A Landscape with Dragons: The Battle for Your Child's Mind

by Michael D. O'Brien

The Harry Potter series of books and movies are wildly popular. Many Christians see the books as largely if not entirely harmless. Others regard them as dangerous and misleading. In his book A Landscape with Dragons, Harry Potter critic Michael O'Brien examines contemporary children's literature and finds it spiritually and morally wanting. His analysis, written before the rise of the popular Potter books and films, anticipates many of the problems Harry Potter critics point to. A Landscape with Dragons is a controversial, yet thoughtful study of what millions of young people are reading and the possible impact such reading may have on them. In this study of the pagan invasion of children's culture, O'Brien, the father of six, describes his own coming to terms with the effect it has had on his family and on most families in Western society. His analysis of the degeneration of books, films, and videos for the young is incisive and detailed. Yet his approach is not simply critical, for he suggests a number of remedies, including several tools of discernment for parents and teachers in assessing the moral content and spiritual impact of this insidious revolution. In doing so, he points the way to rediscovery of time-tested sources, and to new developments in Christian culture. If you have ever wondered why a certain children's book or film made you feel uneasy, but you couldn't figure out why, this book is just what you need. This completely revised, much expanded second edition also includes a very substantial recommended reading list of over 1,000 books for kindergarten through highschool.

Genres: Education, Nonfiction, Parenting, Catholic, Christian, Philosophy, Books About Books

261 pages, Paperback

First published November 28, 1994

About the author

Michael D. O'Brien is a Roman Catholic author, artist, and frequent essayist and lecturer on faith and culture, living in Combermere, Ontario, Canada.

Reviews

[Manuel Alfonseca · Rating 3 out of 5]

ENGLISH: A non-fiction book by a author of fiction. In general, I agree with O'Brien that our children are in danger of being absorbed by a malignant ideology, but I disagree on many points.

It's true that Disney films, after the death of their founder, entered a considerable moral decline, which has led them to their current pernicious state, but I disagree on particular judgements. For example, I don't think "Bedknobs and Broomsticks" is bad. But I'll address this further.

American Protestant circles react violently to the word "witch," often arguing that "Genesis forbids witchcraft." This reaction is less pronounced toward the word "wizard," although any kind of magic is also called into question. Although he is a Catholic, it's clear in this book that O'Brien has been swept along by this trend, which tends to consider these words as having demonic meanings and being incompatible with good, even in fiction. Even though he does realize that in the work of his revered Tolkien, Gandalf is a "good wizard." In fact, there are good, bad, and stupid wizards in "The Lord of the Rings", as in any human endeavor.

That's why I find excessive his reaction to Madeleine L'Engle's fantasy work. The fact that one of the angels in "A Wrinkle in Time" is named Mrs. Which (and looks like a witch) shouldn't be used to condemn the entire work. But this doesn't prevent me from agreeing with O'Brien that "A Swiftly Tilting Planet" is the least successful of her original trilogy of fantasy novels, for reasons similar to those he gives in this book.

I'll add that in Eddison's "The Worm Ouroboros," a work that delighted C.S. Lewis (another of O'Brien's favorite authors), the male protagonists are called "witches". But O'Brien doesn't mention Eddison.

This book by O'Brien was published in 1996, so it predates the Harry Potter series. I think O'Brien would likely consider this series unacceptable as children's reading material. The use of the words "wizard" and "witch" might cause him to overlook the clearly Christian connotations of these novels, which I discussed in my own book Christianity and Anti-Christianity in Fantasy and Science Fiction.

When writing fiction, authors don't always say what they think. I, for example, believe that conscious robots will never be built. However, I've used that idea in several of my novels, assuming if would be possible. But if I applied my ideas rigidly, I'd run out of plot. I get the impression that O'Brien hasn't taken this into account and judges authors and their novels because of specific details, which may have been forced by the plots. I could give numerous examples from my own work.

ESPAÑOL: Un ensayo escrito por un autor de novelas. En conjunto, coincido con O'Brien en que nuestros hijos están en peligro de ser absorbidos por una ideología maligna, pero discrepo en muchos detalles.

Es verdad que las películas de Disney, después de la muerte de su fundador, entraron en una decadencia moral considerable, que les ha llevado al nivel pernicioso en que se encuentran, pero discrepo en algunas descalificaciones. Por ejemplo, "La bruja novata" no me parece mal. Pero de esto hablo a continuación.

Los ambientes protestantes estadounidenses reaccionan de forma violenta ante la palabra "bruja", respecto a la cual suelen aducir que "el Génesis prohibe la brujería". La reacción es algo menor ante la palabra "mago", aunque también la magia está en entredicho. Aunque O'Brien es católico, queda claro en su libro que se ha dejado arrastrar por esta tendencia, que tiende a considerar que esas palabras tienen significados demoníacos y no pueden relacionarse con el bien, ni siquiera en la literatura de ficción. Y eso a pesar de que se da cuenta de que, en la obra de su venerado Tolkien, Gandalf es un "mago bueno". De hecho, hay magos buenos, malos y estúpidos en "El Señor de los Anillos", como en cualquier actividad humana.

Por eso su reacción ante la obra de fantasía de Madeleine L'Engle me parece excesiva. El hecho de que uno de los ángeles que aparecen en "Una arruga en el tiempo" se llame Mrs. Which (y tenga aspecto de bruja) no se debería utilizar para condenar toda la obra. Lo cual no obsta para que yo esté de acuerdo con O'Brien en que "Un planeta a la deriva" es la menos lograda de su trilogía original de novelas de fantasía, por razones semejantes a las que aduce O'Brien en este libro.

Añado que en "The worm Ouroboros" de Eddison, una obra que encantó a C.S. Lewis (otro de los autores favoritos de O'Brien) los protagonistas varones reciben el apelativo de "witches". Pero O'Brien no menciona a Eddison.

Este libro de O'Brien se publicó en 1996, por lo que es anterior a la saga de Harry Potter. Pienso que seguramente O'Brien considerará esta serie inaceptable como libro de lectura para niños. El uso de las palabras "brujo" y "bruja" quizá le haga pasar por alto las connotaciones claramente cristianas de estas novelas, de las que hablé en mi propio libro, Cristianismo y anticristianismo en fantasía y ciencia-ficción.

Al escribir ficción, el autor no siempre dice lo que piensa. Yo, por ejemplo, creo que nunca se llegará a construir robots conscientes. Sin embargo, he utilizado esa idea en varias de mis novelas, como si fuera a ser posible. Pero si aplicara a rajatabla mis ideas, me quedaría sin argumento. Me da la impresión de que O'Brien no ha tenido esto en cuenta y juzga a los autores y a sus novelas basándose en detalles concretos, que quizá hayan venido forzados por los argumentos. A partir de mis propias obras, yo podría poner numerosos ejemplos.

[Thomas Saywell · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very well-written, clearly presented book, which deals with a difficult topic.
First thing that needs to be said: reading this book without having a Christian perspective on the world would be very difficult. A lot of O'Brien says could seem hasty or unfounded. But if you read it as a Christian (or at least, with an acceptance of the Christian point-of-view), his explanations and evidence become grounded.

Michael O'Brien manages to walk the thin line between two common groups in Christian circles today. One of these groups (let's call them 'anti-fantasists') sees almost any fantasy story, but especially that which mentions the word 'magic', as evil and demonic. Opposing them are what could be called 'fantasy-gluttons', who see all fantasy as good (or at least, spiritually safe) because it is 'just fantasy'.
Some may say that O'Brien tends more to the 'anti-fantasist' side; but his views presented here, his arguments, evidence, and examples, take what is good from each group and present them to the reader as a cohesive whole. Essentially, he recommends caution and wisdom with any fantasy, and gives a few specific examples of particularly dangerous themes. He also looks at some of the modern trends in fantasy and children's stories.

About one-third of the book is actually a list of books recommended for different age groups, from toddlers to teenagers. Though I was slightly disappointed to find that there wasn't more discussion, these suggestions are extremely helpful.

The one critique I have with this book is O'Brien's sometimes over-harsh treatment of stories - in particular, his discussion on CS Lewis' space trilogy, where I felt he missed a deeper point. But this is a small quibble in an otherwise helpful and enjoyable read.

This book appears to be written for parents, but I - as a young, single student - found it hugely enjoyable and enlightening. I recommend this for anyone older than 15, especially those interested in a Christian perspective on the imagination.

[Adam Ross · Rating 2 out of 5]

There are good moments in the book, but ultimately his analysis of certain fantasies breaks down. His discussions of Lloyd Alexander, Terry Brooks, and Stephen R. Lawhead contain no content, mere condemnations without reasons.

[Karol E. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Splendid book. Wise, discerning and practical advice for fighting all the scaly serpents that prowl about our world today. Did not agree with everything said, some comments are made out of ignorance of literary motifs and symbolisms (such as wizards must be wicked) but overall a very wise and important book for us to read today especially.
The sections on Disnification of fairy tales were terrific.

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Important issues and genuine insight, but the argument is scattershot and poorly organised. Requires thought and courage.

Do not be dismissive of the conclusions merely because this needed a stronger editorial hand.

[Anne (In Search of Wonder) · Rating 3 out of 5]

Apparently, I read an abridged version, subtitled "Christian and Pagan Imagination in Children's Literature". I appreciated the author's thoughts, and his insights into the mind- shaping effects of literature and other media, and how we can be more discerning in what shapes our children. I disagreed with him in some things, in part due to his theology, but also in part because I just came to different conclusions myself, or had a slightly different perspective. It was helpful, though, and gave me good questions to ask my kids as they read books and as I try to guide them in good reading choices.

[Katie Groom · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thought provoking, and I would recommend for parents of tiny ones who will eventually become readers. He has pretty strong views that you can engage with, but at least good to hear his opinion and consider your own thoughts.

[Fonch · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ladies and gentlemen, today this humble servant proposes to write one of the most complex reviews of a book that is likely to polarize opinions. If I could describe this book in a few words, I would say, or rather, refer to this book as " inconvenient truths ," but that doesn't make them any less true, and that's what matters most. This book may not tell us what we want to hear, but it will tell us the truth, as Éomer did in The Two Towers. With this book I find myself in a situation similar to that of a Catholic writer who tells Literary Converts : Spiritual Inspiration in an Age of Unbelief by Joseph Pearce refers to a writer who met Hilaire Belloc and, at first, disagreed with him completely. Then, as time passed, he realized Belloc was right about many things and finally concluded that he was absolutely right. I find myself somewhere between phases two and three. This book was written around the 1990s, and it examined several authors and considered any work of fiction that used a dragon in a positive light to be inappropriate because it was an ambiguous symbol. Something so categorical could be considered inflexible. I remember that long before reading this book, which I nevertheless always wanted to read, I discussed this topic with my friend, the writer Krisi Keley, about whether the dragon should be seen as an evil figure. If we were thinking of an animal, one might say no, but deep down, despite my admiration for Vern, the character created by my dear friend [author:Karina Fabian, there was a part of me that told me Michael D. O'Brien that he was right. I don't agree with everything, but I do agree with the vast majority of what Michael D. O'Brien says, and what is currently happening in the West completely convinces me that Michael D. O'Brien is absolutely right in what he writes.
One of the reasons I wanted to read this book was to see what the author of the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling had to say, and that was one of the morbid fascinations behind acquiring it. However, this book was written before the 1990s. I must say that I became disillusioned with the series after the fifth book, although I don't believe it's anti-Christian as [Gabriele Kuby claims . czy zły ?|6717830] and, Gabriel Amorth, but it must be acknowledged that from the fifth book onwards Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix did not approve of the direction JK Rowling gave her character. It must be said that in Spain almost no one has raised their voice against the Harry Potter saga, something that has been done in Central Europe and other countries, perhaps because in Spain we are agnostic since the Zugarramundi trials, we don't believe in witchcraft and it is not given as much importance as in other countries and, in that I agree with the Professor Manuel Alfonseca, that it is not a Protestant book, but it may have been infected by some of its tendencies . This book, we may disagree on the bad, although essentially I, the Professor and Michael D. O'Brien agree, but there is something encouraging and that is that we do agree on the good and that is certainly encouraging.
I must say that I overestimated Michael D. O'Brien I had high hopes for him and even more so after reading Father Elijah : An Apocalypse and its sequels Elijah in Jerusalem and, of course, without being Robert Hugh Benson, Leonardo Castellani or, Hugo Wast did approve of his books and his parousistic vision Apocalypse : Warning , Hope, and Consolation. I really recommend his prologue to Elijah in Jerusalem. It must be said that Michael D. O'Brien has greatly influenced my friend Jorge Sáez Criado, whose books I especially recommend Apocalypse : The Day of the Lord, although the one I like the most is Trapped in Eyrinn. I was incredibly excited about Michael D. O'Brien, and I kept telling myself that even if he had written this book, Michael D. O'Brien would write a fantasy saga that would continue Professor Tolkien's great work , or at least rival it. But the last few books I read of his, while not bad (none of them were terrible), still disappointed me. When someone told me that Sophia House wasn't as good as Father, I was disappointed. Father Elijah : An Apocalypse and that he hadn't liked it. I didn't want to read it and turned a deaf ear. I did notice that being book:Father Elijah : An Apocalypse, an extraordinary novel, had one flaw: Michael D. O'Brien didn't give it an ending that matched the rest of the story. In that novel, O'Brien takes a bolder approach, killing off the best character on page 100, and the novel not only doesn't suffer, but actually improves. However, there were some things about the ending that took me out of the story, and the same thing happened with its sequel. I thought it was a problem that O'Brien would correct, and I was also very excited when I learned that he had written a science fiction novel (but we'll talk about that later) Voyage to Alpha Centauri, and I was blown away by the trailer for Ignatius. Press. But I started to hesitate when I read The Lighthouse : A Novel which wasn't bad, but it was much less than I expected. The opposite happened to me there; 2/3 of the novel left me very cold, and the ending did improve the novel. I gave it a good rating, but this novel increased my resentment, but I read it By the Rivers of Babylon : A Novel a book that had absolutely everything to succeed since it was a novel about the Prophet Ezekiel and, I expected a peplum on par with Quo Vadis by Henryk Sienkiewicz, The Forgotten Pope, Calixtus I by Gilbert Sinoué, Les Martyrs , ou , Le Triomphe de la Religion Chretienne , Vol. 1 by François-René de Chateaubriand, The Spear by Louis de Wohl and, its sequel [Glorious Folly : A Novel of the Days of St. Paul|9817428] not to mention non-Christian peplums like the duology of [ book:I , Claudius / Claudius the God|18769] by Robert Graves or the heptalogy from Masters of Rome Series by Colleen McCullough | Goodreads by Colleen McCullough or, the trilogy [ book:Cicero Trilogy Collection 3 Books Collection Set|241685793] by Robert Harris. Even contemporaries and people very close to Michael D. O'Brien did a better job than him, such as Sword and Serpent by Taylor R. Marshall (which, incidentally, is very close to what Michael D. O'Brien wants to express with this brilliant essay) and Junia by [ author:Michael E. Giesler|2776577]. Even Protestant authors have surpassed him, such as Redeeming Love by [ author:Francine Rivers|6492]. It's not easy to write novels about the Old Testament. Writers like Louis de Wohl 's * David of Jerusalem* achieved partial success, and paradoxically, it had to be a very unorthodox writer like Carlo Coccioli's *Davide* who wrote the most palatable novel about King David, although it still has a lot of room for improvement. Returning to * Voyage to Alpha Centauri*, I didn't read it, partly because unless I receive them as gifts, I don't think I'll buy foreign books again, because customs fees are exorbitant. But I witnessed the Catholic Book Club discussion, and they were disappointed that the inhabitants of Centauri turned out to be descendants of the Babylonians. How is that possible? Aside from the fact that they wasted their lead actor, my enthusiasm for Michael D. O'Brien has cooled somewhat.
Goodreads users might wonder if this book is among the relative successes or a masterpiece. I think the beginning of my review already stated that. It is a masterpiece, and I wholeheartedly agree with what Michael D. O'Brien says; perhaps the fact that it was written in the 90s explains why I was so enthusiastic about it. Of course, I would have liked Michael D. O'Brien to have reviewed more books; I wish he would expand his repertoire because I have the feeling that I might like him more as an essayist or polymath than as a novelist. The book started very well, as it had a prologue by the always interesting Diego Blanco Albarova (it's not his best work), but it's passable.
The first thing to say is that I compared it to the book Christianity and anti-Christianity in fantasy and science fiction by Manuel Alfonseca and I thought a lot about the book. Michael D. O'Brien's book begins in a very curious way, recounting his and his brother's childhood fears of monsters and how their mother dealt with the issue. The book also explores his own children's fears, how they would crawl into bed terrified by dragons (I had the same fear of ogres, and as a child, I was afraid of the dragon from Sleeping Beauty, though more so of the sound the dragon made when it died in Disney movies). He also describes their experiences at museums and natural history centers, where they felt the dinosaurs were afraid of devouring the children. O'Brien uses this to illustrate that human beings possess and experience a very wise, instinctive fear, leading him to believe that from a young age they have a very clear understanding of what is good and what is not—a kind of natural law. The book emphasizes the idea and condemns society's attempt to subvert the categories of good and evil, making us believe that good is bad and bad is good. This approach, adopted by Michael D. O'Brien, has been defended by writers on opposite sides of the spectrum, such as Diego Blanco Albarova, who has always spoken of the Christian vision of fairy tales, and Arturo Pérez-Reverte, who, while fiercely anticlerical, has not exactly defended the same position, but has protested by showing that monsters like vampires, werewolves, and villains are good and are unjust victims of society. In the opinion of Michael D. O'Brien, and I share it, this approach is due to two phenomena: the paganization of culture, and this is due to the de-Christianization of society, and I add, because Michael D. O'Brien does not say so, that it is due to nominalism, the Protestant Reformation, and the French Revolution.
This does not mean that one disagrees with the influence of paganism and Gnosticism, which began with Judaism and reached Christianity through Dositheus and Simon Magus, culminating in Kenrynthus (who spoke of the Demiurge, the seven powers, and an anti-scientific pursuit of knowledge rather than understanding the mystery). Gnosticism was condemned by Christianity from the 1st century onwards, and from there stemmed most heresies such as Manichaeism, which later gave rise to the Bogomils or Cathars. This leads us to say that the body is evil, and matter is evil. There is a very harsh and accurate critique by Michael D. O'Brien of pagan religions, especially the idolatrous ones that led to the worship of snakes and dragons, although there are also critiques of religions such as the Phoenician, Greek, and Egyptian (contact with these peoples led the Jews to paganism (initially the Jews were monotheistic, that is, they believed in only one God, but they did not deny the existence of other gods, but with Moses the Jews became monotheistic. With Augustine of Hippo Justin Martyr , it was believed that the gods could be demons, while believed that there could be a part of truth, which does not have to be contradictory since what the demon does is corrupt what was created, but there continues to be some truth that has not been corrupted, but there are religions that do not understand this). It is recounted how the serpent was worshipped as an idol, which... This led King Hezekiah to destroy it. On this topic, I recommend the book Una magia profunda. Guía de las Crónicas de Narnia de Luis Daniel González, and my friend Jaime Blanch Queral used it for his *The Sacred Robes* trilogy. Michael D. O'Brien's *The Dragon* is based on the biblical concept of both the serpent and the Christian dragon. Not only are Babylonian gods (the dragon Tiamat), Phoenician gods, and Egyptian gods criticized, but also Mesoamerican deities like Quetzalcoatl . However, of the Aztec deities , Quetzalcoatl isn't the worst in my opinion; Huitzilopochtli, Tlazolteotl , and Xipe Totec are more so. Totec ,Tlaloc ,Coatlicue, to name a few of the more bloodthirsty Aztec dragon deities. Regarding the topic of Asian cultures where dragons are benevolent, Michael D. O'Brien, and I thought I was unaware of this before reading the book, knows it and believes that the problem with these peoples is that they did not achieve the same level of moral development as the West, although — and I did point this out—there was a time when, with Confucius and Mencius, they seemed to have an advantage because they were ahead of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. See the book * Compassion: A History* by Manuel Alejandro Rodríguez de la Peña, and the so-called Axial Age. This would lead to rejecting books like The Neverending Story by Michael Ende or, Brave Story by Miyuki Miyabe and, What about Elfling by Corinna Turner where a dragon appears? Of course, everyone agrees that the dragon is evil, but then, that there are degrees, for me it's a good thing that there are different categories, and that's what Michael D. O'Brien does.
continues...

[Anna · Rating 4 out of 5]

Amazing! Normally I read parenting-type books too early and forget all that I learned by the time I need it. In this case I wish I had had this book a year or so earlier, right before my son was independently choosing, what I now understand as, morally questionable books 🤦‍♀️ Better late than never, right?

[Joanna Jennings · Rating 4 out of 5]

So this is an older book by a Catholic, but I thought he made some good points. In fantasy when good and evil are blurred, the occult can be subtly portrayed as a good thing. Black magic should always represent false religion and white magic as the true way. Evil should not be used to bring about good ends.

[Katharine Campbell · Rating 1 out of 5]

1.5 stars because some of O'Brian's criticisms of modern media are accurate. For example, I agree with his complaints about the lack of strong fathers in modern stories and how Christian characters are often stereotyped as either super naïve or one-dimensional, judgmental jerks.

That said, I strongly disagree with many of his claims and think his solutions do far more harm then good.

For example, O'Brian claims that dragons should always represent the demonic in stories. Good dragons, he claims, desensitize children to evil. He even goes so far as to criticize an author for using a snake as a positive force in a story.

Sure, snakes represent evil in literature sometimes but objectively they are one of the many beautiful creatures that God made. The devil did not create them, they do not belong to him, and it's absurd to think that they should always represent him.

Dragons are fantasy creatures and have been used in numerous ways throughout history. Just because they often represent evil doesn't mean they always have to.

I think it's important to acknowledge the reality of spiritual warfare and take it seriously, but O'Brian seems more inclined to see the devil working in the world than God. I am sure the devil, egotistical maniac that he is, appreciates this kind of attention.

[Sara · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book! He talks about why new trends in literature are dangerous to the mind- and soul- of the child. He has a lot of great insight and is good at explaining concretely exactly things why things that "felt wrong" to me are. I wish he'd make a new edition- I don't know off-hand when this was written but obviously well before Harry Potter and the vampire trend. He talks about movies, too- I'd love to hear his analysis of recent ones, like Pixar. Love the discussion on Tolkien and CS Lewis- but he goes so in depth on one of the latter's particular books- time I thought could have been well spent examining other things as well. There's a list of recommended reading in the back- nice bonus! I highly recommend this book!!! Even if you don't have kids!

[Vivian · Rating 3 out of 5]

When you are reading a book do you think about "world view"? The same applies to film, columns, and even conversation. World view is the "salt in the stew", so to speak. We don't see it, nor even taste it (unless it's overdone). But there it is, flavoring the experience, or drawing out the other flavors.

The four world views I look for are...
Cosmic Humanist
Secular Humanist
Judeo / Christian
Marxist / Leninist
... as described in Understanding the Times by David Noebel.

A number of years ago my t'ween-age daughter was enthusing about a book she was reading. Fortunately, I had read the book already so could easily follow her blow-by-blow re-telling of the story. It was The Primrose Way by Jackie French Koller, about a Puritan girl giving her love and life to a man not of her faith or creed, all the while spurning the overtures of her good friend who was of her faith. The story was well-written and engaging. I suggested to my daughter that we change the time and place and religion of the protagonist. Suppose she was a pioneer girl of our faith? Would you still feel the same about her choices? I pointed out that her choices prescribed the choices of her children and grand children. I asked if it was fair to exclude them from what were the greatest blessings of her life.

The author of this work shares these sorts of concerns with parents, and includes a lengthy appendix of suggested family reading from the picture book all the way up to novels for adults.

Notes and Quotes follow:
the modern vs. traditional childhood:
p.36 "Some modern critics have accused the traditional fairy story of being too fixated on punishment of evil characters. They maintain that children are being conditioned to want revenge, that violent instincts are being incorporated into their personalities, and that they will grow up lacking compassion. Such anxieties stem from the modern preoccupation with peace at all costs, from exaggerated fears about conflict, and from the mistaken belief that sin can be educated out of fallen human nature. Such people believe that children will grow up to be happy nonviolent adults if they are prevented from playing with toy weapons. This is naive. Little boys deprived of toy swords and guns will simply make their own out of anything that comes to hand. ... The principle at stake in this issue is not so much our laudable desires to raise compassionate children. The real question is: What approach will best raise compassionate and courageous children? Normal childhood play, riddled with joys and conflicts as it always has been, 'educates' at a profound level. The secret is not to deprive a child of his sword but to make the sword with him and teach him a code of honor. In other words, chivalry. Responsibility. Character. Justice. "

the purpose of the traditional story:
p.38 "The fairy story is not an incitement to violence; it is an incitement to reflection on the truth. ... The merit of a bad end to a bad fictional character is that it imparts a warning about the act.
The concept of justice is not always easy to grasp, especially in a culture that has been conditioned to exalt rights at the expense of responsibilities, that suffers from the impression that punishment is always a cruel thing. One of law's important functions is to instruct and to deter on an objective level those whose inhumanity impels them toward the ruthless use of other human beings. There is a great need for a return to objective warning signs strong enough to prevail over the massive subjectivization of the modern mind. " ...

the journey out of paganism:
p.45 "The sacrifice of Isaac was the seminal moment that inaugurated, and the image that represents, the rise of the Western world. It was a radical break with the perceptions of the old age of cultic paganism." ...

the rise of Gnosticism:
p.51 "Gnosticism was in essence syncretistic, borrowing elements from various pagan mystery religions. Its beliefs were often wildly contradictory. For example, some Gnostic groups were pantheistic (worshiping nature as divine), and others, the majority, were more strongly influenced by Oriental dualism (that is, the belief that material creation is evil and the divine realm is good). Despite these confusing differences, they shared in common the belief that knowledge (from the Greek word gnosis) was the true saving force. Secret knowledge about the nature of the universe and about the origin and destiny of man would release a 'divine spark' within certain enlightened souls and unite them to some distant, unknowable Supreme Being. This Being, they believed, had created the world through Seven Powers, sometimes called the Demiurge. The initiate in the secret knowledge possessed a kind of spiritual map that would guide him to the highest heaven, enabling the soul to navigate the realms of the powers, the demons, and the deities who opposed his ascent. If the initiate could master their names, repeat the magic formulas and rituals, he would by such knowledge penetrate tot he realm of ultimate light."

the rise of an illiterate people:
p.59 "Like it or not, we are fast becoming an illiterate people. Yes, most of us can read. But our minds are becoming increasingly passive and image oriented...
Furthermore, the incredible act of mastering a written language greatly increased a person's capacity for clear thought. And people capable of thought were also better able--at least in theory--to avoid the mistakes of their ancestors and to make a more humane world. The higher goal of literacy was the ability to recognize truth and to live according to it."

on the reversal of symbolism:
p.60 "Something is happening in modern culture that is unprecedented in human history. At the same time that the skills of the mind, especially the power of discernment, are weakened, many of the symbols of the Western world are being turned topsy-turvy. ...
The loss of our world of symbols is the result of a deliberate attack upon truth, and the loss is occurring with astonishing rapidity. On practically every level of culture, good is no longer presented as good but rather as a prejudice held by a limited religious system. Christianity). Neither is evil any longer perceived as evil in the way we once understood it. Evil is increasingly depicted as a means to achieve good."

on discernment in children:
p.61 "But in a culture that deliberately targets the senses and overwhelms them, employing all the genius of technology and art, children have fewer resources to discern rightly than at any other time in history. Flooded with a vast array of entertaining stimuli, children and parents suppose that they live in a world of multiple choices. In fact, their choices are shrinking steadily, because as the quantity increases, quality decreases."

on parents and Christians and children in media:
p.63 "In film after film parents (especially fathers) are depicted as abusers at worst, bumbling fools at best. Christians are depicted as vicious bigots, and ministers of religion as either corrupt hypocrites or confused clowns.
The young 'heroes' and 'heroines' of these dramas are the mouthpieces of the ideologies of modern social and political movements, champions of materialism, sexual libertarianism, environmentalism, feminism, globalism, monism, and all the other isms that are basically about reshaping reality to fit the new world envisioned by the intellectual elites."

on humanist propaganda:
p.64 "The propagandist must prevent any awakening of conscience and derail the development of real imagination in his audience. He must inflame the imagination in all the wrong directions and supply a steady dose of pleasurable stimuli as a reward mechanism. He must calm any uneasiness in the conscience by supplying many social projects, causes, and issues that the young can embrace with passionate pseudo-idealism.
...How long will it take the people of our times to understand that when humanist sentiments replace moral absolutes, it is not long before we see idealist corrupting conscience in the name of liberty and destroying human lives in the name of humanity?"

on vulnerability:
p.83 "Most modern people do not know their history and do not possess the tools of real thought and thus are vulnerable to manipulation of their feelings. ...
Rather than thinking with ideas, we 'think' in free-form layers of images loosely connected by emotions. ... The real problem is religious illiteracy, by which I mean the lack of an objective standard against which we can measure our subjective readings of sensation and experience."

on imagination:
p.117 "The imagination was originally created to be God's territory, a faculty of man's soul that would help him to comprehend the invisible realities."

the journey to and from paganism:
p.163 "A society sliding back into paganism my try to reassure itself that it is in no worse condition than a society crawling out of paganism. Like two travelers going in opposite directions on a road, for a brief moment they share in passing a common point. But the end of the road for each is very different. The convert from paganism has known darkness and has turned toward the light. Our society has known the light and is turning back toward darkness. This is the crucial difference. It is into the core of this difference that we must speak if we wish to re-evangelize the world.
Travelers from the realm of darkness state loudly and clearly that the land which the lapsed or lapsing Christian is travelling toward is in fact a land of death and degradation. They have been there. They know. When they tell us that few leave that land, that none finds happiness there, and that it is a world of shifting illusory images, they can sound, yes, intolerant. But this intolerance is the intolerance of the physician who has seen an epidemic ravage a people. He is prejudiced against deadly viruses. This is the intolerance of a mother who fiercely protects her little ones from predators. This apparent narrowness is the wisdom of those who have known many roads and have found only one sure route out of the regions of desolation."

on charity:
p.164 "It goes without saying that the urgent need for truth does not mandate us to go rushing about, tearing into our neighbor, or our enemy, delivering harsh lectures to this or that erring soul. In the true Christian meaning of the word charity, we are to love the personhood of each and every individual human being. This does not mean that we should remain paralyzed and silent regarding acts and ideas that are killing us. We have a right and a duty to speak the truth with simplicity and calmness, clearly and fearlessly, without rancor or personal condemnation, wherever untruth invades the life of our family."

on the power of conditioning:
p.165 "We can become the creatures of a powerful conditioning mechanism and, like well-fed slaves, accept a sort of comfortable bondage as our lot in life. We can gradually come to think that the torrent of noise is normal. And when the pressures become intolerable, we might even begin to agree with what the noise is saying."

[Zach · Rating 5 out of 5]

A guide to navigating modern stories. Lots of interesting insights into the symbols employed by our culture and how they have changed over time. My favorite part was his comparison of Disney movies to the original stories on which they are based.

[Monica Gleason · Rating 5 out of 5]

Does a great job of explaining why it’s important to filter children’s literature for kids. It’s about learning to discern what is appropriate and has ulterior motives, and includes a list in the back of good books for all ages and genres.

[William · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of my favorite books, and one that I have re-read and recommended a number of times. Unhappily with a provocative title with that currently fashionable "Title Subtitle" structure that sounds like a pitch for some TV soft-news show. But authors rarely if ever have anything to do with the titles or covers of their books, so let's be generous.

O'Brien asserts that children both desire and require stories with clear delineations of good-guys and bad-guys. There isn't a toddler who doesn't interrupt story-time when a new character enters the scene with "Is he good or bad?" We would do well to listen to them. Instead modernity demands that we feed them smoke and fog, ambiguity and nuance. This is dangerous and wrong-headed.

An aside, since this book was written well before: I was hopeful on the days following 9-11 that at least we had put to rest the sixties foolishness of there being no such thing as "wrong" or "evil." Certainly killing innocent people would qualify. But within days we had intellectual contortionists explaining how we deserved it, we had brought it on ourselves, and everyone is a terrorist from the point of view of someone else. Interestingly, those most likely to accept the "Let's understand the Muslims" apologies would also be most likely to be absolute and orthodox on, say, environmentalism. You don't hear them saying, "Let's understand Enron, or pro-lifers... they have their side and we have ours."

So, we all have orthodoxies. This book is a reasoned argument for respecting that structure of human experience in our approach to children. His background is that of a Christian Catholic, but he is aiming at something almost Joseph Campbell-like in the mythic layer of our souls. So even those who are not Christian will find it valuable and engaging.

The book contains a reading list organized by age, which is very helpful.

[Karen (Living Unabridged) · Rating 3 out of 5]

First half: did not find his argument(s) persuasive. (Probably because our theology is quite different.) The main point of contention would probably be that he sees far more danger in forms and types than I do. I believe children are capable of understanding the difference in imagery and fantasy vs. reality and truth. As for me and my house we serve the Lord like this: we read and we discuss; we do not withhold and fear. (Also, his reaction against Harry Potter or Madeleine L'Engle seems quaint rather than prescient at this point.)

So, rather than fear every presentation of a snake, lizard, or dragon in books that is not depicted as always bad, depraved, and powerful, I stand with Martin Luther. Luther said: “The best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield to texts of Scripture, is to jeer and flout him, for he cannot bear scorn.”

Evil is real. And evil men commit evil acts (the daily news is enough to drive this point home). But we do not fear the devil, whether in dragon form or not. We laugh at him because he is already defeated. Christ is Lord of all and He reigns victorious now and forever.

Second half: a great book list. And I lurve a great booklist! I added lots of potential authors to my "watch for these" list.

[Greg Bittner · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant and profound analysis. This is the third time I read this book and I get more out of it every time. The first time, I had no knowledge of George MacDonald, but have since read seven of his books, so I understood O'Brien's analysis of MacDonald much better, though his critique of "Phantastes" still floored me. ("*That's* what the book was about?") His explanation of "At the Back of the North Wind" surprised me too. Maybe it's time I try "Lilith" again and see if I can finish it. C.S. Lewis' "Til We Have Faces" thoroughly confused me, and O'Brien's explanation helped some, but it was still over my head. His analysis of Lewis' space trilogy was good, though just a little too short. Maybe after I figure out Chesteron a bit, I'll read this book again. What I loved most was O'Brien's insight into how literature shapes worldview, and his four-tier scale for assessing the moral value of a book: 1)Wholly good, 2)Good overall but disordered in some aspects, 3)Appears good but is fundamentally disordered, 4)Wholly bad. And his advice for how to pray for your child's mind and soul was very touching.

[Olivia · Rating 4 out of 5]

i pretty much finished this a long time ago lol but forgot to update.... i think this book provides good guidelines for selecting children’s literature and the importance of certain symbols within a developing child’s mind. there were times i just felt like i was reading a long and drawn out college paper about one particular book, though, and that i did not enjoy. an unexpected fun tidbit, though, is that as a fan of michael o’brien’s novels, this book provided a lot of insight into the symbols that he uses in many of his books — i actually feel like i get more out of his novels after reading this book, ha! i don’t think this book necessarily needs to be read in its entirety, as many times he just goes on tangents about one very specific book at a time. but it is #WORTHIT just for the book list at the end. i’ve never been disappointed by any selection we’ve made from there, and i trust michael o’brien and his colleagues completely when it comes to good literature for children.

[Brenton · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good analysis of the kinds of literature our kids are consuming. O'Brien's Catholicism comes through frequently. He is especially wary of the modern glorification of dragons which were considered a universal symbol of evil in theistic cultures. O'Brien includes extensive lists of recommended titles broken down by age group.

[Shari · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thought provoking, intelligent and beautiful writing full of rich spiritual lessons. This is a must read for every Christian parent who wishes to shield and protect their young from the onslaught of demons and dragons in our modern culture.

[An · Rating 1 out of 5]

In my opinion, this book had a moot point and bad arguments.

[Richard Bicknase · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought the book did a good job of doing what it set out to do. I especially appreciated its discussions on symbology, Gnosticism, and neopaganism. If you haven't read a book like this on literary discernment before, this book would be a good place to start. It provides good background on why the topic is important, and provides plenty of examples in discussing specific books to model what it looks like to employ a discerning eye to literature or storytelling in general in movies or other media. It also does a good job of discussing spiritual risk and that different readers may be able to tolerate different levels of exposure to spiritually/morally corrupted literature. I also appreciated that the author makes it clear that young children are not exempt from spiritual attack, and that they are more perceptive than people often realize.

I might have been more impressed with the book if I hadn't encountered much of its discussion of fantasy, fairy tales, myth, etc....in various other books. I greatly enjoy C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, so I've read a fair number of books about them and their works (especially Narnia). Consequently, many of its arguments and most of the material dealing with Lewis, Tolkien, MacDonald, and, to a lesser extent, Chesterton, and their views of fairy tales, myth, and writing were already very familiar to me. That said, this is still a good book to read because it fits a lot of discussion into a relatively short page count.

[MARY GRACE · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think this is an important book for parents who care about the kind of material their children read and are exposed to.
Well written and I appreciate the part where suggested books are listed. The author does not claim to know everything, but rather gives parents important words of advice.

[Becky Pliego · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first two chapters were really good. In my opinion, Anthony Esolen’s books on this subject are much better.

[Nora St Germain · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first two chapters were like a Monsignor Shea lecture for forming your children’s minds!!!! The rest of it was just fine. Keeping on our shelf for all the book recommendations!

[Erik · Rating 3 out of 5]

Heady text detailing neopaganism and the weight of symbols in literature, but excellent. He appears even to me to be a bit "over the top," but he warns of real danger. Includes a long book list.

Review source unknown: O'Brien has issued a wake-up call to conscientious parents in his latest book. We cannot take it for granted anymore that the entertainment aimed at our children is worthy of their attention. In fact, it may be harmful. The classic stories which teach us about good and evil (fairy tales, myths, classical literature) are being replaced or modified. The Dragon, the symbol of evil or chaos, is being tamed, leaving our children's souls in danger. O'Brien cites many examples of this in popular books and movies. I found his take on Disney movies very insightful and a little scary. Disney invariably belittles authority and religion, especially Catholicism. Yet this company is the world leader in feeding our children their steady diet of movies and videos. One only has to watch the Esmeralda dance in "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" to question Disney's idea of 'family entertainment.' O'Brien doesn't leave you in the lurch, however, as he helps us discern what is good entertainment for our children. He also provides a comprehensive list of good literature -- and, thankfully, there's a lot of it out there. I hope every parent and educator reads this book. It is too important to be missed.

[Amanda · Rating 3 out of 5]

Short, thought provoking (though imperfect) read

This quick read (I read it in under two hours) is aimed at Christians, but that doesn't mean that those who aren't should pass this by. While I don't believe everything he says is accurate, his heart & observations are worth considering as he makes several good points.

The book is not focused on dragons, though they are a frequent example, but on the use of classic symbols in literature. He does state that dragons themselves (if they exist) aren't evil, that's not his point. His point is that historically they have been used to symbolize evil in the west. Early in the book it can appear that he has a personal thing against dragons because of personal experiences & some experiences from his children - just read past that to get to his actual points -those stories are intended as a hook.

While I don't necessarily have a problem with dragons being friendly or good, the authors points are well worth considering.

While not perfect, this is a though provoking read that is well worth the little time it takes to read this slim book.

[Stephen · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book has given me a lot to think about in regards to what I want to read to my daughter. I agree with him that Gnosticism has become too prevalent in children's literature (and this was published before Harry Potter became a hit!) and that we need to find silence in this "Noisy Age" we live in (again, would you believe this was published before the rise of MySpace and Facebook?), but I think he was a little too harsh on C. S. Lewis mixing mythological creatures in with Christian allegory. Other than that it was a very fine read and I plan on mining the recommended reading lists at the end of the book for future story time ideas.

[Marie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Like his Harry Potter book, this was a liiiitle intense, like I'm not sure I would agree 100% with him, but maybe about 98%. He really is well read and a huge literature buff, so I trust that about him, but I wonder if some of this is just a tiny bit scrupulous?? Anyway, the recommended reading in the back will certainly help supplement our library, and it's good to have a Catholic book like this out there.