chamber of secrets: a new perspective

In today's interesting fan theory: Knowing of the threat muggles posed to wizards and witches, Salazar Slytherin planned ahead and built a saferoom where the students and staff of Hogwarts could hide. This secret chamber even contained a guard animal to protect them. Getting to the saferoom was something he entrusted only to members of Slytherin, because any other wizard would have muggle relatives, and therefore could be compromised in a crisis situation.

Later, there was a falling out among the founders of Hogwarts, one so bad that even Godric Gryffindor and Salazar Slytherin parted ways, though they had been best of friends previously.

Over the centuries, bigots in Slytherin twisted the legends so that the basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets came to be seen as a plan of Slytherin's to purge the impure and mudblooded from the wizarding community.

'order of the phoenix'

My daughter Evangeline just finished reading "Order of the Phoenix" this morning and it's the turning of an era. (It took her about two weeks to finish, mostly because we made her stop reading so she could eat, go to the bathroom, and get outside.)

A colleague of mine from the school board said she envies Evangeline the opportunity to read the books for the first time and to experience Harry's world as a brand-new thing on her own. For us adults, the magic is still there, but it's imore informed because of all the other fantasy works we've read over the years.

I'll allow Jessica that feeling, but I have to admit that I don't envy my younger daughter Rachel the experience she'll have. By the time she gets to finish the Harry Potter series, all the surprises and cliff-hangers will be part of the cultural white noise. It'll will be lost on her, like Star Wars was.

You see, when "The Empire Strikes Back" came out in 1980, all we could talk about was whether Darth Vader had been telling the truth when he claimed to be Luke Skywalker's father. We argued about it on the bus, over the lunch table in the cafeteria, and in the letters pages of magazines like "Dynamite." We were still arguing about it three years later when "The Return of the Jedi" arrived.

No so my children.

When Evangeline and Ruth saw "The Empire Strikes Back" not long ago, they laughed out loud at Darth Vader's big revelation. Suddenly they understand the joke from "Toy Story 2" when Zurg claimed mid-battle to be the father of Buzz Lightyear. They have no way of appreciating just how unexpected that line was.

It's going to be the same from here on out for children and the Harry Potter saga.



Copyright © 2008 by David Learn. Used with permission.


Tweet

The Deathly Hallows (spoilers)

I'm about two-thirds of the way through the newest Harry Potter book, and it's been even better than I expected.

Before we started the book Saturday morning, my wife and I thought we had worked out some of what would happen. We reckoned that Dumbledore would assist Harry, Ron and Hermione from beyond the grave; we were confident that the mysterious R.A.B. would prove to be Regulus Black, and that the Horcrux he had taken was the locket that Mundungus Fletcher had stolen from Grimmauld Place; we believed that Snape was fairly rotten but still on the right side; and we were pretty sure that this book was going to be worth the wait.

So far, we've been mostly right. We had thought from Rowling's description of Dumbledore's funeral, and  from his close association with the phoenix, that Dumbledore had been resurrected as a phoenix, and that he would be guiding the triad along their quest. That hasn't happened, but Harry has seen Dumbledore's eye in the broken shard of mirror that Sirius gave him, and the second time Dobby showed up inexplicably just after Harry asked the eye for help escaping the Malfoys.

R.A.B. has indeed been revealed to be Regulus, and that locket was the Horcrux, but so far we haven't seen any sign of him still alive. I can't see how he could have escaped the Inferi after sending Kreacher away with the Horcrux, but the note he left Voldemort indicated that he was going to do all he could to bring him down. That's hard to do if you let Inferi drown you.

Snape's been a puzzle. He's definitely an foul, twisted being, and rather cold, which makes it hard to tell what side he's really going to end up on, or fall down with in the end. No one in the Order of the Phoenix believes he's still with them, from what I can tell, which makes sense, since he killed Dumbledore at the end of "Half Blood Prince." And when Voldemort killed the Muggle studies professor, Snape played it so cool it was unsettling.

But we keep coming back to the fact that Dumbledore trusted Snape, for reasons he never expressed, and (I have to believe) part of Dumbledore's plan involved having Snape kill him. Snape after all had sworn the Unbreakable Oath to assist Draco in his mission to kill Dumbledore, and later we overheard the two of them arguing, because Snape didn't want to go through with something, and Dumbledore told him it was too late, he had sworn an oath, and so on. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out, because whatever side he's on, Snape remains an evil and contemptible being.

Natasha and I also expected that Wormtail would save Harry's life somehow -- which he did, ironically, at the cost of his own -- thus fulfilling the debt he had owed since the end of "Prisoner of Azkaban. More recently, as I was re-reading part of "The Sorcerer's Stone," I started to wonder if Draco and Harry were going to save one another's lives, in a parallel of the Snape-James relationship. In the chapter we just finished, Draco didn't save Harry's life, but he wasn't in any hurry to identify him to Lucius Malfoy and Bellatrix Lestrange.

We also are wondering if Dumbledore is related to Harry, whether he is Lily and Petunia's uncle or grandfather; and if they are descended from Godric Gryffindor. We are wondering if the Deathstick is a real wand, or just a metaphor for the sort of power that wizards amass perhaps once every generation; and as a corollary, we are wondering how much of that fairy tale told by Beedle the Bard is actual history and how much of it is a story that simply masks greater truths, as the best stories do.

We are about two-thirds of the way through the book, and we are amazed at the twists and turns the story has taken, and the edge-of-your-seat close calls the triad have had, with Nagini at Godric's Hollow, with the ministry officials at Xenophilius Lovegood's house, and with the Death Eaters at Malfoy Manor.

I've loved the depiction of Voldemort and the way he rules his roost by setting one Death Eater against another, keeping them  in line through fear and humiliation, trying to rattle Snape by killing a Hogwarts professor in front of him, and the abject fear he has of death and weakness. I was especially intrigued by the moment at Godric's Hollow where Harry and Voldemort started seeing themselves and one another through each other's eyes, because of the scar Voldemort gave Harry.

I'm curious about the doe Patronus that led Harry and Ron to the sword of Godric Gryffindor, and I wonder whose it was. The white stag is a recurring motif in Medieval and Arthurian literature, usually symbolic of Christ in its purity, but so far, its nature here is unclear.

It does seem clear at this point that one of the missing Horcruxes is in Bellatrix Lestrange's vault at Gringott's. So far they've destroyed Riddle's diary and the locket; and Dumbledore himself destroyed Slytherin's ring, which Harry now thinks is the Resurrection stone. That seems doubtful to me, since it's (again) requiring a story to be literally true rather than metaphorically so.

Anyway, that's three Horcruxes down, a fourth in Gringott's, and Nagini the snake probably representing a fifth.The sixth is probably at Hogwart's, or possibly even in Harry himself.

I'd like to think that Harry can use the scar in reverse direction, to show Voldemort what his actions have cost other people, and make him feel remorse for what he has done, an action that Hermione has said would cause the sundry pieces of Voldemort's sundered soul to reunite, killing him in the process. The best victories always lie through the path of defeat, but that may not be the way Rowling has chosen to go. We'll have to see.

In any event, we're enjoying the back. Nice work, Joanne.

Spare me literary elitism; if it's fun to read, then read it

Someone recently had the misfortune to badmouth Harry Potter in my presence, since he believes the "gateway" literature argument is specious, and teens should be reading Kafka, not Rowling.

In my experience this is foolish and shortsighted. Some of my favorite books to read as a teen were various Doctor Who and Star Trek novels, and I usually spent a small fortune on comic books. I'm more discriminating about what I read, but my only qualification is that it be well written, not that it have the seal of approval of my old English professors.

I've read and enjoyed a compendious amount of world literature. Would I have read "The Brothers Karamazov" when I was 22 if I hadn't already learned to enjoy reading with "Doctor Who and the Loch Ness Monster" 10 years earlier? Or that I would have read and enjoyed "Paradise Lost" before I graduated from high school if Spider-man and the Fantastic Four hadn't entertained me and stimulated my imagination years before?

I've read literature from France, Russia, America, England, Wales, Ireland and Iceland. I've read mythologies from Europe, the Mediterranean, the Americas, Africa and Polynesia, and I've steeped myself in stories told from the dawn of civilization in Sumer to stuff written in the last five years.

I've chased stories like King Arthur all the way down their histories, visiting and revisiting the tales as related by men like John Steinbeck, T.H. White, Alfred Lord Tennyson, Sir Thomas Mallory, Cretien de Troyes, Geoffrey of Monmouth and even earlier, back to pre-Christian Britain. I may never have done that if people had insisted I only read "the right" books.

Harry Potter probably could prove to be nowhere as enduring as some of these other stories I've mentioned, but he's still worth reading, even at the age of 34. (And worth re-reading too, I'll add.)

My grandmother was a literary purist, and probably felt that "gateway literature" was a hoax. I'm glad my mother didn't agree with her. I've had a blast reading, and if it weren't for some of the cheesy fun stuff, I never would have had the steam to tackle an unabridged "Don Quixote."

 I don't think I've ever read Kafka. From what I hear he's an acquired taste.

Even if he is as good as some people say, that doesn't make him any better or more worthy of reading than something new and popular. Many writers churn out crap, but even they, if they fire the imagination and teach children that reading is worth the time it takes, are worth the paper they're printed on.

harry potter and magic

I've pointed out to some people that the magic in Harry Potter has no resemblance to actual magick as it is practiced in the real world. (It includes ingredients such as powdered unicorn horn, phoenix feathers, and similarly fantastic ingredients. I mean, really, if we're going to be that wary of Harry Potter, we need to be wary of Greco-Roman mythology too.) The main magic of Harry Potter is the imagination that it fires in its readers, a witchcraft we need more of.

A second point is the virtues it teaches. Children who read Harry Potter are going to see courage, loyalty, friendship and sacrificial love played out in a very dramatic and believable way. It's easier for us to believe in virtue and bravery when we've seen them lived out, even if the person living them out was fictional.

Third, Harry Potter (like any good fantasy) awakens in all of us an awareness of the spiritual world. I'd say that's important in a world as material as ours. The person who is dead to the spiritual world and lives consumed with thoughts of daily bread and self-indulgence is not a person who is going to think about the sublime wonders that surround him on a day-to-day basis, and will forget Beauty and other spiritual things. A person who is aware of the spirit also is open to the Spirit.

Fourthly, I stress the Christian imagery contained in the novels. I have no idea if that's deliberate on Rowling's part, or if it's just because she's writing within a culture that has over two thousand years of Christian influence and in a language shaped by the Bible, but either way there's some heady stuff, such as the way Harry's mother died to save him, thus destroying Voldemort's reign of terror and giving Harry an immunity to Voldemort (sacrificial love that parallels Christ's sacrifice.) In "Chamber of Secrets," there's even more symbolism, as Harry descends into Tom Riddle (Voldemort's) lair to save Ginny Weasley, fights and defeats a basilisk, drawing aid and comfort by professing his faith in Albus Dumbledore.

Lastly, I just accept that some people are going to disagree. I knew one woman who was aghast that I saw nothing wrong with Spider-man. (He walks on walls.) That's their prerogative. When my grandmother saw me reading comic books, and expressed her disapproval to my mother, my mom responded that at least I was reading. I've applied that principle myself a few times: You raised me, and now I'm raising my children.

If I'm feeling really ornery, I might point out that people who are scared of being led into the occult by the Harry Potter novels probably should stay away from the Bible. In just the first 50 chapters, I find people engaging in adultery, incest, rape, genocide, rank deceit, murder, inhospitality and attempted fratricide. This is a pattern of behavior that repeats throughout the rest of canon, with the worst offenders often held up as role models.

In other words, it's a meaningless objection.

harry potter spoilers spoiler

The Daily News is being sued for a preview on the fifth Harry Potter book, because the article was written before the book was released, complete with an image of two pages from the book.
Puh-lease! This is a nuisance suit, nothing more. The store put the book out early, a reporter bought the book legitimately, and the newspaper ran a legitimate article. Nothing wrong there.
Let's hope the courts have the sense to toss this suit out.

dolores umbridge

Interesting thoughts as I ponder one of the new characters to arrive in "Order of the Phoenix."

"Dolores" is plural of "dolor," which means "woe" or "trouble." Umbridge clearly is a homophone of umbrage. Check out the Dictionary.com definition of umbrage. My own thought process was along the lines of the secondary or tertiary definition of "umbrage" that has to deal with jealousy over somebody else's abilities.

Look at the character: She's a lousy teacher, a horrible disciplinarian and apparently a useless witch (except perhaps at espionage). Rowling makes a point of how small Umbridge's wand is; the books indicate that bigger wands indicate greater puissance at magic. The implication is that Umbridge is attacking everyone bigger than she is: Dumbledore, Harry, McGonagall, you name it.

My guess is she was a Slytherin back in school.

harry potter

I don't consider the Harry Potter books to be a doorway to occultism and witchcraft any more than I see James Bond as a portal to a career in international espionage.

That said, I do concur that the series has ceased to be "children's literature." The first two books -- maybe even the first three -- are suitable for young readers, but from everything I've read of Book 5 so far, I think the book more apprioately should be marketed towrd teens or young adults.

We're going to take it look-and-see with Evangeline, I expect. If she wants to read Harry Potter when she's at the right vocabulary and maturity level, we'll consider it. But I'm not going to encourage her to read them for a while.

Book Five han't been that bad for me yet, although we're only to the point that we've learned how Hagrid spent his summer vacation. The worst part for me has been some of what Harry has had to endure at during detention and various other punishments that have been inflicted. Not sure why it's affecting me in this particular way -- perhaps because it's not as obvious and extreme as Cedric's death in "Goblet of Fire," it becomes worse to read about. Plus, Umbridge reminds me of the principal at the first school I taught at, because of that favorite facial expression of hers.

I think "umbridge" should become a new epithet.

Natasha and I have to take the book slowly because the children and my job place other demands on our time. It's giving us time to figure out what Rowling is doing, and now that we've read about Harry's second essay for Snape, I want to re-read the first four books and see if there were other hidden messages that Harry missed.

'the sorcerer's stone'

Imagine discovering that someone loved you so much they gave up their own life to save you. Now imagine that in so doing, they also broke the power of the most evil entity ever known and left that being a shattered remnant of his former self. This is of course, the basis for this, the first Harry Potter novel, but it is also a very direct reference to the Christian faith and its foundational beliefs in Jesus Christ.

The parallels continue with stunning force that it's amazing public schools actually encourage children to read this and other books by J.K. Rowling, especially given the absence of other blatantly religious literature by men like John Bunyan and Daniel Defoe. As Harry becomes aware of his mother's sacrifice and what it meant, he also becomes aware of a much deeper reality that he has existed in all his life even though he has never known of it until now.

Following this "conversion" experience, Harry is whisked off to Hogwart's, where he learns more about the deeper reality he now is aware of, particularly the power of love to drive out evil and to redeem. This is religious allegory on a level not seen since the days of C.S. Lewis and his "Chronicles of Narnia."

Still, if you can put aside the overt religious themes of the book, you're in for a very pleasant experience. Although "Sorcerer's Stone" is by no means the strongest of the four Harry Potter books published so far -- it spends a long time on setup, and develops neither plot nor characters as well as Rowling's later novels -- it's no slouch either.

While at Hogwart's Harry encounters pretty much every variety of menace and friend known to early adolescence: there's the teacher who doesn't like you, the know-it-all girl, the bully, the best friend, the class clown, and of course the stern and loving teachers like Minerva McGonagall and Albus Dumbledore.

Although the menace Harry ultimately must face is worse than any bogeyman I can recall from my middle school days, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" is a magical fantasyland romp through the world of a teenager, told through the eyes of a teenager. Read it with your teen or preteen, and you'll have plenty of chances to talk with them about their own problems and the people they have to contend with at school each day.

And if you want to talk with them about matters of eternal nature, this book presents the chance to do that as well.

chamber of secrets

The fight with the basilisk was, to me, a tremendous disappointment. Overall, the movie was decent, but it still felt kind of rushed, and I found myself wondering why they cut some of the material they did.

I'm really hoping the new director has more imagination than Chris Columbus. A movie that tries to adhere too closely to the book is never going to be all that it could.

Dumbledore actor ill

It appears that Albus Dumbledore may be on his way out.

Richard Harris, who played Dumbledore in "The Sorcerer's Stone" is not doing particularly well. Actor Michael Gambon, who serves as Harris' stand-in, already filled in for him in places in "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets," is expected to replace him for the next two movies as well, if they are made.

Meanwhile, given the progression of the Hero's Journey, I keep expecting the book Dumbledore to die sometime soon as well. I suspect Voldemort is likely to be the culprit, rather than Hodgkins Disease, but one never knows.

'sorcerer's stone' video

We watched the movie on video recently, and I've got to say it worked better with the different level of expectations.

I still think parts were rushed, but the characterization came off better than I had realized, particularly with Snape. Our video contains two cut scenes I wish they had kept -- one if the full-length scene in Snape's potions class where he sets out to humiliate Harry, and the second is set in the dining hall, where they look at the back of the Dumbledore trading card and learn about Nicolas Flamel.

That worked much better than Hermione just pulling out the book out of nowhere like they did in the movie.

am i getting cited for this?

I wrote an article on "Lord of the Rings" that was published online by Focus on the Family. At the bottom of the article was my Yahoo! spam catch-all address, where I have received about 20-odd comments on my article, from Tolkien devotees to teeny-boppers to this and that.

Yesterday, I received my first request for help on a term paper.

Here's a copy of the e-mail I sent her. (I think I might drop the university a line just to let them know to check her paper to make sure she doesn't plagiarize me. That's been done to me before, and I can't say I appreciate it much.)

Dear Dr. Learn,

Thanks for the honorific, but I assure you it's not deserved. I have a bachelor's degree in English literature from Lafayette College, but have not continued my education beyond that.

I was wondering if I could ask you a few questions regarding Tolkien and mythology in relation to Christianity. Thank you so much for your time. If you simply don't have the time, I perfectly understand.

Wellll ... I think you can understand when I say I'm a little reluctant to answer these questions at great length just now, since by your own admission you're in the process of writing a term paper on this subject, especially since I'm a professional writer and have been plagiarized before.

If you do use my thoughts remember to attribute them in your paper, even if you don't quote me directly.

1. In my research so far, I have found many Christians to be reservedly open to C.S. Lewis, but not to Tolkien. Why do you think this is?

Because Lewis' writing is blatantly Christian and allegorical, and because Lewis is known primarily in Christian circles as an apologist, and deservedly so. It was Tolkien's example and faith that eventually led Lewis to become a believer, but Tolkien "despise[d] allegory in all its forms."

You can find more about that in various biographies about Tolkien. The one I have is "J.R.R. Tolkien: Architect of Middle-earth."

2. In general Christians shun fantasy novels, and fairytale stories. One Christian told me that we as Christians don't believe in fantasy. They felt reality dealt more with Christian values. How do you feel about this statement?

I'd say they'd have to discount a large portion of the New Testament, since Jesus taught in parables. So did some of the prophets and judges.

Stories are stories, and as such they all present a window to truth; Calvary is the point at which all stories become True.

3. Tolkien once said that the Bible was the ultimate example of a myth. A true myth. Many Christians would take offence at this statement. In what way (if any) could the Bible be seen as a myth?

Tolkien was using the academic, rather than popular definition, in which "myth" refers to a story that is essentially true in an existential sense, regardless of whether it is factual. In that sense, yes, the Bible is a very mythical book. Another term used to describe this sort of mythic stature is "archetype."

4. Why don't Christian institutions/families encourage this type of genre? If you look at the media, it is everywhere, and is often the most popular median for children. Wouldn't open discussions of materials such as Harry Potter and LotR be more helpful than to have kids reading the books on their own?

Absolutely.

Many Christians fear what they don't understand, and as such they feel threatened by something as wildly popular as Harry Potter (when I was a teen the bogeyman was Dungeons & Dragons), especially since it makes use of magic as a vehicle for its storytelling.

5. Do you feel Tolkien is a predominately Christian book that is well written with obvious Christian undertones? If so, why is it so often overlooked?

"The Lord of the Rings" is a thoroughly religious book. Tolkien himself said that Gandalf and the other Istari are angels sent into the world at the start of the Third Age to battle Sauron's evil. The elvish waybread the fellowship receives in Lothlorien is representative of the Eucharist; the elvish heroine Elbereth is analagous to the Virgin Mary.

Then there's Tolkien's symbolism, such as Gandalf dying and returning to life more powerful than before and dressed in white; Aragorn having authority over illness because he is the true king, and so on.

6. Many Christians would say that Harry Potter and LotR are more related than LotR and Chronicles of Narnia. Does Harry Potter seem to express the same values as LotR?

I have no idea what J.K. Rowling believes spiritually (I am told she does not believe in magic), but her book contains many positive elements. Harry, Ron and Hermione understand the importance of friendship and loyalty; they display courage against incredible odds and risk their lives and reputations time and again to help each other and other people. Evil is punished, good is rewarded, and her imaginary world is essentially a moral one.

On top of that, if you've read the first Harry Potter book, you're aware that Harry's mother died saving him from Voldemort. The result of her sacrifice was that Voldemort's power was broken and he is unable to harm Harry. Since you go to a Seventh Day Adventist university, you should be able to see a very strong parallel to the gospel there.

Chris Columbus' 'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone' (2001)

Well, I've seen the new "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" movie, but I'm still sorting my feelings on it.

The special effects were superb, the casting was excellent, and it was faithful to J.K. Rowling's story. The problem, of course, is that you have to judge the movie on its own merits and not as a version of the book. And that's a task that necessarily is complicated if you've read the book and are familiar with it.

I was disappointed that some of the best lines of the book were absent -- not surprised, given the length of the movie, but disappointed.

The adults did a good job acting, overall; the kids did better at carrying this franchise than Jake Lloyd  did with Star Wars in "The Phantom Menace," but Daniel Radcliffe especially still lacked polish.

John Cleese's role was disappointingly brief. He probably had no more than a minute of walk-on time. That's not surprising, since Nearly Headless Nick has such a small part in the book, but it still seemed like a shame given that this was John Cleese.

The thing that I felt was most lacking was that it seemed like the kids were moving along too quickly. They suspected Snape of treachery without any clear reason to suspect him of duplicity. They picked
up ideas about the Sorcerer's Stone seemingly from thin air, and generally seemed to hurry through the plot.

I was actually quite happy with the cuts they made at the beginning. In a book, it works well to meet the Dursleys first on the day of Voldemort's defeat, and then work our way toward discovering Harry, but it was highly cuttable material, and I'm not sure how well they could have translated it to a visual medium anyway.

I did love the addition of getting Dudley stuck behind the plate glass in the snake display. That was brilliant.

And I was very disappointed that they chose to have Hagrid get Norbert's egg from an Irishman. I can't think of a single good reason to eliminate the "Greek chappie." If there were a triple-headed hound at the gates to Annwn, I could perhaps overlook the transgression, but there's no such beast in any Gaelic myth I've read.

I probably won't see the movie again until it comes out on video next year -- but after a lot of rumination, I think I would have made the following changes:

1. I would not have had Snape wish Harry luck at the quidditch match. Hopelessly out of character.
2. I would have extended the scene in Potions class where Snape belittles Harry to the point that Harry suggests Snape call on Hermione, and Snape takes off five points from Gryffindor for "cheek."
3. Harry, Ron and Hermione should have seen Snape running toward the door where Fluffy is kept.

With those things in place, there would have been a logical reason for the students to dislike Snape and suspect him of trying to steal the Sorcerer's Stone, and there would have been evidence of discord among Harry, Ron and Hermione over her being a know-it-all.

The Norbert stuff needed a little more work. He too obviously was a plot contrivance in the movie, to get everyone detention and then to find a way past Fluffy -- a way they didn't even need, incidentally, since an enchanted harp was left behind -- while in the book Norbert provided a good example of Hagrid's love of monsters. He probably could have been cut entirely to make the movie work more smoothly.

Is Severus Snape a vampire?

I believe Severus Snape, the potions instructor in the Harry Potter books, is a vampire.

This isn't pure conjecture or speculation. Snape usually is described with a hooked nose, greasy hair, pale skin, and an evil demeanor, all traits that suggest he is a vampire. Read the books closely, and you'll notice more evidence.

First, the only times we've seen him outside were at night: when he discovers Ron and Harry outside the Great Hall after Ron crashes his father's car; when he chases Harry, Ron, Hermione, Sirius, Lupin and Wormtail under the Whomping Willow to the Shrieking Shack; when he and Karkaroff are discussing the likely return of You Know Who; and presumably at the third contest in "The Goblet of Fire."

Second, lore has it that werewolves and vampires hate each other. While Lupin and Snape aren't constantly trying to kill each other, there is a fair amount of antagonism between them.

Witness Snape's efforts to out Lupin with his assignment and the great danger he was in when Sirius tricked him into heading to the Shrieking Shack back when they were students. Dangerous as it would have been for a human to meet a werewolf, a vampire and a werewolf would really have fought -- ahem! -- tooth and nail and probably to the death.

Third, Rowling often uses bat imagery in connection with Snape: His cloak billows behind him like bat's wings; at one point in "Goblet of Fire" Harry asks if Snape could have got down to Barty Crouch and offed him while Dumbledore and he ran down. "Not likely," someone (Ron?) says, "unless he can turn into a bat."

If memory serves, there also is a scene in "Prisoner of Azkaban" where Lupin makes a dig about vampires, and then says, "Oh, sorry, Severus."

Fourth, Snape is always showing up out of nowhere, an entrance characteristic of the night people.

Whether Snape is a vampire, of course, is a matter of conjecture at this point, since Rowling hasn't said definitively. But I think the evidence leans that way.

I'm just wild about Harry

I just bought a second copy of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" to give to another family at our church with three preteens.

See, at our church's "Harvest Festival" -- which I insist on referring to as a Halloween party, since I doubt more than a half-dozen of us in the church harvested anything, and certainly not enough for it to be worth throwing a festival over -- I went dressed as Severus Snape, Harry's potions professor.

This got me into a conversation with a couple of the children who have read and loved Harry Potter, and I noticed that one of the aforementioned preteens was listening to the conversation with that sad look of someone who wants to be a part of something but doesn't know what he needs to, to make that change.

So, being the left head of a three-headed beast that I am, I bought a copy of the book for his parents to read so they would approve it for their children as well.

Thus do I continue my campaign of deception.

Harry Potter and the Plans to See the Movie

My wife and I just made plans to see the new Harry Potter flick on Nov. 17 with a couple friends of ours from church.

 This is "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," for those not paying attention to popular culture. It's an adaptation of a young adult novel about a boy who discover that he's part of an amazing secret world of magic and wizards. It's become a major literary phenomenon.

 Magic of course is verboten in the Bible, and fantastical depictions of it are controversial in fundamentalist and evangelical circles. I can feel the flames of hell licking at the soles of my feet already.

 In the meantime, I highly recommend the four books in the series, provided you can tell the difference between fantasy and reality. The books are nothing short of incredible. J.K. Rowling has my deep and abiding professional jealousy for her success.