Designing Liveable Cities, Idolatry and Prayer

Because of the job, which, as everyone knows, involves plotting over undeveloped countries like a pantheon of SimCity gods* and turning Dullsville into an exciting metropolis in a decade, we have been thinking vastly and deeply about what makes cities tick.

*Joke, lah. How come only Mini-Me is laffing?

Monocle's criteria for a liveable city is one with:

• international, long-haul connections combined with a well-managed, thoughtfully designed airport;
  
• low murder rates and domestic burglaries;
  
• good state education and health care;
  
• decent hours of sunshine and average temperatures;
  
• great communications and connectivity;
  
• tolerance;
  
• ease in getting a drink after 01.00;
  
• the cost of public transport and taxis is low but the quality is high;
  
• strong local media and availability and range of international print media;
  
• access to nature and a good amount of green space;
  
• and finally, key environmental initiatives.

So, someone asked, you think how? Singapore can make it anot?
Aiyah, depends what it means to be liveable mah. Monocle criteria is only for Monocle.
I think liveable cities must be happening lor. Must have place to chiong lor.

So there was an exchange of the happenings of the past few weeks. Fine. (Plus I get a place to dump these photos.) (Plus someone's unwitting confessions shall be blackmail fodder for years to come.)

Two Fridays ago, finger-lickin' black pepper crab amidst the tourists at Newton food centre,

then K-Box karaoke in English and Chinese (and a gobsmackingly terrible demonstration of hiphop moves) at Selegie until about 4am on Saturday.

A few hours later, a wedding at the lovely chapel at CHIJMES where the morning sun shone through the stained glass onto the new couple, and there was someone sniffing that the Sainte-Chapelle looked much better, miscellaneous catching-up with people, then Taiwanese bubble tea at Paradiz served up by a Malay family,

then lunch at The Ranch Home on Dempsey Hill where the food needs a lot more tweaking. And from afar, Wong Toon King, who, other than fiddling about with SilkRoute Ventures, Z-Fencing and Ben & Jerry's also used to coach me in foil (the only fencing teacher who was willing to waste any time on me and to whom I'll always be grateful).

Later, birthday presents were sought and found amongst the crazy maze of little indie set-ups at Far East Plaza and salmon and tuna sashimi were grabbed at Meidi-Ya,

just in time for a birthday dinner with Japanese theme. The hosts, one of whom might be a closet alcoholic, were generous with desserts: Want some plums? Soaked in Choya. Care for some cherries? Griottines soaked in kirsch. The fruits that weren't to be dredged up from with some sort of alcohol had been incorporated into ice-cream. All good. So sometime into the night, the conversation got to the point where there was a debate about french fries and someone was saying,"Well, there is a certain attractiveness about limp fries". Halfway through having to go on the mobile to sort out how to meet a friend of a friend, a German lass who'd met the friend, now in Hong Kong, in London. Then the drivers, being really responsible, trialled Marvel: Ultimate Alliance until they looked less like they'd overdone the blusher.

Sunday, babies hugged and harrassed, German girls lost and found (except they turned out to be really Latvian-near-the-Black-Sea but with German passports), a good Chinese lunch and playing with a very nice Hasselblad (are there Hasselblads that aren't nice?).

Monday, a proud sms announcing that Food For Thought was now open for breakfast, lunch and dinner. And so it will be checked out because there is the promise of indie-ness and cake together.

Another night, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, where the choice of movie snacks was bak kwa and McDonalds chocolate milkshake. I am afraid of being found out, said the (voluntary) courier of illegal goods. But when we got to our seats, from the sea of movie-goers around us came the bold rustling of bags of illegal burgers and illegal fries and the cracking open of illegal drinks and the crackling of illegal packets of chips. And all was well.

Thursday, The (not-illegal) Bandits were acoustic-ing it up at Tuckshop. The summary quote of the night: They sound good! But I wouldn't want to put on their CD at home.

Friday, an old friend had conned a girl into marrying him so there was a wedding at Shangri-La where there was mega-catching-up and laughing, and ex-fencers telling about TK and B&J's and how they didn't score any discounts from him and how also they'd now switched from foil to epee to dispense with having to remember rights-of-way (difficulty increases proportionally with age), and where the groom's dad, an editor with a Chinese newspaper, spoke at length and with many elegant literary phrases about Overbearing Wives And What To Do With Them. We were plied with great amounts of wine and beer and had to keep shoo-ing away waiters who were trying, surreptitiously, to refill our glasses.

Saturday, a sleep-in then a late and lazy breakfast at Mimolette, through whose tall windows you could see sturdy brown horses trotting past.

Then,

(Amid the run-up to Deathly Hallows, because we are forever associated in each other's minds with The Boy Who Lived, an ex-roommate emailed from London to say he had cleared his whole saturday so as to be able to curl up with the book, and also that if I so happened, perhaps, out of the overflowing goodness of my generous heart, to sms him spoilers before he was done, he would take the next 13-hour flight out of Heathrow and personally strangle me. Obviously, my friends are exceptionally cheerful people.)

So it was good that a frantic dinner mate called last minute to apologise: I can't meet you for dinner! I'm on a dare to get 7 dates in 7 days and the last one cancelled on me last night which means I need to find 2 tonight! Argh! (Sorry, I can't count you.)

Yay!

Sunday, Bible study was intended but after a good lunch at Ding Tai Fung where migration plans and the leaving behind of things and people were discussed, the majority of us succumbed to severe food comatose. Later, tooling around on a piano called Hyundai.

Monday, we were up for checking out the aforementioned Food For Thought, whose food a chef described as "Le Cordon Bleu meets local ingredients" and indeed, the Chicken Caesar Salad was Hainanese chicken rice and ginger and sesame oil. There was Mama Heng's Spicy Pork where Mama Heng was the mama of David Heng the Smiley Chatty Chef, there was Peter Boyer the Other Chef who kept dumping stuff down sinks they shouldn't be dumped down, there were platforms (cake stands, really) for home chefs to step out of the closet onto, there was speculating whether Mrs. Kang (of Mrs. Kang's Fresh (and retro) Durian Cake) had a house on Sixth Avenue that smelt of durian, or a kitchen that was huge and airy or very patient neighbours, or all of the above.

Later this week, there are grand plans for drinks and dinners but can't remember them all, and to add forgetfulness upon forgetfulness, have also lost the 2 organisers I got for Christmas which were meant to help me remember these things. Don't think Rememberalls would have been much use either. Fortunately, the delivery of team jerseys today reminds me that there will be a basketball tournament.

Like that, is quite chiong-able, mah, he said. Then Singapore can lor. Hor?

Not sure.

Maybe what makes a city is sunshine and low crime, parks and good healthcare. Maybe what makes a city is access to a flowing buffet of new and interesting stuff to do. Maybe what makes a city is having friends about you to chiong with. (Friends who are also family seal the deal.)

Regardless, the nice comfy thing about urban design is that it is about community, about the big picture, about the wonderfulness of create living spaces for people and making life better for them.

Yet, taken too far, relied upon too much, it is something like being addicted to SimCity. It is the elevation of architecture or urban design or city planning to the status of a panacea to all city problems and urban ills; it is the fantasy of attaining complete control that is, at its heart, ungodly and idolatrous.

Idolatry is also the ever-present danger of thinking that it might be possible for us to effect our own redemption by our obedience, our enlightenment. God's world is so good and God has endowed humanity with such gifts that we can be tempted to believe that we are sufficient unto ourselves...Prayer is the protest against idolatry. In prayer, we give the Creator what is due, acknowledging the joyful surprise that we exist. Moreover, in prayer, we claim our existence as a gift, grace. The Decalogue is God's gift to Israel continually to teach Israel how to live, not by wits, but through gift. (Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon, The Truth About God: The Ten Commandments in Christian Life)

************

The Ranch Home/Ben & Jerry's
Blk 8 Dempsey Road
#01-14
Tel: 6473 3231

Tuckshop (happenin' like a KTV but not)
Where to finded them?
21 Tanjong Pagar Road
#01-05
Tel: 6534 9287

Mimolette
55 Fairways Drive
Singapore 286846
Tel: 6467 7748

Food For Thought
420 North Bridge Road
North Bridge Centre
#01-06
Singapore 188727
Tel: 63348773

Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows, Magic, Love and Death

Well, that's done then.

The canon: revealed to be fanfiction on shoot-'em-up blockbuster steroids (interesting innit, the universality of certain fears and hopes and dreams), accompanied by healthy shot of deus ex machina, a goodly dose of Chekhov's gun, a sprinkling of peripeteia (some gratuitous). Throughout, the Harry/Voldemort mindlink was milked to the max for toggling between scenes. And at the end, an express cash-in of plot coupons for the final boss showdown. Ah but, Joanne, was the extended dénouement Epilogue at all necessary?

Following photo contains spoilers:
Harry and Snape gaze into each others' eyes. Snape holds Harry and pulls him close.

"Look...at....me..." he whispers.

The green eyes find the black. Snape glows a pale fluorescent green at Harry...

Alright. Not totally.

Meanwhile, some fan's apparently typed out the whole book and pdf-ed it. Why in the name of Merlin's saggy left... But typos abound like a gnome infestation in the garden. A weighty tome of sustainable paper in hand might be fairer and better (for eyesight, probably not for trees).

PS: Magic in the Wizarding World, analogous to science in our Muggle world, has its limitations: it does not give the solution to every problem; vast and deep knowledge of it does not endow its holder with power and control over every aspect of life (and death).

PPS: Undergirding love motif and love motive in Harry Potter:

• One of the limits of magic in the Wizarding World is that it cannot create love. Well, not true love anyway. Slughorn discussing the properties of Amortentia in Half-blood Prince:"Amortentia doesn't really create love, of course. It is impossible to manufacture or imitate love. No, this will simply cause a powerful infatuation or obsession. It is probably the most dangerous and powerful potion in this room - oh yes. When you have seen as much of life as I have, you will not underestimate the power of obsessive love."
• True love, which Voldemort dismissed as old magic and weakness, proved ultimately to be more powerful than the most powerful magic. It was Lily's love for Harry that caused her to shield him from the killing curse. It was Severus Snape's lasting love for Lily Evans that led him to betray Voldemort. It was Harry's love for his friends that brought him before Voldemort to be killed without any attempt at self-defence. It was Narcissa's love for Draco that made her lie about Harry's death.
  
  At the final battle, Harry tried to explain all this to Voldy:
  

  "You won't be killing anyone else tonight," said Harry as they circled, and stared into each other's eyes, green into red. "You won't be able to kill any of them ever again. Don't you get it? I was ready to die to stop you from hurting these people -"
  
  "But you did not!"
  
  " - I meant to, and that's what did it. I've done what my mother did. They're protected from you. Haven't you noticed how none of the spells you put on them are binding? You can't torture them. You can't touch them. You don't learn from your mistakes, Riddle, do you?"

• Plus, love motive in Wizarding World = not direct Christian allegory or symbolism but deliberate simulacrum? (The afterdeath chat between Harry and Dumbledore was, afterall, at *King's Cross*, whatwhat.) Only in reality, the sacrificial love unto death was not to save us from Eternal Evil (for Evil never quite had the upper hand) but from Eternal Condemnation to Death Wrought By Our Own Hands.

PPPS: Recurring death leitmotif:

• One of the other limits of magic in the Wizarding World is that it cannot resurrect the dead. The Inferi are just dead bodies. The Resurrection Stone (one of the Hallows in Deathly Hallows) can recall some semblence of the dead but once recalled they are separated from the living as by a veil, and returned to the mortal world where they do not truly belong, the dead suffer. Magical objects like the Philosopher's Stone and unicorn's blood (drinking it with the terrible price of being cursed forever) can be used to assist living and prolong life, but that is in the absence of accidentally wandering into the path of a stray Avada Kedavra. Death still conquers in the end.
  
• Knowing, perhaps, the limitations of magic, Voldemort feared death, specifically (seeing the bloodbath of Book 7) his own death. In Order of the Phoenix, the madeover Tom Riddle snarled,"There is nothing worse than death!". He went to great lengths to avoid it, what with soul-splitting and horcruxes and suchlike. To die was weak. The constant threat of his own death put a bit of a dampener on his ambition to universal and eternal power as Da Dark Lord. In one polite little exchange, Dumbledore corrects his former student: "...your failure to understand that there are things much worse than death has always been your greatest weakness".
• Dumbledore too, in his younger days, wanted to master death for invincibility, for personal glory and triumph. Hence the search for the three Hallows. Later, though, it is clear he repented of this view, explaining to Harry in Philosopher's Stone that Nicholas Flamel destroying the Philosopher's Stone was no problemo; "After all, to the well-organised mind, death is but the next great adventure".
• Harry, as expected, was the true master of death: not that he could not die, but that "...the true master does not seek to run away from Death. He accepts that he must die, and understands that there are far, far worse things in the living world than dying".
  
• And remember the gravestone of James and Lily Potter at Godric's Hollow:
  

  "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death"
  
  A horrible thought came to him, and with it a kind of panic. "Isn't that a death eater idea? Why is that there?"
  
  "It doesn't mean defeating death in the way the Death Eaters mean it, Harry,"said Hermione, her voice gentle. "It means...you know... living beyond death. Living after death."

  Totally, word-for-word, 1 Corinthians 15:26 (KJV Bible).
  
  Death is not something to be feared, not because as mature adults, we accept death as a fact of life and do not seek to run away from it with pills and health regimes.
  
  We do not fear death because there is life after death. If, as Dumbledore says in Half-Blood Prince that "it is the unknown we fear when we look upon death and darkness, nothing more", then the antidote to mad fear is certainty about the afterlife. Not an afterlife of our own imagination of course, sometimes of the variety featuring fluffy white clouds, angels with harps and ("choose only Menu A or Menu B") Menu A: an everlasting chocolate fountain buffet where no buffeteer ever gets fat, Menu B: 7,000 virgins.
  
  For, if the afterlife is only of our own imagination, and if, infact, death is really The End, then Christians and their silly faith and hopes are to be pitied more than all others.
  
  How can we be certain about the afterlife? The usual way: on good solid evidence; the testimony of one of trustworthy character, who died and was raised again from the dead, who by his death conquered Death.
  
  So there will be a Last Day when all the dead will be resurrected. But not all afterlife will be equal: those who'd, in their earlier life, repented of their rebellion against God and trusted in Christ's death to save them will indeed see salvation from the wrath of God and will rise to new life. Those who didn't bother getting Christ's blood as a Protective Shield will rise to be condemned and bear the full brunt of God's terrible judgement themselves.
  
  Always good to plan ahead.

"Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?" The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 15:55-57)

***
For everyone who keeps asking who died in Deathly Hallows:

• Charity Barbage, the Muggle Studies teacher at Hogwarts, was killed by Voldemort at the Malfroy's mansion and fed to Nagini;
  
• Hewig died when Harry was attacked by Death Eaters while leaving the Dursleys;
• Mad-Eye Moody was killed by Voldemort while acting as a decoy for Harry. His body was never recovered though, grossly, his magical eye was found tacked to Umbridge's door, suggesting that the Ministry found his body;
• Rufus Scrimgeour during the takeover of the Ministry of Magic by Death Eaters;
  
• Bathilda Bagshot, a minor character, the author of the Hogwarts textbook A History of Magic and an old family friend of the Dumbledores, was killed off-set and was impersonated by Voldemort's snake, Nagini, the better to draw Harry and Hermione into a trap;
• Peter Pettigrew, aka Wormtongue, aka the secret-keeper who betrayed the Potters to Voldemort, was strangled by his own silver Hand of Glory when he hesitated in killing Harry;
• Dobby caught Bellatrix's knife in his chest while disapparating with Harry, Hermione, Ron and Griphook from Malfroy's mansion;
• a Gringotts goblin (possibly Griphook?) for not preventing the break-in to the Lestranges' vault and allowing Potter etc to run off with Helga Hufflepuff's cup;
• Severus Snape is killed by Nagini on Voldemort's order because Voldemort mistakenly thinks Snape is the master of the Elder Wand;
  
• Vincent Crabbe accidentally burns himself to death with Fiendfyre;
  
• Remus Lupin and his wife Nymphadora Tonks at the Battle of Hogwarts;
• Fred Weasley at the Battle of Hogwarts;
  
• Colin Creevey at the Battle of Hogwarts;
  
• Bellatrix Lestrange at the Battle of Hogwarts by Molly Weasley(!); and
  
• lastly, Voldemort, aka Tom Riddle, aka The Dark Lord, aka He Who Must Not Be Named, by his own backfiring Avada Kedavra. It's a long story.
  
• (I suppose a whole lot of Death Eaters die too but no one seems to be keeping count.)
  

***
Harry Potter, the Deathly Hallows and the Internet Chatter Juggernaut (Or Something)
Some Christians Read Harry Potter

Harry Potter, the Deathly Hallows and the Internet Chatter Juggernaut (Or Something)

Another boring random-thought-filled excitable fan post on The Boy Who Lived.

Last week, I was trying to tell someone my exciting horcrux theories, and she sighed and said, You know, I don't think I will ever understand you. And ran away.

Then last Sunday, I was trying to tell someone else after service how I thought Harry might die, and he said, Oh. So you're one of those...

Ah, sightless muggles.

Anyway, the last few nights have been all:
Accio Harry Potter books!
Accio cereal!
Accio cold cold milk!
Accio Slughorn's tufted satin pillow and box of bonbons Oh. Wrong reality.

In the lead-up to Book 7: Deathly Hallows, for, maybe, the last 10 years, J.K. Rowling has been giving all sorts of clues how The Book That Need Not Be Further Named will end:

• The last word of the book is still "scar".
  
• Harry will return to the Dursley's one last time.
  
• Harry will go to Godric's Hollow.
  
• Hermione and Ron will join him on his journey to Godric's Hollow.
  
• The trio will attend Bill and Fleur's wedding.
  
• Harry may not return to Hogwarts for his seventh and final year.
  
• We will finally learn the true identity of R.A.B. after much speculation.
  
• The Founders will play a role.
  
• We will, at long last, learn where Snape's loyalty truly lies.
• We learn something very important about Lily, Harry's mother.
  
• We will find out why Voldemort gave Lily so many chances to live.
  
• The fact that Harry has his mother's eyes is important.
• What the Potters did for a living is important.
  
• One of Harry's classmates will become a teacher at Hogwarts.
  
• Dumbledore's gleam of triumph in his eyes when he learns that Voldemort used Harry's blood to regenerate himself is significant.
  
• We will learn a lot more about Dumbledore: secrets about his family, why he didn't kill Voldemort in the battle at the Ministry and perhaps even how he got that curious scar above his knee.
  
• It is unclear whether Hogwarts will reopen for Harry's seventh year.
  
• The magical protection that Harry is under while staying at the Dursley's will cease once he turns 17 and is an of age wizard.
  
• We will become better acquainted with another member of the Order; someone we know but haven't really met yet.
  
• We will learn secrets about the family of Peter Pettigrew.
  
• We will learn more about the relationships between wands and their witches/wizards.
  
• There will be no Quidditch.
  
• There's more to Petunia than meets the eye.
  
• One character gets a reprieve and two main characters die that weren't intended to die.
  
• A character who hasn't done magic previously will do magic late in life.
  
• We will learn what Dudley saw/heard when facing the dementors.
  
• We will learn what happened to Sirius' flying motorbike.
  
• We will learn more about the history of James Potter's family.
  
• Fawkes may reappear.
  
• Kreacher has a role to play.
  
• Peter Pettigrew will not kill Lupin using his silver hand.

(Props to the curators at Leaky Lounge.)

• "The mirror that Harry got from Sirius might not have helped as much as you think but, on the other hand, will help more than you think."
  
• "...none of this should be taken to mean that Neville does not have a significant part to play in the last two novels, or the fight against Voldemort."
  
• "...the prophecy itself, it remains ambiguous, not only to readers, but to my characters"
  
• The fact that Harry "has his mother's eyes" will be important to the plot. (Wasn't there a song...oh, no, that was Bette Davis.)
  

(Props to Daily Press.)

• James Potter's Cloak was indeed in the care of Albus Dumbledore at the time James died and that there is an important reason for this. (Props to BookStove.)
  
• No one who has died will return.
• Dumbledore IS really dead. "Everyone needs to move through the five stages of grief" and get past his death. She also apologizes to DumbledoreIsNotDead.com for ruining the purpose of their site. (From muggle.net)
  
• ''Yes, I am [a Christian]. Which seems to offend the religious right far worse than if I said I thought there was no God. Every time I've been asked if I believe in God, I've said yes, because I do, but no one ever really has gone any more deeply into it than that, and I have to say that does suit me, because if I talk too freely about that I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, will be able to guess what's coming in the books." (Interview with The Vancouver Sun.)
  
• The Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis and The Lord of the Rings cycle by J.R.R. Tolkien have greatly influenced Rowling so perhaps the ending will be bittersweet.
• Helena Bonham Carter, who did a foul job as Bellatrix Lestrange in the movie of Order of the Phoenix, was told by Rowling that she'd have a large part in Deathly Hallows. (Props to Moldova.)
  

So half-baked ideas have been fizzy whizzbuzzing round our skulls, released only to be batted about the room like, erm, bludgers at another team's seekers:

• Snape is a double-agent on Dumbledore's side.
  
• Snape's killing of Dumbledore was planned in advance by Dumbledore.
  
• The Snape who killed Dumbledore was not really Snape but someone Polyjuiced-up as Snape.
• The Dumbledore who died was not really Dumbledore but someone Polyjuiced-up as Dumbledore.
• Dumbledore is an animagus (he was a Transfiguration teacher at Hogwarts half a century ago) who takes the form of a phoenix and therefore, although he really died, he will rise again from the ashes, hence the strange phoenix patronus-like thing at his funeral.
  
• The Dumbledore all this while was not really Dumbledore. How, for instance, did he know how James and Lily die? Was he at the scene?
• Dumbledore borrowed the Invisibility Cloak for someone else who witnessed something important.
• Dumbledore is not purely good but also evil. Snape is not purely evil but also good. Gary Oldman Sirius Black says in the movie of Order of the Phoenix: We all have both light and dark inside us. The part we choose to act on… that’s who we really are. (Not very Christian the movie bit. Christian would be more like "there is no one good, not even one" (Psalm 14).)
  
• Harry will find the other horcruxes by using the Mirror of Erised.
• Remembering to use the Time Turner would be pretty helpful too.
  
• Wormtail will fulfil his life debt to Harry by cracking under the pure evilness of Voldemort and snitching on him to Harry or doing the dark and nasty deed himself (a la Wormtongue (oh! similar name!) and Saruman in Lord of the Rings).
  
• Harry is a horcrux evidenced by some sort of mind-bind with Voldy.
  
• Harry dies but is not a horcrux.
  
• Harry dies but is the last horcrux and by killing Harry, Voldy renders himself mortal.
• Harry is the last horcrux, he dies to save Aunt Petunia and by so doing, deflects the killing curse back onto Voldy, killing him in the process.
  
• Harry's scar is the horcrux (aiding long-distance legilimency and throbbing to the beat of Voldy's emotions) and when he dies, Voldy takes over Harry's body (erm, but it's a dead body...).
  
• Voldy and Harry's wands share the same magical core taken from the same animal. Since brother wands cannot fight each other, one of the wands will eventually force the other into a priori incantatem, perhaps reversing Voldy's spells.
  
• Neville kills Voldy accidentally.
  
• The Invisibility Cloak is a horcrux.
  
• Voldy's wand is a horcrux.
• What Voldy most fears is death. What's worse than death for him is being shuttled off to a retirement home, a broken man awaiting death. LOL.
  
• Harry lives and ends up with Luna Lovegood because love is big in Rowling's world and Luna, well, it's...the name, innit.
• Harry lives and ends up with Ginny and is BFF with Hermione.
  

The buzzing and permutations and combinations are so that in the late hours, while structuring complex deals at work, I have been known to say:"Yeah, well, even Gringotts isn't safe these days."

But there is no need to add to the plethora of media specials (Washington Post, Time), tantalising photos of sealed boxes of the books, and theories (see, eg, the forums at Mugglenet and The Leaky Cauldron) out there.

Ok, sugar-high bounce: I was telling another someone this week about how Rowling majors on details - a glimmer of the eye here, a seemingly inconsequential word there, and how if I was the one designing the Lego Harry Potter collection etc etc, and she said, Hey! Doesn't your church tell you not to read books on witchcraft?

Don't be stupefied that Christians read Harry Potter. On the other hand, while the books might possibly be rich in Christian symbolism (John Granger over at Hogwarts Professor revels in their speculated embarrassment of riches), there is no need, like many have done with Lord of the Rings, to attempt to squeeze them into the genre of Christian allegory. Because, c'mon, obviously Dumbledore isn't Jesus. That would be way too cheesy B-grade morality trash novel.

It is unlikely that anyone (Christian and non-Christian) reads Harry Potter for its glittering literary qualities. But Rowling's writing, her "pedestrian descriptive prose", no better than Enid Blyton, cannot be begrudged if it gets to ADHD 7-year-olds fuelled by Trix and Irn Bru.

The thing that intrigues me though is, excepting bacchanalian-orgy-type mass media hype, the draw of the books on readers of a vast range of ages. What do people see lacking in their real lives that they can embrace in this alternate world?

Is it merely for the narrative, the storyline, the plot development, so that spoilers like someone's cheeky photos of the embargoed book and pretended-spoilers (really fan fiction smelling like Grawp's armpit) need to be evanesco-ed before they ruin the entire Harry Potter Experience™? Will it be necessary to langlock everyone who's gotten their sticky paws on The Book That Need Not Be Further Named in the early hours of 21 July so no one will yell out the ending across Orchard Road just as you're heading home to savour the book?

Unlikely, since people who have read the books and know the ending to each book still read them repeatedly;. like how people read other stories, watch the same plays and listen to the same music over and over again. It is certainly not for the thrill of discovering the conclusion anew. Perhaps, then, it's the alternate universe, little world-through-the-cupboard, escapist vicarious-living stuff, kicking in.

Interestingly, it seems that no one in the last 2000 years or so has thought to accuse poor old John of ruining their eschatological experience with spoilers in the last few chapters of the Book of Revelation. Perhaps for those touting spoiler psychology, it's nice to be kept in suspense about the fate of fictional characters but with their own lives, it's nice to know what will happen, so they do not despair and so there is meaning to their current existence.

As J.R.R. Tolkien is known to have said:

All the other myths of the world are a mixture of truth and error - truth because they are written by those made by and for God - error because written by those alienated by God. But the Bible is the one true myth. It is a true accounting of truth, while everything else we do is mimicking.

PS: It would be cool if Deathly Hallows could be delivered by owl post at, oh, 12.02am on 21 July. But looks like we'll have to make do with queueing outside Borders in fancy dress. Harry Potter Party!
PPS: It would be even cooler if someone could buttonhole The Cure after their 1 August concert in Singapore (the buttonhole being figurative of course) and trade huge cans of hairspray for a song on Harry Potter. Or maybe even Voldy. Something like Spiderman in Lullaby Lovecats or Just Like Heaven would do nicely.
PPPS: The Mary GrandPré covers for the American Scholastic Deluxe Hardcovers are ace. She should do the albumwork for The Cure's song on Harry Potter, if that ever happens.

Update (19 July 2007): The New York Times has cheekily published a review of Deathly Hallows which they proudly describe as "purchased at a New York City retail outlet today (18 July 2007), although the book is embargoed for release until 12:01 a.m. this Saturday". LOL! New Yorkers!

***
Post-Deathly Hallows thoughts, a list of who dies, stuff on Christian symbolism and allegory: Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows, Magic, Love and Death
Some Christians Read Harry Potter

Some Christians Read Harry Potter

Because the evening was young and the rain was falling and it was 24°C, we had a Harry Potter marathon.

Because Harry Potter was hard work, there was lamb stew with shiitake mushrooms and loads of thick gravy for mopping up with rosemary ciabatta.
Because Harry Potter got heavier as we went along (try dropping one of the later books on your foot), there were chocolate muffins with rainbow sprinkles for reading late into the night.

Harry Potter is bad news amongst some Christians. The series has been accused of embroiling innocent young things in occultism, Satanism and witchcraft. Calls have been made to ban and burn the books, and sometimes, the author herself.

As usual, most rumours about kiddies turning to devil worship have been proven to be but scare-mongering urban legends, as are the tales that JK Rowling is a Satanist. Actually, she's with the Church of Scotland if anyone cared to ask. And she's said,"I don't think [the Harry Potter books] are that secular. But, obviously, Dumbledore is not Jesus."

2¢:

1. Crucifying Harry Potter is not the way to live. The biblical way to live in the now-but-not-yet is not to take oneself out of the world, to be a hermit in the desert or a monk in a lonely monastery on top of a desolate peak. It is to live in the world but not be of the world. It is to live amongst pagans who worship idols but yet to live as aliens and strangers in worship of the one true God (Philippians).
2. Crucifying Harry Potter is not the way to understand evil. Evil is not Satanism, occultism or witchcraft per se. Evil is our rebellion against God. This can take place even when we are perfectly nice people who care for animals and hug trees and help old ladies cross streets. It is not what we do but what our relationship with God is like.
3. Crucifying Harry Potter is not the way to understand the source of evil. The biblical understanding of the problem of evil is not that it is external, but that it is an internal rebellion against God. We might be affected by the temptations of the world, but left alone, we soon construct our own temptations to make ourselves gods. We are felled by our wickedness that suppresses the truth about God as our lord and master and are chained by the sinful desires of our own hearts (Romans 1).
   
4. Banning Harry Potter is not the way to teach children how to live in this world. Children need to be taught to distinguish between fiction and non-fiction, fantasy worlds and reality. It's no good people taking fiction or the workings of someone's fantasy world that is meant to remain just a fantasy world and assume it to be reality. In fact, most "children's classics" are mired in fantasy: Peter Pan, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, some Enid Blyton, Aladdin and Other Tales from the Arabian Nights, Hans Christian Anderson, Greek myths, the folklore of most cultures...That's just how stories are to be understood. Being taught to tell fiction from fact also has the added advantage of preventing junior from jumping off the roof with a red towel around his neck thinking he is Superman.
5. Banning Harry Potter is not the way to teach children the truth. Children should be taught the truth by being taught the fear of the LORD (Psalms 34:11) in the word of God. They are to be taught not to let the truth slip from their hearts by talking about them when they sit at home, when they walk along the road, when they lie down and get up (Deuteronomy 11:19).
   
   Children should also be taught that the truth is not so flimsy that we have to run away from everything that isn't Christian (hey, even the evening news presents a worldview that isn't Christian). But the truth is strong and hardy and we can stand firmly and confidently in the armour of God: the belt of truth buckled around the waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, with feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace, taking up the shield of faith, with which they can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one, the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God (Ephesians 6).
   
6. Banning Harry Potter is not the way to have a consistent theological framework. Why are Harry Potter books vilified while the Chronicles of Narnia praised and promoted by many Christian groups? It is not for lack of magic in latter series. In Harry Potter's layered world, there are Muggles and those with magic. There're astrology, crystal balls and spells. In CS Lewis' series, his Muggles gain strengths and abilities in Narnia they don't have in their own world. There are nymphs and river gods. The children cast spells and use magic objects given to them by Aslan (the Jesus figure). Oi!
   

Conscience
However, yet again, if a brother or sister thinks that we are condoning witchcraft by reading (and enthusing) about the Boy Who Lived, then in our freedom we must show them love by not offending their conscience (1 Corinthians 8,10; Romans 14; Galatians 5:13-14).

Evangelism
Like most aspects of contemporary local culture that can be used effectively for bridge building, people have leveraged on the popularity of Harry Potter for evangelism and some Christian kids even have led their friends to living knowledge of Christ through the books.

:-)

See also: Fantasy Literature & Christian Readers by Greg Clarke, Harry Potter and the Disputable Matter an interview with Connie Neal

***
Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows, Love and Death
Harry Potter, the Deathly Hallows and the Internet Chatter Juggernaut (Or Something)