Liberty in reality isn’t the same as the “ideal” liberty, for if it were, everything would be chaotic. Religion may be an artificial construct to some, but as Voltaire (an athiest) said, “if God didn’t exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.” These “religous” laws may sound like we’re imposing one set of values on everybody (as in the Crusades). (The Catholic Church wasn’t alone in persecuting one set of Christianity, remember those anti-Catholic laws in the U.S. and Britian oh-so-recently? And the Nazis persecuting the Jews? to name a few) But following these set of values (such as the Ten Commandments) provides a sense of order and discipline among any group of people. Judging is a necessary part of humanity, though we try hard not to pre-judge or let our judgements get in the way of our thinking. Naturally, we judge murderers poorly, and philanthropists highly.

Now, back to homosexuality. This may be a case where it neither “empties my purse or breaks my leg,”, but if it were a true religious belief to be homosexual, then the government would already allow this, but not require each religious denomination to marry them. Basically, it’d be one of those “Justice of the Peace” deals, if not sanctioned by the religion. In religious views, being homosexual isn’t a sin, it’s giving into these impuses that is. All people are sexual, that in itself isn’t a sin. But giving into the thoughts or impulses (outside of marriage, that is) is a sin, for both hetero and homo. It’s a disability, as it were, for homosexual people. It’s like depression, (which runs heavily in my family, by the way, so none of that pre-judging here!). Having it isn’t a sin, but giving into it is. One must never give up the fight, one must never give in, no matter how hopeless things are, you must never not care about the house or your room being a pig sty (beyond normal messiness), you must force yourself to care, and then that sets you on the baby steps back to at least indifference, if not pure happiness or joy again. I’ve got to go to bed now.

***

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He lives in the spirit of Christmas…in our hearts, the same way we keep Christmas in our hearts. So while the physical Santa as we know it does not exist, the spirit (in a metaphorical sense) of St. Nicholas does. Maybe the reason the existence of God is difficult to understand is because He doesn’t exist in a purely physical form that we are used to…when we are made in God’s image, perhaps it isn’t merely our physical form, or even the physical form at all…Perhaps the image of God that is within us is our soul. (Don’t go pointing out the flaws–though we are made in His image that doesn’t rule out sin–remember Socrate’s shadow-images?) (Don’t fault this analogy either. It’s to make a point, it’s not a perfect analogy, ‘kay?)

So, the spirit of God lives on within us, if we chose to let it. Just because we can’t see the guy doesn’t mean He doesn’t exist. He can chose to manifest Himself in physical forms, or remain a mystery to us (there’s that eastern ideal!).

Again and again I’m reminded of an art technique used to train new artists, but I can’t remember the name of it. But basically, we don’t actually draw the subject. We draw everything around it, so what’s left is this white space (again with the mystery!). Because none of us can actually “see” God, (unless you’re dead or a saint) all we can do is to figure out what He is not, and what’s left, however un-understandable it is; that part is God. It’s a difficult way to draw, and likewise it’s a difficult way to understand, but since it is not provable in the scientific sense, in which we actively test the subject, so I understand if you don’t quite get it, because I’m not good at that type of drawing, either.

So, basically it comes back to faith. Either you accept the best proof we can offer, or wait until God chooses to reveal himself to the world (re: Revelations) at which point the whole debate is moot because it’s the end of the world. If you even believe in the end of times.