Outrage? [Archive] - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Lalwendë

06-14-2005, 10:27 AM

And Farenheit 451 (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=2068&page=1&pp=40) is also an interesting thread.

I am not aware of any such negative reception for The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings when they were originally published. This could be due to one of two things in my opinion.

It could be that they were not regarded as 'important' books, likely to reach a mass market or even to have a significant impact upon the lit-crit market. Harry Potter was an immensely popular series almost from the beginning (certainly much more so than Tolkien's work!) so naturally will attract more attention as we see kids (big and small) with their noses glued to them.

It could also be that today we live in a much more polarised society. Or at least, that the media encourage us to be polarised. Hatred is much more easily stirred up today, as evidenced in terrorist attacks, support for far Right politics, suspicion of certain types of people and so forth. It may have been different in the McCarthy era USA, but the UK was a more tolerant society when LotR was published - despite being before anti-discrimination legislation. Now we're always looking for the 'enemy'! :eek:

I think censorship arises as a result of two things, power and fear. Suddenly, all these children were clamouring for more Harry Potter, and this may have alarmed/puzzled some adults. The same thing has happened with Pokemon cards and video games. Adults soon forget that when they were young they too clamoured for things, whether Spitfire shrapnel, Tonka trucks or space hoppers (they also ignore their own crazes for the gospel of Jamie Oliver or the status symbol of the big shiny car ;) ). Crazes leave them feeling out of control, so when something is seen that can be latched on to, whether it be intimations of witchcraft, violence or whatever else they do not understand, this is seen as sinister. Which is where fear comes in, as when we do not understand something we tend to fear it, and either run away or fight it by trying to control it.

Harry Potter, unfortunately, came out as a craze so it did instill fear in a lot of people, but in reality, kids for years have been playing games of fairies, wizards, witches and so on, inspired by traditional fairy tales and nursery rhymes. The difference is that the latter are not banned as they are multifarious, have been in existence for years, and do not constitute a craze. This why I think Tolkien's work has by and large got off lightly in comparison; it has been in existence for many years already and its influence has been relatively slow growing - as such, it does not constitute as much of a threat. I wonder how many of the instances of LotR being 'banned' occurred during the hype over the films, as that would make sense.

lindil

06-14-2005, 10:44 AM

Excellent topic kath.

I have given the matter some thought [ I have young kids, who though not going to public school stil have friends that were into HP way before I or they were] as it touches near to home on a few issues.

First off, I am very fortunate, in that even though I belong to an extremely Traditionalist Orthodox Church, my Bishop and our Archbishop are not stuck in a Salem witchcraft level of intellectual analysis.

One of our Bishops rightly pointed out that it is fantasy and should be given the same liberties we have always given fiction and more importantly fairy tales for many hundreds of years.

I agree whole heartedly.

On the other hand, HP is very different from M-E in that the setting is not 'in a galaxy [ or time] far, far away. It is set in present day England.

Other than wordly references to Christmas there is so far a complete avoidance of religion.

Which seems odd as I would want a bit of prepping for dealing with Muggles in that regard if I went to a school dedicated to the stuff - but, realism issues aside, this avoidance of something so big and profound is not irrelevant. Magic is certainly the most important thing going on these kids lives [on one level at least]. Nobody prays, nobody even says so much as the word God, in the course of thousands of discussions JKR has recorded.

So harry lives in a very magical yet agnostic world, hmmm

that is the downside. I have dealt with that by simply pointing it and it;s ramifications out to my girls [6 and 9] and I will do it more than one more time I am sure!

As for how 'magic' is dealt with in the books, it is rather comical. It is so far from any real magic [ I used to study the Golden Dawn and Crowley so I know a little bit about at least one aspect of the 'real thing'] or witchcraft that I am tempted to beleieve JKR meant it as a joke of sorts. Note her [speaking through Hermione and Dumbledore] attitude towards divination, the only subject that they study that comes close to the real subject in theory and practice that we see in Potter world.

If you want to see books that blur the line between 'real magic' and religion and fiction, the Deryni series is it. Not Potter.

Is there danger in HP being so popular and influencing kids toward witchcraft and magic, I will say, at least indirectly yes.

But, the real problem lies in parents who can not or are afraid to teach their children discernment and how to sort wheat from chaff.

Traditional Christianity sets a very high bar for what is 'good' and 'true' and thus worthy of our study and bringing into the sphere of our minds and hearts, and I will flat out say that for a Christian to spend alot or even much time in Potterworld is dubious, and I am guilty hardly immune to it's considerable non-Christian charms.

But to remain ignorant of it and not be able to speak to my daughters about it from 'within' to me is far more dangerous.

I am sure many of the same parents who forbid Potter to their kids do not draw the line at violent video games or even hours of video games in general.

There is my 2 cents for the moment, again excellent topic.

I have to add this from Anguirel: Today, sadly, though democracy is generally recognised as a Good Thing, religious extremism is our new bogey man, the new Ring, the new Dark Lord, if you like. Just as Sauron's imminence made Denethor into a hard and harsh man, the terrorism of Islamic extremism has brought into being disturbingly similar feelings in Christianity. Why, it's enough for a whole other thread. "You serve the Dark Tower or the White." "You're with us or against us." Excellent, excellent insight A. I personally do see militant Isalm as a real threat to Christianity and much of civilization in a way, but I also can see why many in the Muslim world see America as 'the great Satan'. I do not by the whole analysis, but many of their critiques of our decaying 'Christian' but really Materialist/Corporate culture are spot on, Tolkein often expresses the same reservations of modern 'civilization' in his Letters.

Is harry potter dangerous? Yes! and so was Gandalf, by his own admission to gimili!!!, and so are we all, for we are surrounded by dangers. But the answer I think is in a good deep understanding of the whole issue from a higher intellectual vantage point than most reactionary 'ban it' mentality comes from.

edit:

I recall posting on one of the aforementioned 'LotR banned' threads that if I were the girl going to the prep school that banned LotR I would quit in as loud a huff as I could. I would not trust the intellectual 'forming' such a narrow institution is doing.

Kath

06-14-2005, 11:58 AM

Thank you everyone for your fantastic responses!

Anguirel and lindil I hadn't really thought about the fact that the two were published in different time frames with completely different circumstances surrounding them. The society we have today is much less liberal than it was - even if that sounds odd it is in essence true as though we have more in the way of general freedom and women have gained the right to vote etc. we are incredibly controlled. Just look at the amount of CCTV and the fact that media covers every aspect of our lives. There is no real prvacy anymore. This kind of society breeds fear and distrust so anything that can be used a reason for the perceived terrors of that society (teenage violence for example) is condemned for no real reason.

I did know that Tolkien had written a lot of Christian and religious symbolism into his tales but I thought that might have actually contributed to any outcry surrounding the books as people may have thought he was trying to bastardise the Christian message in some way. That's not too clear, I mean that he was almost trying to create his own Bible - he was writing his own creation story, that we know, so I thought maybe this would cause problems.

The argument on different types of magic (from mormegil?) is a good one. In Harry Potter the magic is much more upfront and obvious as they are chanting spells, making things float etc, whereas in Lord of the Rings the magic is hidden almost. It is there in the world itself, the descriptions of landscapes and the land of the elves show magic. In the book itself Galadriel says she does not understand the word magic. The type of magic though is also less obvious, it is rooted in fairy tales, Eomer is surprised at the appearance of Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli and their tales of Lothlorien. The real magic here is in the reality of things that should be myth and legend.

Then this
In Potter, which I've never read but have seen, I assume that the use of magic is encouraged, and it's not always clear on which side the characters are.

This is not entirely true. Yes the use of magic is encouraged but it is always obvious which side the characters are on by the end of the book at least. And those who are Dark wizards use curses that hurt others, whereas Good wizards are taught to use their powers to help others and to protect themselves, never attack.

Hookbill your Pastor sounds great! And what he said makes perfect sense.

Oh and thank you to The Saucepan Man, Lalwende and alatar for those links. I've only had a chance to skim read them so far but I'll definitely be going back to them.

Morsul the Dark

06-14-2005, 12:04 PM

as far as i know the church i am loosely affiliated with(I dont go a lot...ok at all but thats beside the point) doesnt consider harry potter evil secondly the pastor's son and he himself are avid LOTR readers and quote it in sermons sometimes( i stopped going because 900 on sunday is just too early...(please no religious hatemail ;) )

alatar

06-14-2005, 12:47 PM

This is not entirely true. Yes the use of magic is encouraged but it is always obvious which side the characters are on by the end of the book at least. And those who are Dark wizards use curses that hurt others, whereas Good wizards are taught to use their powers to help others and to protect themselves, never attack.

I've only seen the first movie entire, and bits and pieces of the second, but doesn't someone add a pig's tail to Harry's half-brother (or whatever he is)? And what punishment does one receive for poor sportmanship/breaking the rule in Quidditch? And is the non-magic users' side of the argument fairly represented (i.e. why Harry might not want to dabble)?

But then again, they're childrens' movies and books, and as a parent, I would filter as needed.

lindil

06-14-2005, 12:59 PM

alatar posted:And is the non-magic users' side of the argument fairly represented (i.e. why Harry might not want to dabble)?

Good point.

Throughout HP the sometimes legit concerns of the Dursely clan are hardly treated as serious by the 'good guys'.

I can't help but wonder though whether the Dursely's will not play a crucial role for good in the end. Anyway back to the main thread...

davem

06-14-2005, 02:09 PM

(Puts on tin hat before proceeding)

I think this anti-fantasy movement has come out of the US, particularly in the last 20 or so years. It is a product of fundamentalism. The more fundamentalist a religion becomes the more it reverts to a literalist worldview. There is less & less room for symbolism, for metaphor. So, if a novel has 'wizards' in it it must be 'Satanic'. Most serious Tolkien fans have read Tolkien's statement that Gandalf was a kind of 'incarnate angel' - or even if they haven't they will have got the general idea themselves. But because Tolkien didn't call Gandalf an 'incarnate angel' in the book, as far as the fundamentalists, with their literalist approach, are concerned he cannot be an incarnate angel by another name.

Tolkien was lucky, in that his first readers were mostly not fundamentalists, but rather educated, quite wealthy (given the cost of the books), or 'non-conformists'. When the 'Campus cult' took off it was mostly college students looking for something anti-establishment & escapist to read.

Nowadays, those who can accomodate Fantasy into their worldview will accept it, those who can't - the 'fundamentalist' Christians or 'fundamentalist' athiests - will reject it. The former will reject it because, if taken literally , it conflicts with their 'spiritual' worldview, the latter will reject it because it is 'escaping' from 'reality'. Both groups are equally intolerant of 'magic', because magic can't be explained. For the first group it is 'Satanism', for the second it is 'superstition'. For those who find they can accomodate it, it is a doorway to 'wonder' - something both the other groups are suspicious of.

In the Ballad of Thomas the Rhymer Thomas is brought by the Fairy Queen to a place where three Roads meet. One Road is 'Broad' & winds about the Lily'd leven - this is the Road to wickedness, though some say it is the Road to Heaven. It is the Road of worldliness, of materialism. The second Road, is 'all beset with thorns & briars'. It is 'The Road to 'Paradise', though after it but few enquires.' It could be seen as the road of 'religious' fundamentalism & moral absolutism. The Third Road is the Road to Fair Elfland. It is the Road that goes ever on & on.

Formendacil

06-14-2005, 11:34 PM

Fascinating- and fast-growing- thread here...

An important thing to remember, which hasn't been mentioned yet on this thread that I can see, is Tolkien's own statement about the Lord of the Rings being a fundamentally Catholic (aka Christian) work, unconsciously so in the writing, consciously in the revision.

It's a minor point to add, but one which ought to be noted on this thread, methinks.

And although this is nowhere directly stated, in the Lord of the Rings itself, it is still there in the underlying structure. Note that the Harry Potter books have no such claim made- anywhere- by J.K. Rowling about them being "fundamentally Christian".

HerenIstarion

06-15-2005, 12:54 AM

See also Acceptance of mythology? (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=6078) by Snowdog

The Saucepan Man

06-15-2005, 02:34 AM

And although this is nowhere directly stated, in the Lord of the Rings itself, it is still there in the underlying structure. Note that the Harry Potter books have no such claim made- anywhere- by J.K. Rowling about them being "fundamentally Christian".Why should that make any difference to whether one or the other is banned?

I first read LotR at age 11. I had no inkling ( ;) ) that it was "fundamentally Christian". Having read it, I soon moved onto other fantasy books and Dungeons & Dragons and also developed an interest in what might loosely be termed the "supernatural". Had the Harry Potter books been available back then and I had read them instead of LotR, I can imagine them having much the same effect.

In my view the books stand or fall together on this issue. I most certainly don't think that either should be banned. But I just don't get these distinctions based on one being "fundamentally Christian" and the other not being so, or on the portrayal of the nature of magic being different. Such distinctions would most certainly not have been apparent to me age 11.

Kath

06-15-2005, 03:22 AM

Such distinctions would most certainly not have been apparent to me age 11.

No they probably wouldn't Saucepan Man, but then it is not the children that ban the books it is the adults. The distinctions are made by 'discerning' parents who want what they believe to be the best for their children and while it is all well and good to want to protect them it is still ridiculous to think that not reading a book will do this. Even if they don't read it at home if others at school do so they are likely to know about it or even to borrow it off a friend to read it.

On Formendacil's point
And although this is nowhere directly stated, in the Lord of the Rings itself, it is still there in the underlying structure. Note that the Harry Potter books have no such claim made- anywhere- by J.K. Rowling about them being "fundamentally Christian".

This is true but if she had made some statement about them being fundamentally Christian then she would probably have been accused for that. We are now a multi-religious society and to those who take slight at anything it such a remark would likely have been seen as some kind of insult. To say the books were Christian might indicate a lack of respect toward other religions (this is not my view it is simply an example). In Tolkien's time England was Christian pretty much through and through so this was not a problem, indeed he was probably liked more for it. It is just another example of the fact that the changes in society over time mean you have to be more careful with what you say.

And thanks for the link H-I.

Selmo

06-15-2005, 05:20 AM

All the arguments put forward in this thread are very interesting, but I believe, irrelevant. There are good reasons to be concerned about the effects some literature may have on vulnerable minds but the mainly American fundamentalist Christians who wanted the first HP book banned didn't reach a reasoned value judgement from the contents; they only looked at the cover.

The first thing they saw was the title, "The Sorcerer's Stone". That aroused their suspicions. Had the US publishers used the real title, it might have slipped through unnoticed.

Then they saw the words "Hogwort's School of Wizzardry and Witchcraft". They didn't need to look any further. The book banners have a knee-jerk reaction to words like "witch" and "witchcraft". Had J K Rowling used wizzard and wizzardry for both sexes there might have been less of an outcry.

The reason there wasn't the same outcry when LoTR was published in USA?: there's no mention of witches on the back of the book cover or in the advertising blurb. You have to look very hard to find the word "witch" in Tolkien's work.

By the way, I am a Christian myself. My previous Minister (he moved on last August) was a fan of both Tolkien and Rowling and often drew illustrations from their work in his sermons.

.

The Saucepan Man

06-15-2005, 05:33 AM

No they probably wouldn't Saucepan Man, but then it is not the children that ban the books it is the adults. The distinctions are made by 'discerning' parents who want what they believe to be the best for their children and while it is all well and good to want to protect them it is still ridiculous to think that not reading a book will do this.Yes, but that's my point. When I first read LotR, there was (putting aside the obvious stylistic etc differences) little in essence to distinguish its treatment of wizards, magic and the like from the treatment of these subjects by the Harry Potter books today. So what basis would there have been for "discerning" parents to have treated them any differently at that time?

There are good reasons to be concerned about the effects some literature may have on vulnerable minds but the mainly American fundamentalist Christians who wanted the first HP book banned didn't reach a reasoned value judgement from the contents; they only looked at the cover.This "knee-jerk" reaction appears to have been applied by some to LotR too. But at least they are consistent. What I don't get is people who think LotR is OK because it was written by a Christian and contains elements drawn from the Christian faith (although no overt Christian symbolism, as has been discussed on another thread), but that Harry Potter books are evil because the same considerations do not apply. Both books essentially portray a struggle by "good" protagonists against an "evil" force.

HerenIstarion

06-15-2005, 06:40 AM

Cover/back illustration/title argument is quite interesting and coherent, but some of the 'outrage' HP earned and LoTR shows the lack thereof has to do with specified audience of the HP - children (in addition to all listed, not solely, of course). It's a good excuse to make a cry (about anything) when you are fighting 'kiddies' war for them.

I'll have to throw in another sample for that - Terry Pratchatt's books are oft named like 'Sorcery' and 'Witches Abroad', are fantasy books (despite the satire) and the first one I've read (Lords and Ladies) had me hooked to the purchase by the cover painting of two excessively ugly warty angry-looking cronies and some bulky-nosy chap with horns and hooves on (as I've found later, King of Elves). Backcover annotation also read there are witches and elves to be found inside, and whilst elves are evil, witches are definitely the side to go along with. If there were some crusade against TP going on somewhere sometime, it eluded me completely or other there was none. Reason - you won't find TP books in 'Read for Children' section, as opposed to HP series.

Funny that I haven't encountered any Pullman-bashing web page yet, though, as his books definitely fill 'for children' bill in bookstores. Or are there some?

The Saucepan Man

06-15-2005, 06:47 AM

Cover/back illustration/title argument is quite interesting and coherent, but some of the 'outrage' HP earned and LoTR shows the lack thereof has to do with specified audience of the HP - childrenWhen I first read LotR, the prevailing view was that it was a children's book, and I think that this probably remains the case with the majority (in the UK at least). Certainly, The Hobbit is regarded (rightfully) as such.

Funny that I haven't encountered any Pullman-bashing web page yet, thoughOh don't worry, Pullman has come in for his fair share of vilification for his portrayal of the Authority and the Church in his books. The Archbishop of Canterbury, however, welcomed the scenario presented by Pullman as offering a good basis for discussion on the nature of religion. He at least, I think, understands that children should be allowed to make up their own minds on such matters.

Bêthberry

06-15-2005, 07:35 AM

See also Acceptance of mythology? (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=6078) by Snowdog

That thread at times tended to sound like an AA meeting, except instead of "My name is Joe and I'm an alchoholic" , the refrain ran, "I'm a Christian..." :)

Funny that I haven't encountered any Pullman-bashing web page yet, though, as his books definitely fill 'for children' bill in bookstores. Or are there some?

Well, there was a news report that the movie script for Pullman's first book was being substantially watered down in its criticism of organised religion as the Authority and substituted political powers as the offending organisation of power.

I wonder if part of the response to Rowlings was motivated in fact by the zealous fan behaviour of her initial readers. Hasn't Tolkien grown slowly in reputation so that the initial response to him lacked the kind of fan fervour we see today? It always seems easier among a certain set to ban the cause of excess rather than discuss excess as a human propensity and give it its due place, although these days Tolkien certainly invokes a similar excess among some readers. ;)

Kath

06-15-2005, 09:24 AM

Funny that I haven't encountered any Pullman-bashing web page yet, though, as his books definitely fill 'for children' bill in bookstores. Or are there some?

Actually there was some bother about the films as Bêthberry said. There is a newspaper article up in my school library (which I still haven't read but will do eventually) and it says something like 'God removed from Dark Materials Trilogy' because of Christian outrage over the portrayal of God in the film.

I wonder if part of the response to Rowlings was motivated in fact by the zealous fan behaviour of her initial readers. Hasn't Tolkien grown slowly in reputation so that the initial response to him lacked the kind of fan fervour we see today?

This backs up the idea that Lalwendë came up with but if that is the case then was there a 'knee-jerk' reaction when the films came out? Because at that time a lot of people suddenly became very interested in Tolkien. The popularity of the books skyrocketed so people could read them before they went to see the film, or indeed after.

So what basis would there have been for "discerning" parents to have treated them any differently at that time?

I'm sticking with the different society theory for that one Saucepan Man.

lindil

06-15-2005, 09:32 AM

Several people have brought up that as children we would/did not split these hairs: fundamentally christian worldview or not, differences in magic or not.

No of course these things are not in your face or in the forefront of your mind, this is why they are so potent, they slip in through a side door.

Violent video games/tv [to take a more obvious and I think more researched example] do not make kids immediately want to go and kill someone/thing but they do slowly but surely change perception and reactive habits. Many of our choices and perceptions, indeed our 'world view' are formed by impressions we take in when we are young. Spending one's childhood immersed in anything [I was seriously immersed in JRRT] def. shaped mine.
I got into Christianity as a direct result of JRRT, I got into magic [later] as a direct result of JRRT/StarWars, etc...

I had absolutley no parental guidance and oversight on this.

Harry Potter, like JRRT casts a potent spell for many, and to whitewash this and not take it seriously is imo, naive.

Ban it? No.
Ponder the ramifications of HP's 'worldview' w/ your kids, absolutely.

No 'entertainment' is w/out it's price. Beyond the $ tag.

----------

Anecdotal evidence from this board alone shows that JRRT was a spiritual turning point for many that led them to JRRT's ultimate source.

As much as I enjoyed HP [ I read 5 at least 5 times in the last 2 years] I recognize that it simply does not ultimately draw from the same depth of purity that JRRT did. It's complete absence of a cosmology [still 2 books to go I know, but I don't expect any radical changes in this regard] is a major weakness. It's immediacy, being told about kids today, is a big strength. JKR attempts and succeeds in showing [in #5] the very relevant situation of kids having to make major decisions for themselves, because the authority figures around them are on the run [Dumbledore], stupid and blind [umbridge], out of commision [mcgonagle] or otherwise incommunicado. The relevance of this to today is I hope something kids are absorbing on some level. This is HP's virtue. The means she uses to tell an important story are obviously a great lure, on the order of Star Wars, and JRRT, but the complete lack of a cosmology, leaving Witchcraft and Wizardry in a theological, though not a ethical/moral vacuum is unfortunate. How it will play out in each soul will be different.

But you can bet that just as JRRT informed an entire hippy/enviromental movement, HP has sown it's own seeds....

The Saucepan Man

06-15-2005, 09:39 AM

I'm sticking with the different society theory for that one Saucepan Man.This may explain why the Harry Potter books are more heavily targeted than LotR was when it was first published, but it does not justify it. Not does it justify the differing present day reactions to the renewed interest in LotR as a result of the films (on the one hand) and the Harry Potter books/films (on the other).

The Saucepan Man

06-15-2005, 09:49 AM

Violent video games/tv [to take a more obvious and I think more researched example] do not make kids immediately want to go and kill someone/thing but they do slowly but surely change perception and reactive habits.Interesting point this. In a recent study, it was found that playing "violent" games where there was a clear distinction between "goodies" and "baddies" (eg Doom) not only improved children's reactions, but also increased their empathetic qualities. On the other hand, I agree that the impressionable nature of children justifies a reasonable degree of censorship. I was shocked to discover (from the same source as the research mentioned above) that a worrying proportion (something like 1 in 3, if I recall) of primary school children (under 11s) in the UK regularly play "Gangsta" games which involve players committing crimes and even sleeping with prostitutes and then killing them.

Ban it? No.
Ponder the ramifications of HP's 'worldview' w/ your kids, absolutely.I don't disagree, but the same should apply to LotR.

alatar

06-15-2005, 09:54 AM

Thinking about it some more, surely LOTR had to have generated some outrage - maybe we just didn't hear about it or just aren't aware of it. Led Zeppelin, the greatest rock band ever! included Tolkien within their songs, and so there had to have been some benefit from that, meaning that it was either counterculture to do so or the hype of the day (or maybe they just liked LOTR).

Also, back in the day it was Dungeons and Dragons that was going to lead all children to hell, then video games (don't think that Pong was included in this), then those card games - not sure what came next. Paralleling this was the usual suspects - cults, rock and roll, violent cartoons and anything foreign.

It would seem that there is a certain subset of the society (not always the same people) who feel the need to gripe about what the next generation is being exposed to.

And today, we can know about one protester on the other side of the planet, and the nuttier, the better, from the media's POV.

Selmo

06-15-2005, 10:09 AM

I am the parent of two daughters who are now young adults.
When they were younger, I never tried to prevent them reading anything they wanted. Thankfully, I never had to; they showed no interest in anything that I thought unsuitable. They have both read the HP books and one of them is an avid Tolkien fan.
While I would not ban any literature, if one of my daughters had read exclusively just one author or genre, HP, LoTR or any other, I would have intervened, not to stop her reading but to encourage her to read more widely.

Children can be influenced by what they read, even though they can tell what is fiction and what is not from a very early age. Absorbing just one person's ideas about any area of life, real or fantasy, is not a good thing.

Those who are worried about what children read are right to be concerned but, instead of banning books and narrowing a child's imagination, they should be helping to widen it.

lindil

06-15-2005, 10:26 AM

SpM posted:I don't disagree, but the same should apply to LotR. Absolutely!, but as I pointed out, JRRT in a masterful way consciously revised LotR towards Catholic origins. If you dig deep that is what you get, his cosmology is pointing to God. It is not in your face in LotR as in the Silm, but I doubt if many reading Silm are suprised or shocked by the opening chapters, even if they do not resonate with them initially.

Indeed I would not be suprised if at some point down the road, JKR does some sort of Silm like prequel[s] to HP, to put it in a religious context that it is so obviouly missing. Perhaps a revealing of why there is no religion in HP at all, what led to a silent 'seperation of magic and religion' and ultimately complete silence....

So I maintain, that as brilliant, captivating and downright instructive as HP is, it has built in 'flaws' that JRRT not only avoided, but encoded the essence of his religion in a seemingly a-religious work [LotR], and he began it with only purity of purpose, and a willingness to 'find the story', and what 'felt' right - well that and a near complete assimilation of the entirety of extant European [and beyond] Mythologies, and a serious and deep catholic religious life.

From a slightly different tack, i would say that JRRT wrote w/ a masterful blend of skill and inspired creativity in 3 worlds. The Physical, the moral/ethical and the spiritual.

JKR has done a brilliant job w/ the physical and moral/ethical [magic is clearly no shortcut to anything essential in these kids lives, is does not help him w/ Cho, or his relationship w/ the Durselys or even his God-father [ah, I'm suprised no one caught the one other reference to religion!].

It is truly a literary device, but as JRRT realised in his works [see the Letters] magic is a two-edged sword, giving the dunedain some abilities in this area was he realized a real problem.

In LotR human 'magic' is very much placed in a cosmological context. The 'why's' and 'who's' are rather clearly spelled out and their relationships clear, all the way up to the Valar [in LotR] and Eru in Silm.

In HP we have a who, w/ muggles/wizards, but absolutely no background as to how/why the division is there, where magical powers come from and what the realtionship is to God. IF harry has a Godfather, was he baptised?

I am not saying JKR was 'wrong' to not include all this, perhaps she will one day. But it leaves a big void in the 'spiritual' that JRRT did not leave. And that void is something that 'nature' [and many fundamentalists] abhor.

Persoanlly I thin kthe HP benefits in worlds 1 and 2 if you will, far outweigh the vaugeness of the spiritual. Indeed it gives me the opportunity to talk w/ my girls about the rampant de-personalization of God as 3 Persons--> God as Spirit [a very common way in Northern Cal. at least to refer to God in a totally non-'religious' way]. This trend is ubiquitous and I think ultimately insidious, but it is a fact, and one can reply in a variety of ways.

Now if HP had sly references to say, the Necronomicon or some other blatantly demonic system, well alot more of us would be singing a different tune, no matter how good the writing is. The Deryni books are a good example [again]. I would not let my kids read those, till I think they are really ready to have serious talks about the occult.

HP does 'trivialize' the occult in some ways. I find it a rather funny caricature of real magic and witchcraft [which I know exist].

Latin words + wizard blood + proper wand technique = HP 'magic'

Only in the spell used to repulse dementors, do we see anything approaching the real deal. And frankly I am very glad she was not more explicit.

[sorry for the several additions...]

The Saucepan Man

06-15-2005, 11:12 AM

Absolutely!, but as I pointed out, JRRT in a masterful way consciously revised LotR towards Catholic origins. Ah, but you misunderstand. Not being overly religious myself, I do not find the lack of themes specific to any one religion to be a deficiency in JKR's works. My discussion with my children would focus more on the general moral messages to be derived from these works, and it seems to me that there is much common ground between the two in this regard.

While it's easy for me to say as I don't have any strong faith-based views, I would not seek to impose any specific system of belief (religious, political or otherwise) on my children. In this regard, they will have free choice. I am, however, concerned to encourage in them the same strong moral beliefs that I hold and I see both LotR and the Harry Potter books as being consistent with these.

Larien Telemnar

06-15-2005, 11:39 AM

*Small Brain enters rather intelectual discussion*

I'm going to put my two cents in here, seeing as this is a pretty good subject.

First of all I just want to say a few things about the Harry Potter books. I'm sure that the books may be well written as far as books go, seeing as they're so popular. I haven't read them myself, or seen the movies, though. Growing up in a Christian Home in the middle of Nowhere, I have been taught a great many things about using discretion in reading different kinds of books. (I have a habbit of having a little bit of a too-active imagination, of which has made my father think I'm going to end up in a nice padded room. Go figure. :D ) I am tempted to read the Harry Potter books to find out why the controversy, but here are many of the reasons that many of my fellow Believers do not approve of the book.

1) Witchcraft
2) The undefined line of good and evil
3) The fact that many of the "good guys" lie to get what they want

Don't be offended by my writing, please. I'm only writing what many people have told me, who have indeed read the books.

Now about LOTR. I don't believe that it would ever cause any controversy, because even though it has Wizards in it, Magic is not the only factor in the Story. We have the power of love, the human spirit, friendship and friends who are willing to die for what is right. The Bible says: "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13) We see this so many times in LOTR, Gandalf in Moria, Boromir at Amon Hen (Amon Hen, right?), Eowyn almost died protecting Theoden. There are so many cases which reflect Professor Tolkien's Christianity.

Also, no matter what era you live in, there will always be opposition for any book, wether good or bad. I have several cousins who refuse to read Lord of the Rings because...... Weel I don't know. They're very legalistic and judgemental, and believe that any material you read other than the Bible must be dull and unimaginative. Anywoot, I agree with everyone who said that it was better accepted because of the Christian backdrop of the story. Even though Professor Tolkien did not write it as an alagory, his Christianity shows through in his works, shining with love for the story and for the reader.

Gil-Galad

06-15-2005, 11:47 AM

Tolkien put some references to the life we have today in the book, in a way saying how Middle Earth was before Earth (Oliphaunts and elephants for example) though since it was widely fantasy, not a lot of out cries were made

Formendacil

06-15-2005, 11:50 AM

Why should that make any difference to whether one or the other is banned?

I first read LotR at age 11. I had no inkling ( ;) ) that it was "fundamentally Christian". Having read it, I soon moved onto other fantasy books and Dungeons & Dragons and also developed an interest in what might loosely be termed the "supernatural". Had the Harry Potter books been available back then and I had read them instead of LotR, I can imagine them having much the same effect.

In my view the books stand or fall together on this issue. I most certainly don't think that either should be banned. But I just don't get these distinctions based on one being "fundamentally Christian" and the other not being so, or on the portrayal of the nature of magic being different. Such distinctions would most certainly not have been apparent to me age 11.

Yes, but you, as an 11-year old, were hardly the one in charge of banning the books, now were you?

I'm not saying the censors who ban books are necessarily wise, discerning, or particularly thoughtful, but they are also not 11 years old. Which is perhaps an important point to remember.

And while it might be discriminatory to ban books based on only one faith system, the fact of the matter is that in the United States (more so than any other country today), fundamentalist Christians ARE perhaps the dominant force in the censoring of art and literature.

So perhaps it isn't fair or just. Whether it's fair or just isn't really the issue here...

Encaitare

06-15-2005, 11:53 AM

Only in the spell used to repulse dementors, do we see anything approaching the real deal. And frankly I am very glad she was not more explicit.

I'm wondering what you mean by this, and what you mean by "the real deal," lindil. The only thing that sounds like something resembling the magic(k) you said you know exists is the high degree of concentration necessary for the spell to work.

In response to Kath's original question, I think LotR would have been much less likely to attract negative attention like HP has, since LR doesn't place magic at the forefront, and has none of HP's "swish and flick" business. And, as I believe someone stated before, Middle-earth is a different world where different rules apply. It's not some kind of secret magical state that exists side by side with the 'regular' world.

Maybe that's part of what causes outrage: when writers mess around with the present reality. The da Vinci code got a lot of negative attention because of the material it dealt with, and the suppositions made and theories raised about Christianity. Even so, what people fail to realize is that this and all fantasy/sci-fi/reality-warping books are works of fiction. There are always going to be aspects of the world from which parents want to shield their children. SpM mentioned violent video games (I assume you were talking about Grand Theft Auto?). Games like these are clearly not right for young children to be playing, since they glorify senseless violence and killing. Some people argue that HP glorifies magic, but it's not really the case. It is a part of the characters' lives, plain and simple, whether in everyday events or in battles. In the latter case, instead of shooting each other, they say a couple of choice words and exact their revenge that way. (Has anyone realized that this actually sounds more humane than riddling someone full of bullets? This thought just came to me.)

I'm not sure where I'm going with this, and I have to go take a math final, so I think I'll be quiet now. :)

Mithalwen

06-15-2005, 01:07 PM

While JK Rowling may not share the committed faith of Tolkien, she has stated publically that she doesn't believe in magic and is rather bemused by the people who tell her that they have "tried all the spells" since she has made them up.....

However what strikes me as rather sad is that the fundamentalists who banned it have totally missed (because they haven't bothered to read it presumably) that the main messages of Harry Potter include:

The overwhelming love of a parent for a child
Doing the right thing even though it is harder than doing the wrong thing.
Sacrificing yourself for your friends/common good..
Protecting the weak
Past wrongdoing can be redeemed.....

Hmmm where have I heard some of these things before?

However from my point of view such intolerance and bigotry helps dissolves any residual feelings of sorrow that I have lost my faith....... I rather think that the fact that that chappie Mister Yulko (in the link mentioned by SpM) thinks that poor old Prof Tolkien is roasting in hell just for being Catholic speaks volumes. I mean, I have some issues with Catholicism myself but at least I am an oecumenical agnostic ;)

As for Tolkien, partly I think that it was a different atmosphere - maybe the secularisation of society has not only made the churches more fundamental and evangelical but made them slightly paranoid. When most people at least paid lip service to Christianity an "irreligious" book (not that I think LOTR is such)is less threatening maybe?

Also it was before the expansion in university education and a time when an educated person would to some level have received a "classical education"; many clerics would have been classics scholars and all educated people would have some Latin if not any Greek. If you have grown up in an atmosphere that regarded an education based on the myths of Greece and Rome as no threat to the Christian Religion, a novel set in "another world" was unlikely to be a problem. And LOTR has such a straightforward Good v Evil message that it is hard to imagine anyone sane having a problem with it.

If I hold anything sacred these days it is probably books. To me book banning (whether Harry Potter, Lady Chatterley or Gideon Bibles) is on a par with book burning and equally abhorrent. Any religion or political who tries to ban a book because it disagrees or is perceived as disagreeing with it's world view is clearly insecure. If they are right people will come to that conclusion for themselves. The more widely you read the more likely you are to develop sound judgement and make good decisions for themselves. To limit a person's reading is a form of brainwashing. And bans are counterproductive - forbidden fruit is the most desired..... Children are not stupid either .... they will read what interests them and they can cope with. If I were a parent I would be much more concerned by what my child saw on TV or film than what it read.

Also it is far easier to monitor what children read than what they watch. And books that can be enjoyed by both adults and children provide much needed common ground with adolescents... Tolkien and Harry Potter can help to keep the communication channels open I have found with my young cousins. I gave them Pullman's Northern Lights becasue it is fantastically well written though I did warn them it was one of the darkest books I had ever read...

I will end my ten pennorth with two favourite quotes :

"There is no such thing as a moral or immoral book. Books are well-written or badly written. That is all." (Wilde).

"Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale? " Shakespeare.

davem

06-15-2005, 02:08 PM

I think the essential difference between Tolkien's world & Rowling's is in their attitude as regards magic. The 'magic' we encounter in Middle earth is of two kinds - there is innate 'power' which is Eru given. This is what Gandalf, Galadriel, et al use - which is why Galadriel is at a loss to understand what Sam means by 'magic'. The other kind of magic is what we could call the study & practice of 'occultism'. It is power that is not Eru given, & the individual has to train to get it.

Innate 'abilities' (Galadriel's creating of her Mirror, Gandalf's use or 'chanelling of' the Secret Fire) are Good because the individual's were born with the ability to do those things. So, we're not dealing with 'magic' at all, just people behaving 'naturally'. Saruman's fall comes is shown - if not caused - by his desire to amass more power than Eru gave him - ie, his desire to be more than Eru made him to be. It is basically saying Eru made a mistake, He screwed up, & I have to put right what he got wrong. So 'Pride commeth before the fall.'

In Rowling's world magic is of this kind - people are not born with natural abilities that may appear to the Sams of this world as 'magic'. They study & practice to gain powers they would not have had otherwise.

Now it could be argued that the gaining of these powers is no different than excercising to make oneself physically stronger than one would have been, or reading books to increase one's knowledge. But the issue is the source of these enhanced abilities - with physical or mental 'training' we are developing & building on what we have from God, but Christians would say that magical powers are not the result of developing some innate, God given ability, but rather that these 'powers' are unnatural because they come from other 'powers', which are not God & therefore not 'good'.

So, Rowling's characters gain their magical powers in the way that beings like Saruman gains his extra powers, & their motivation is desire for such powers. This is wrong in itself - if you need anything more than you innately possess then God will give it to you - you won't have to train for years studying magic.

From this perspective Rowling's universe & the worldview it presents is essentially 'un-Christian' in that it says that the gaining of magical powers for their own sake is an admirable thing. Harry, Hermoine, Ron, et al, may use their powers to fight Voldemort, but they didn't go to Hogwarts in order[ to gain magical power for that reason. They just found a 'good' use for a bad thing - a thing they shouldn't have sought out in the first place.

All that simply to try & explain the difference from a Christian perspective - I'm not saying that its 'correct', but it does point up the essential difference between the two works.

Innate abilities, even if they seem like magic, are not magic. Magic of that kind is always seen as dangerous in Middle earth. The desire for such powers is a sign that the seeker is heading for the 'dark side'. Even objects like the Palantiri are dangerous because they promise the individual a power he or she was not meant to have. Aragorn has a right to use the Palantir - it is innate in him because of his heritage. Denethor's right is open to question, but his desire for the power to be gained from use of the Stone is what leads to his falling to Sauron.

Rowling's character's desire magical powers, to be more than they were made to be, & they are presented as good, & their desire & the powers it gains them, are not seen as wrong in & of themselves - only the way they use their magic is judged, not their desire to have it in the first place.

lindil

06-15-2005, 02:28 PM

lots of great posts, I am going to throw 2 more cents in and then disappear for a bit:
While JK Rowling may not share the committed faith of Tolkien, she has stated publically that she doesn't believe in magic and is rather bemused by the people who tell her that they have "tried all the spells" since she has made them up..... Glad to hear that Mithalwen, I enjoy the books alot, but I am no seriuos potterphile, so unless something like that jumps at me...

Of course the above begs the question...what does she mean by 'believe'?
That it does or does not exist in her form as in the books?
That she doesn't believe anyone should mess with it?

If she does not believe that there is anything called magic that has been practiced down through the ages for healing, manipulation, contact w/ spirits, more manipulation, astral travel, influencing events , then I just lot a load of respect for her, but can more easily see why she would treat it in such a cavalier way.

---------
btw,re: the Osacar Wilde quote: I would def say there are some really well written immoral books out there. Crowley's 'channelled' Book of the Law is certainly one. And it has through Rock and Roll had an enormous effect.

Does that mean all copies should be burned? Not to me, but I certainly would not let my kid near that or any other serious book on real witchcraft, pornography, black or 'white' magic, until they were able to deal with it in a very sober way [and porn does not make even the wait till your older list]. So sorry wilde, I don't go there.
--------------------
Encaitre posted in reply to me: I'm wondering what you mean by this, and what you mean by "the real deal," [b]lindil. The only thing that sounds like something resembling the magic(k) you said you know exists is the high degree of concentration necessary for the spell to work. that is exactly what I meant. This is emphasized in no other place I recall in the HP books. Everything else is Latin+ wizard blood+ wand technique. No concentration or manipulation of the individuals mind, energy etc..., just a parody version of 'magic'.
----------------------------------------
Larien T. posted:I am tempted to read the Harry Potter books to find out why the controversy, but here are many of the reasons that many of my fellow Believers do not approve of the book.

1) Witchcraft
2) The undefined line of good and evil
3) The fact that many of the "good guys" lie to get what they want

starting at the top: I do not think the line between the moral actions of right or wrong is any less clear in HP than LotR, unless you of course object a priori to using magic/witchcraft as literary device, as many conservatives of various stripes do. I would be suprised if they did not get a bad wrap in conservative, jewish or muislim circles as well.

Harry faces moral choices even more complex than frodo in many cases. Hmm, about the lying, I am having to think about that, yeah Harry and friends and even Dumbledore lie, as does Abraham [re: his wife/'sister], and even God sort of tricking Abraham into nearly sacrificing his only son.

I don't have time to think of any more examples [not that I am saying as some here might] that the Bible or Christianity endorses lying as a matter of regular convienence, but the ban on killing certainly has exception clauses a mile long..., So other than Harry telling one lie to Dumbledore to avoid revealing, heck I forgot what, but I remember one lie, that had no justification. Usually it is to outwit the real bad dudes...Similar you might say to frodo and sam disguising [lying] themselves as Orcs to get to Mt. Doom... Or better yet, Gandalf lying to the Trolls.

as regards even though it has Wizards in it, Magic is not the only factor in the Story. We have the power of love, the human spirit, friendship and friends who are willing to die for what is right. The Bible says: "Greater love... I do not think HP loses any moral high ground on the self -sacrificing dept, if we figure that we have only seen 5/7ths of HP and what we see in 5/7ths of LotR. Harry and co. regularly risk their lives, reputations and even wands for each other.

Which I think underscores my earlier points about books [or any thing 'real' for that matter] having potentialy 3 levels: the physical, moral/ethical [or souls level] and the spiritual;. HP is for all practical purposes arguably neck and neck on the first 2 levels, but so far leaves one completely w/out direction as to any afterlife, revelation of purpose, destiny etc.

Right and wrong are not one thing to HP or LotR or Star Wars and another to us or the bible, it all comes down to revelation and what happens after we die, and if there are certain things other than ethics/morality, which pretty much all religions [major ones at least] agree on. HP leaves this stuff almost completely blank.
------------
SpM posted:Ah, but you misunderstand. Not being overly religious myself, I do not find the lack of themes specific to any one religion to be a deficiency in JKR's works. My discussion with my children would focus more on the general moral messages to be derived from these works, and it seems to me that there is much common ground between the two in this regard.

While it's easy for me to say as I don't have any strong faith-based views, I would not seek to impose any specific system of belief (religious, political or otherwise) on my children. In this regard, they will have free choice. I am, however, concerned to encourage in them the same strong moral beliefs that I hold and I see both LotR and the Harry Potter books as being consistent with these. Of course, not 'imposing' sends it's own message, but that is obviously one you have decided on. Hopefully I have made it clear already that I do not see that LotR has a moral high ground that HP does not, it is all about revelation.

In a world [like HP] where somehow God and Christianity have disappeared [rather like the Matrix, only the matrix acknowledges the fact that they were believed in] leaving the familiar English London and countryside etc, and ethical dilemnas have the same place as in any 'good' Lit. the real difference is cosmology. And of course, by not teaching Kids anything one both leaves them free to choose, but also says implicitly, I have found nothing better than anything else, so maybe the 'spiritual' is a bit overated... But if one has not learned anything transcendenally spiritual oneself, or if one does not have a strong and pure intuition then there is a certain honesty in your approach....

This is a whole debate in itself, and one somewhat related to this, but if you don't want to pursue it hear SpM, I will completely understand... [and thanks for the more solid research quotes].

But make no mistake, much of JRRT's singular genius is in his seamless [or nearly] integration of story [physical], motive [ethical/moral] and divine purpose/revelation [spiritual]. The symbolism [take the thread on grey (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11965)
currently kicking around. JRRT as no other writer in my experience interweaves all three into fiction w/ such harmony. Are their better writers in one or more of my '3 categories' sure, for me at least. But all 3? I am always willing to search such out.

This is why many LotR readers have become Christians - Tolkiens masterful and spiritually deep co-creation. Rowling leaves [probably wisely] the Siritual and cosmological revelations pretty strictly out of the picture. Thus there is no buried sub-text of 'witchcraft and wizardy' in the text. One is not being influenced subtly or otherwise on the 'spiritual plane', as is the case I believe, with LotR and Silm and co.
---------------------------

I missed DaveM's post as I was typing away, so I will add onto my original...
-------------------------
DaveM, I must disagree on a couple points.

In HP, wizards do have 'innate' magical abilities, recall Hagrids first Q's of Harry, 'have you ever done anything...' well we just saw harry do this moments before, sans wand and Hogwarts training.

Thus I have repeated a couple times that the essential ingredients in HP magic seem to be: wiz blood + latin [teachers and pre-students seem to skip this one some time] + wand technique [rarely skipped by prestudents]. So the only total constant is wizard blood, i.e. natural/innate ability.

------- [b]Dave Mposted: Now it could be argued that the gaining of these powers is no different than excercising to make oneself physically stronger than one would have been, or reading books to increase one's knowledge. But the issue is the [i]source of these enhanced abilities - with physical or mental 'training' we are developing & building on what we have from God, but Christians would say that magical powers are not the result of developing some innate, God given ability, but rather that these 'powers' are unnatural because they come from other 'powers', which are not God & therefore not 'good'.
You must allow for the fact that HP magic is not the same as any magical powers the world has known, they are a complete and rather funny parody. Of course this is only my opinion and experience, i have read around and in the wild past practiced some of what is called 'magic'.

THe real stuff in my experience comes from 3 things: 1> other beings [angels - the fallen variety - I do not subscribe to the white magic from good angels theory as does the Golden Dawn for example], 2> training what are called psychic powers, this is for most people long boring repetitious work almost identical in it's own way to weight training, and just as one-sided. 3> Borrowed or 'stolen' from other things-beings [gems, plants, animals, their blood etc] and meshed w// one's own intent and/or energy.

One can argue that the training of psychic powers is not magic per se, and technically I would agree. Where they both, and HP 'magic' run afoul of traditional Christianity [or any traditional religion really] is whether the practice develops 'self' or puts one closer to God. These are rarely the same. And we tread on a whole complex other topic here... One can 'pray' in a completely materialistic and self-serving way that really is ego [or black] magic, of a sort. Much of the ritual involved in 'magic' is designed to create a certain state. Note the similarity of all traditional Christianity [by this I mean pre-Protestant Christianity, though Old -school Lutheranism and Anglicanism fall barely within my definition, due to the fact that they did not completely abandon traditional methods of worship or the traditional understanding of the Sacraments] anyway, note the similarity in ritual [not belief!] between the rituals in Temple Judaism, Taoism, Buddhism, Trad. Christianity and 'Magic'. Robes, incense, specific movements, preperatory fasting, etc

They are all understood not be efficacious in themselves [spiritually at least] but to be aids to a purpose. My long example being to show that it is the summing of all we are [Christ's 1st commandment] and placing that at God's feet, waiting on the Lord, that is true prayer.

How does that relate to HP and LotR, all of the enemies of Sauron and Voldemort are trying to do just this as the situation requires, as you pointed out.

Gandalf has more tricks than frodo, but to succeed both have to put all on the line to do what is right to fight the evil that is given them to fight.

One can ,make the same case for HP.

As for the school to train and create power in HP, it seems more a case of prudent management. In HP world the wizard born have rather sensibly decided better to have an [very elaborate] oversight commitee who trains/morally guides and restrains the wizard born, if need be, than let the natural talent run amok.

The parallels between that decsion, and what must of us see is approprate in regards ban books just occured to me.

Most everyone here agrees that knowledge/Lit [true or false, good or bad,right or wrong] is better understood for what it is in the right context at the right time, than burned or banned.

In the HP world the wizarding community made the same decision; better to reain and educate and guide, than not.

So again the big difference to me is a complete absence of cosmology, revelation of any kind.

JKR has implicitly endorsed the vague 'Spirit' concept, as opposed to a revelation from God [read Eru in M-E].

In HP their is no higher authority than the self of a human [Dumbledore or otherwise]. In M-E JRRT mirrors the revealed cosmology of Myth and Christianity.

Lalwendë

06-15-2005, 02:48 PM

The Bible says: "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13)

This is interesting as this is exactly what does happen in the Harry Potter books, many times over; selflessness and friendship are great themes in the books. Mithalwen's list covers many other of those reasons why the Harry potter series is not quite so sinister as it may seem at face value to some.

I'm wondering what you mean by this, and what you mean by "the real deal," lindil. The only thing that sounds like something resembling the magic(k) you said you know exists is the high degree of concentration necessary for the spell to work.

Real world Paganism is much more varied and complex than many would think. The spell casting portrayed in Harry Potter is almost comic in comparison. Instead it actually makes great use of techniques used in all other faiths such as meditation/prayer, the focussing nature of ritual and the power of thoughts and symbols. It is also broadly benevolent, just as other faiths are. Yes, there are some more damaging aspects, but then there are disturbing aspects to some sectors of other religions too! Yet you do not get many Pagans advising people not to read CS Lewis lest it make them become a suicide bomber or join a cult like that run by Rev Jim Jones!

I wish that many people with fundamental beliefs could see past the word 'witchcraft' as it is nothing to be feared in itself, it poses no more threat to the person strong in their faith than does any other faith. It is simply a different faith. The stirring up of suspicion about witchcraft (sadly a hugely emotive word) has been in the news lately with a child suffering torment at the hands of her fundamentalist family due to them thinking the child was a 'witch'; I think that this only serves to illustrate how vital it is that children are all educated about all faiths in an attempt to promote understanding and tolerance.

I think the danger in banning a book is at its most serious when it is banned by a state or public institution, as then it is in effect denied to people. When a family chooses not to allow a book to be read then this is their choice, and parents are indeed free to guide their children as they see fit. Indeed, they are free to make no such decisions and allow their children total free reign, including ignoring age restrictions on products or TV, which is a whole other ball game. It is how and why such decisions are made that concerns me. The best such decisions are made because the parent/school knows their child and can see that they are not yet mature enough to deal with the concepts in a book.

Nobody should exclusively read books endorsed by their faith. Aside from the fact that they will not learn other points of view, they are also denying themselves the chance of a lot of pleasure and enlightenmnent. Anyone who is afraid to read a book because it might 'turn' them against their faith might want to question whether their faith is strong enough. If a parent/school considers denying a child the opportunity to learn something because it may weaken their faith, then instead they might want to consider why the child ought to read that book and follow this up with learning about the issues involved.

Kath

06-15-2005, 04:01 PM

I'm slightly lost in this thread now thanks to that enormous post from lindil!

This may explain why the Harry Potter books are more heavily targeted than LotR was when it was first published, but it does not justify it. Not does it justify the differing present day reactions to the renewed interest in LotR as a result of the films (on the one hand) and the Harry Potter books/films (on the other).

Thats true SpM but there is no way we can truly justify anything on this thread because we (so far as I know) do not wish to ban these things and so cannot explain and justify that point of view. In order to do that we would need someone who could remember back to when LotR was released for real proof as to whether there was a negative reaction to it, another person who had been behind a ban on Harry Potter but not LotR and yet another who had wanted to ban both. Unfortunately we are unlikely to get all three on this site and in this thread so we have to stick with conjecture.

Now about LOTR. I don't believe that it would ever cause any controversy, because even though it has Wizards in it, Magic is not the only factor in the Story. We have the power of love, the human spirit, friendship and friends who are willing to die for what is right. The Bible says: "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13) We see this so many times in LOTR, Gandalf in Moria, Boromir at Amon Hen (Amon Hen, right?), Eowyn almost died protecting Theoden. There are so many cases which reflect Professor Tolkien's Christianity.

Yes Larien this is true but as lindil and Lalwende said there are many examples of this in Harry Potter as well. There is intense friendship that is deep enough that they will risk their own lives for each other. The power of love is an incredibly strong theme, with the love of Harry's mother protecting him from beyond the grave. There is a huge discussion on the types if magic that seems to have sprung from this thread but though the magic in HP is often much more obvious there are these instances where it is hidden but all the more powerful for it, just as it is in LotR.

Maybe that's part of what causes outrage: when writers mess around with the present reality.

Thats a good point Enca but didn't Tolkien do this slightly as well? In the Prologue when he talks about Hobbits he claims that they still live among us today, but that we can't see them because of our own lack of belief and because they run and hide from us as the world has changed. But this is one small example compared to the large version in HP.

davem

06-15-2005, 04:23 PM

THe real stuff in my experience comes from 3 things: 1> other beings [angels - the fallen variety - I do not subscribe to the white magic from good angels theory as does the Golden Dawn for example], 2> training what are called psychic powers, this is for most people long boring repetitious work almost identical in it's own way to weight training, and just as one-sided. 3> Borrowed or 'stolen' from other things-beings [gems, plants, animals, their blood etc] and meshed w// one's own intent and/or energy.

What can I say - except been there, done that. I was just attempting - probably not very successfully, to draw a distinction in terms of the way magic is seen in the different stories.

As an aside, I find Sam's understanding of wizards & their powers quite interesting. He clearly has a belief that Gandalf could 'turn him into something 'unnatural' - like a spotted toad, & then fill the garden with grass snakes. I wonder if he (at least at the beginning of the story) would have been on favour of banning HP type books from the Shire ;)

Larien Telemnar

06-15-2005, 04:54 PM

I wasn't saying that the Harry Potter characters don't risk their lives for each other, I've not read the books, but in many books friends do risk their lives for each other. A book wouldn't be good without at least one good friend dying. :D Wait, that sounded really morbid..............

The only thing that I've disagreed with in this whole thread (So many people have a lot of good points) is what lindil said about lying. Abraham did lie, he was human. All of us have a sin nature and lie, and Abraham was no exception. God however, does not lie. Lying is a sin, and God cannot be around sin, therefor He cannot, will not lie. He doesn't have a sin nature. With Abraham and Issac, God was telling Abraham to sacrifice his son because He was testing Abraham. He did not tell Abraham anything other than telling him to obey him. Abraham knew that God had a plan for him, and Issac. He knew that God's glory would be shown to him, even if He did not understand it at the time. God provided for them, as He always does, by sending the sacrificial Ram, and stopping Abraham from killing his son.

Temptation is a big factor, of which I've noticed in Lord of the rings. Temptation is a part of life, and struggles, like the temptations Frodo and Sam face.

Sorry, that was a "little" off topic, but I had to throw that in.

Encaitare

06-15-2005, 05:25 PM

"There is no such thing as a moral or immoral book. Books are well-written or badly written. That is all." (Wilde).

I adore that quote. I adore it so much that I've made a LiveJournal icon out of it (see attachment if you care to do so). But I think maybe it would be better to say "novel," perhaps, in place of "book" since I do believe that then it would in every case be a true statement. I think it's safe to say that Mein Kampf is not a moral book, for example. Then again, we must remember that morals are relative to each person -- I can think of several contemporary issues which definitely reflect this, ie: abortion.

Lalwende, I thank you for your defense of paganism. Another thing to remember -- the term comes from the Latin word for "country-dweller," and the negativity associated with it today is all in the connotation! Also, cheers for this:

Nobody should exclusively read books endorsed by their faith. Aside from the fact that they will not learn other points of view, they are also denying themselves the chance of a lot of pleasure and enlightenmnent. Anyone who is afraid to read a book because it might 'turn' them against their faith might want to question whether their faith is strong enough.

A person's religious views cannot be shaped 'properly' if he is not exposed to all manner of belief systems (IMO). Banning books seems to be an act done out of fear more than anything else: the fear that people will actually start getting ideas that might cause a threat.

Thats a good point Enca but didn't Tolkien do this slightly as well? In the Prologue when he talks about Hobbits he claims that they still live among us today, but that we can't see them because of our own lack of belief and because they run and hide from us as the world has changed. But this is one small example compared to the large version in HP.

A good point on your part as well. But, as you say, it is very small in comparison. I think that to suggest that there were wizards and elves and such roaming the earth many years ago is one thing; to suggest that we're all Muggles and there are wizards all around us and we don't know it is another.

lindil

06-15-2005, 06:13 PM

I'm slightly lost in this thread now thanks to that enormous post from lindil! too true, sorry...won't do it again for, well, until the next really interesting thread w/ lots to reply too comes along ...

Seriously, I can think of few issues more relevant on the scene than this, and I had a few opinions.

:cool:

The Saucepan Man

06-16-2005, 07:02 AM

Yes, but you, as an 11-year old, were hardly the one in charge of banning the books, now were you?Sorry, I didn’t express my point sufficiently clearly. The point that I am trying to make is that, when I first read LotR, much of what has since been published concerning Tolkien’s works and life was not available. So, there was much less material available for those who might be inclined to ban the book on “irreligious” grounds to distinguish it from books like Harry Potter.

As I said in reply to Kath:

When I first read LotR, there was (putting aside the obvious stylistic etc differences) little in essence to distinguish its treatment of wizards, magic and the like from the treatment of these subjects by the Harry Potter books today. So what basis would there have been for "discerning" parents to have treated them any differently at that time?But the point is moot as it is true to say that society has changed quite considerably since I was 11 (crusty old thing that I am). It is worth noting too that, on issues such as this, approaches will vary from one country to another. The Harry Potter books are much more likely to be banned by schools in the US than in the UK because Christian fundamentalism is a stronger force there. Although it has grown in strength in the UK in recent times, as witnessed by the extreme reaction from some quarters to the televising of Jerry Springer - the Opera.

I think the essential difference between Tolkien's world & Rowling's is in their attitude as regards magic …I understand the argument that seeks to distinguish LotR from Harry Potter on the basis of their treatment of magic, but I don’t go along with it. Among the many fine points made against the argument by lindil in his long post above is the fact that wizards and witches in the Harry Potter series are born with this ability, as distinct from “muggles”, who are not. It is therefore a natural ability which they develop through training.

Moreover, in LoR, there are references to Gandalf using spells which it appears that he has had to learn.

From The Hobbit, Out of the Frying-Pan into the Fire:

But, of course, Gandalf had made a special study of bewitchments with fire and lights (even the hobbit had never forgotten the magic fireworks at Old Took's midsummer-eve parties, as you remember).From LotR, The Bridge of Khazad-Dum (Gandalf speaking):

I could think of nothing to do but to try and put a shutting-spell on the door. I know many; but to do things of that kind rightly requires time, and even then the door can be broken by strength.

Of course, not 'imposing' sends it's own message, but that is obviously one you have decided on. Hopefully I have made it clear already that I do not see that LotR has a moral high ground that HP does not, it is all about revelation

... But if one has not learned anything transcendenally spiritual oneself, or if one does not have a strong and pure intuition [backed by knowledge [read here gnosis] then there is a certain honesty in your approach....

Agreed, and I of course respect that your approach is tempered by your beliefs. But, as you say, I am hardly qualified to counsel my children in the finer points of spiritual belief. Although I will be open to discussion, and will be happy to express my views to them, it will largely be a matter for them to decide whether and how they wish to pursue this spiritual matters. All I can therefore hope to do is make sure that they have a good moral grounding, as my parents did for me. I suspect, however, that they will end up, like me, non-practising CofE.

Anguirel

06-16-2005, 07:45 AM

Regarding Sam Gamgee and whether he would be in favour of banning Harry Potter: I appreciate it was a remark made tongue in cheek, but I really think it's quite an interesting point!

There is, it is true, something in Hobbit psychology-small-minded in every sense-that is deeply afraid and opposed to anything "outside", and it is a small step from that to hating it. But this sort of Hobbit, the Daily Smial-reading, Little Shireling type, is very much not the Hobbit we learn to admire. This is Lotho Sackvill-Baggins, or Ted Sandyman.

All the Hobbits who are likeable to us-not necessarily only the adventurous, gentrified Tooks and Brandybucks, but Sam as well-react essentially with wonder as well as fear to the outside world, and grow to accomodate it. They see the absurdity of the small Shire view of things, and are able to be more "Elvish"-even as the Elves are becoming more insular, ironically!

Certainly after his travails, then, Sam would think such a banning abhorrent. But I would argue that he would despise a banning heartily before his adventures as well. After all, why does he think Gandalf might turn him into davem's spotted toad? Because he's been told stories of Wizards doing similar things, just as he's heard, with glee, of the Elves and of Gil-Galad.

Sam, then, understands what fundamentalist Christians do not-that enchantment comes from stories, stories like the very Bible Christians venerate, and that if these stories have a power to give someone joy, then they should be banned no more than the Bible should. That those who block out attractions and food to the mind, whether in a humble form or a lofty one, stifle thought and commit an unspeakable crime.

davem

06-16-2005, 07:54 AM

Among the many fine points made against the argument by lindil in his long post above is the fact that wizards and witches in the Harry Potter series are born with this ability, as distinct from “muggles”, who are not. It is therefore a natural ability which they develop through training.

Only read the first four Potter books a long time ago, but isn't Hermoine a 'Mudblood' - a child of two muggle parents? If so, then the idea is present that any child can get magical powers by study & practice. The only characters in Middle earth who get such powers in that way are the bad guys.

Now, I've read 'occult' books, worked with Tarot, etc, etc, so I'm not puting forward this argument because I hold to it, but attempting to show why Christians may be able to happily embrace LotR but totally opposed to HP.

Anguirel

06-16-2005, 08:53 AM

Mithalwen

06-16-2005, 12:32 PM

[QUOTE=lindil]lots of great posts, I am going to throw 2 more cents in [by way of reply] and then disappear for a bit:
Glad to hear that Mithalwen, I enjoy the books alot, but I am no seriuos potterphile, so unless something like that jumps at me...

Of course the above begs the question...what does she mean by 'believe'?
That it does or does not exist in her form as in the books?
That she doesn't believe anyone should mess with it?

If she does not believe that there is anything called magic that has been practiced down through the ages for healing, manipulation, contact w/ spirits, more manipulation, astral travel, influencing events [i.e. manipulation], then I just lot a load of respect for her, but can more easily see why she would treat it in such a cavalier way.

---------
btw,re: the Osacar Wilde quote: I would def say there are some really well written immoral books out there. Crowley's 'channelled' Book of the Law is certainly one. And it has through Rock and Roll had an enormous effect.

Does that mean all copies should be burned? Not to me, but I certainly would not let my kid near that or any other serious book on real witchcraft, pornography, black or 'white' magic, until they were able to deal with it in a very sober way [and porn does not make even the wait till your older list]. So sorry wilde, I don't go there.
--------------------
QUOTE]

OK well I would not be so arrogant as to claim to know what JK Rowling believes but my understanding of her comment was that she does not believe you can point a stick at broken glass, utter a Latin imperative and fix it.

Personally while I am aware of the history of the practice of magic I certainly don't believe that it worked, and anyone being more than academically interested today in what frankly seem to me quite ludicrous practices when science is so much more "magical" I find bizarre . Riddikulus as they might say in a certain series of books. Of course people can believe what they want as long as they don't hurt any living thing but really ... I mean I don't believe magic works but if it did it would be immoral to use it.

I used to think differently and it is an episode I regret since I firmly believe that ignorance is so much more dangerous than knowledge. The more you know the less likely you are to be duped and the more widely you read the more aware you are likely to be of manipulative language. The more you can judge what is normal and what is warped.

http://www.zippynet.com/pages/bandhmo.htm

As a literature graduate I have read many books that depict views or behaviour that don't fit my moral code, Sade, Burroughs, Mailer, (not Crowley as it happens despite him being a local author ), and (I hope)needless to say it hasn't turned me into a sado-masochistic, junkie murderer any more than reading Macbeth turned me into regicide. As a child the most disturbing thing I read were a description of how to lay out a corpse a nursing handbook of my grandmother's .... I just think people sometimes need to get a grip and a sense of proportion ... and a realisation of how illogical they are .... to me if there is anything immoral in LOTR it is the the slaughter of the battlefields, the "game" between Legolas and Frodo which is only vaguely acceptable because it involves orcs not humans. Watching violence has been proved to damage children and if I ever become a parent, I will let them read what they like (though I will try to be aware of it and discuss it with them if I think it gives cause for concern) but I will be very careful what they watch.....

Ainaserkewen

06-16-2005, 12:53 PM

Off topic with recent discussion, but relevant to original post:

I just wanted to put in that it's interesting to question the majority faith of LOTR readers. I also know that some people, examples on this board, are very devout Christians (whatever denomination) and absolutely treasure LOTR, find no fault in it, and fight our little hearts out if anyone tries to tell us otherwise. However, from the same or very similar Christian faiths, the oposite opinions are taken with just as much flame. It just goes to show that what's going on in terms of contraversy has nothing to do with religion, just people's perceptions and their own personal tastes.

davem

06-16-2005, 12:59 PM

One of the main theses of Harry Potter is that blood counts for nothing. So Hermione is born with magical powers despite her non-magical parentage, and some children in Wizard families ("Squibs") are not born with magical powers despite their magical parentage.

The point that remains is that all the powers of Wizards in Rowling's work are indeed innate, no less so than Galadriel's or Gandalf's; but, like Galadriel or Gandalf, the children in Harry Potter require instruction to fulfill their magical potential. Galadriel studied under Melian, for example.

Perhaps the problem with HP is that there is no background theology to explain & account for Magic. There are no absolute dividing lines between good & evil, no philosophical basis for judging what is good & what is evil. Magic is a neutral power & only its use determines whether it is good or evil. In Tolkien's work there is 'magic' that comes out of the Good & 'magic' that comes out of the Bad/Evil, & they are different 'powers' & produce different results. In HP the heroes & villains both use the same power. This effectively puts the magicians in a superior position to 'morality' - they don't serve or reject a Higher Power by aligning themselves to it or setting themselves against it. HP is not a 'Servant of the Secret Fire', he is a 'Master' of it. There is no Higher Power in the HP universe to serve - merely 'good' & 'bad' users of 'magic'.

Ainaserkewen

06-16-2005, 01:01 PM

Perhaps the problem with HP is that there is no background theology to explain & account for Magic. That may still be revealed...they've still got another 2 books at least to go.

Kath

06-16-2005, 02:29 PM

Magic is a neutral power & only its use determines whether it is good or evil.

Yes but this is also the case with Tolkien surely. From what I remember of the Silmarillion Morgoth was originally as 'good' as Manwe, it was his use of what he was given by Eru that he became evil no?

davem

06-16-2005, 03:17 PM

Yes but this is also the case with Tolkien surely. From what I remember of the Silmarillion Morgoth was originally as 'good' as Manwe, it was his use of what he was given by Eru that he became evil no?

Well, Morgoth perverted the Good 'powers' he received from Eru, but the Good pre-existed - it had its source in Eru Himself. What I was saying was that in HP, magic seems to be a kind of neutral power which can be used as the wizard wishes - there is no 'Good' magic which is qualitatively different from bad magic. A wizard is 'good' if he/she uses the morally neutral magic to help others, he/she is 'bad' if they use the morally neutral magic to hurt others. But the 'good' wizards are using the same power as the bad wizards.

Of course it could be argued that in LotR 'bad' magic is corrupted 'good' magic, so everyone is using the same magic there too - the good magic users are using it as Eru intended, the bad in a way He didn't intend, so I don't know how far the idea can be pushed of different kinds of magic. We do have Galadriel distinguishing clearly between what the Elves do & 'the deceits of the Enemy', so I think the real difference between good & bad magic in Middle earth is down to Eru's intent for its use. Gandalf uses magic as Eru intends him to use it, Saruman, et al, mis-use it. So, it is the existence & will/desire of Eru that is the yardstick.

Because 'God' (in some form - ie an absolute moral yardstick) is not present in the HP universe magic is simply a kind of 'natural' force, like electricity, to be used as its operators wish - but then, who decides what a 'good' or 'bad' use of magic is? Where/what is the yardstick? The wizards in HP are fumbling around in an amoral universe, trying to do the best they can - this makes the HP universe more interesting in some ways than Arda, but it also makes it more 'dangerous' for child readers - what moral criteria are they given by Rowling - how do they judge whether the action of a particular wizard is good or bad? Where is the absolute moral standard by which magical acts can be judged to be good or bad?

Hookbill the Goomba

06-16-2005, 03:43 PM

Here is my view on the 'good magic' argument. I may be wrong, but this is what I have gathered...

'Magic' comes from evil. That is why there is no such thing as a good Wizard. For, witchcraft and such comes from satanic powers, and therefore cannot be good, and no magic can be used for good because evil won't let it's own power go against it. There is a story in the Bible that explains this nicely.

22 Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23 All the people were astonished and said, "Could this be the Son of David?"
24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons."
25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28 But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

[Mathew 12: 22-28]

So, by the same token, Gandalf comes against evil, not with magic and witchcraft, but with the power of the Valar. Harry Potter, on the other hand, comes against evil, with evil. So who wins? Evil, of course. "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined", so it makes sense that, rather than witchcraft, Gandalf uses the power given to him by Eru as an Ainour, and the power bestowed on him by the Valar.

That's what I think anyway. And may have been Tolkien’s bases for Gandalf... then again, it may not be...

The Saucepan Man

06-16-2005, 06:34 PM

Because 'God' (in some form - ie an absolute moral yardstick) is not present in the HP universe magic is simply a kind of 'natural' force, like electricity, to be used as its operators wish - but then, who decides what a 'good' or 'bad' use of magic is? Where/what is the yardstick? The wizards in HP are fumbling around in an amoral universe, trying to do the best they can - this makes the HP universe more interesting in some ways than Arda, but it also makes it more 'dangerous' for child readers - what moral criteria are they given by Rowling - how do they judge whether the action of a particular wizard is good or bad? Where is the absolute moral standard by which magical acts can be judged to be good or bad?But this is effectively saying that those who do not have faith are incapable of making moral distinctions, which I simply cannot accept. In my view (and in my world) the perception of good and evil exists irrespective of the existence of, or any firm belief in, a God. Provided that the protagonists are using their powers in a way which is I consider to be good (as is the case in both LotR and Harry Potter's world), then it matters not to me whether its source is portrayed as divine or simply an innate ability or aptitude. I would have no problem with my children reading either.

Rowling is not (and should not be expected to be) setting out to teach children morality from scratch. Her books assume that her readers are capable of perceiving the difference between right and wrong (a reasonable assumption, in my view). But what she is doing is presenting them with characters - 'role models' if you like - who behave morally, exhibit virtuous characteristics (loyalty, bravery etc) and act for the good and against evil, thus reinforcing the lessons which they will have already begun to learn (from their parents, one would hope). To the extent that her readers "judge" the actions of her characters, it is against criteria with which they are already familiar.

I would also note that Rowling hails from a primarily secular society, and so the "absence" of God from her works is to be expected. I would no more expect Rowling to to portray her characters' magical powers as having their source in God than I would expect the abilities (such as intelligence and ingenuity) used by the Famous Five or the Borrowers or Doctor Who as having a divine origin (oops - showing my age again :rolleyes: ). If one has a strong faith, then there is no reason why one cannot simply assume that the magical powers of Harry Potter and his friends are God given, just as one would assume the same of the (generally more mundane) abilities any other characters from children's novels where no specific mention is made of God. And if one does not have a strong faith, then the issue is, as I have said, largely irrelevant.

Ainaserkewen

06-16-2005, 10:43 PM

The Saucepan Man

06-17-2005, 03:00 AM

Saucy, (not sure of the ages) Do you read HP to your kids/do they read it themselves? Do you have any worries that their age would affect their absorption of the "magic"? I mean, did it ever cross your mind?My children are 7 (girl) and 5 (boy). I have not read the Harry Potter books myself and don't have them, and they are rather too young to be reading such books themselves yet, although we have seen the films. I would, however, have no concerns over the references to wizards, magic etc and I am perfectly happy for them to read the books. For the reasons that I have stated, it is just not an issue for me.

I have read The Hobbit to my daughter, and The Faraway Tree stories to both of them. The latter books, of course, have Elves, Goblins, Wizards, Witches and magic, but no religious context. Again, this doesn't concern me, because they set a good moral tone. The children and their friends in the Faraway Tree behave in a morally correct way (they do their chores, are concerned for the welfare of their parents and others and look out for each other) and "naughty" behaviour (for example, Ricks' greediness and Connie's spoilt behaviour) is shown to have appropriate consequences.

That is not to say that I am not alive to the possibility of the books influencing them in some way that I would consider wrong. For example, the children on occasion slip out in the middle of the night to visit the Faraway Tree in the Enchanted Forest. This was probably not an issue at the time Blyton wrote the books but I have no wish to encourage my children to be wandering around woods on their own at night, and so made sure that they understood that this was not something which they should ever consider doing.

lindil

06-17-2005, 03:01 AM

SpM posted:But this is effectively saying that those who do not have faith are incapable of making moral distinctions
I would draw the distinction between the ethical/moral realm of the soul, which needs and presupposes no theology or revelation [ as in HP] and the realm of the human spirit, which can receive revelations, have insights into theology and trnascend space and time and come back to try and relate what it has experienced.

A simpler way to put is that faith is a spiritual relationship [or lack thereof ] with God, not an intellectual concept and moral distinctions are [prinmarily] a relationship with other people or things, and on the soul level.

This is the immense difference between HP and LotR/Silm:

HP has no theology, no background from whence the ethics and morality spring, everyone does the best [or most self-serving] they can.

Dumbledore is as high as the heirarchy of Authority goes.

Gandalf on the other hand, is - as was just pointed out, vested w/ authority from Manwe and thus Eru/God.

LotR effectively has a deeper dimension beyond the ethical/moral that so far at least in HP simply is not there.

Again I am not saying that JKR was necessarily wrong to leave all this out, but it makes in my opinion a 2 fold work, as opposed to JRRT's 3 fold.

Selmo

06-17-2005, 03:32 AM

Ainaserkewen,

I read The Hobbit to my children before they could read it for themselves. I encouraged them to read LoTR as soon as their reading skills were up to it. They were older teenagers before Harry Potter was published.

I never once thought that reading and telling stories that included magic could harm them in any way. The dimmest of my daughters is of at least average intelegence. When reading The Hobbit, I didn't have to explain that Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits and dragons don't exist and that no one can realy make a ring that can turn you invisible. They could distinguise between fact and fantasy at an early age and knew without being told that LoTR and HP were only make-believe.

Interesting, exciting and a little disturbing, but not real.

For normal children, it would need a much bigger push than JRRT or JKR can give to turn them to evil.

One way to endanger children would be to tell them that reading any work that tells of witches and magic should be avoided because they are dangerous, that the super-normal powers in them are real and can be used in the real world. That would be putting a great temptation in their way.

Lalwendë

06-17-2005, 05:58 AM

Bêthberry

06-17-2005, 07:17 AM

I have read The Hobbit to my daughter, and The Faraway Tree stories to both of them. The latter books, of course, have Elves, Goblins, Wizards, Witches and magic, but no religious context. Again, this doesn't concern me, because they set a good moral tone. The children and their friends in the Faraway Tree behave in a morally correct way (they do their chores, are concerned for the welfare of their parents and others and look out for each other) and "naughty" behaviour (for example, Ricks' greediness and Connie's spoilt behaviour) is shown to have appropriate consequences.

That is not to say that I am not alive to the possibility of the books influencing them in some way that I would consider wrong. For example, the children on occasion slip out in the middle of the night to visit the Faraway Tree in the Enchanted Forest. This was probably not an issue at the time Blyton wrote the books but I have no wish to encourage my children to be wandering around woods on their own at night, and so made sure that they understood that this was not something which they should ever consider doing.

I suppose this is an appropriate time to bring up a point I have always wondered about in your interest in Blyton, Spm. I never knew Blyton as a child and never had the books for my kids. In fact, I cannot recall seeing them in any of our children's bookstores. (But, having never heard of her, how could I look for her?)

To make a long story short (and it is somewhat related here), relatives who had spent some time in England donated a huge set of Blyton books to my daughter. We turned avidly to them only to be made very uncomfortable with the depiction of Blacks. (Can't recall which story now, but the pictures were part of what formed our negative opinion.)

Anyhow, as we were cleaning out things we decided to donate the set to our local school. The school wouldn't take them! Because of race issues.

Did you ever face this with your kids? Have you discussed the issue with them? (That is my favoured approach to books, not banning them.)

And I suppose I have to relate this to Tolkien. The discussion on this thread relates to banning/censorship based upon theological values. Are there other issues/topics which do justify banning? I know that when I read T.S. Eliot's The Book of Practical Cats, I am embarassed for Eliot in his depiction of oriental races. Or does only the theological issue raise horrifying possibilities?

davem

06-17-2005, 07:45 AM

But this is effectively saying that those who do not have faith are incapable of making moral distinctions, which I simply cannot accept. In my view (and in my world) the perception of good and evil exists irrespective of the existence of, or any firm belief in, a God. Provided that the protagonists are using their powers in a way which is I consider to be good (as is the case in both LotR and Harry Potter's world), then it matters not to me whether its source is portrayed as divine or simply an innate ability or aptitude. I would have no problem with my children reading either.

But we're not discussing what matters to you, but what matters to certain fundamentalist Christians. I wasn't expressing my own views, necessarily, but attempting to show how LotR is essentially different from HP & why some Christians might have a problem with HP but not LotR

Rowling is not (and should not be expected to be) setting out to teach children morality from scratch. Her books assume that her readers are capable of perceiving the difference between right and wrong (a reasonable assumption, in my view). But what she is doing is presenting them with characters - 'role models' if you like - who behave morally, exhibit virtuous characteristics (loyalty, bravery etc) and act for the good and against evil, thus reinforcing the lessons which they will have already begun to learn (from their parents, one would hope). To the extent that her readers "judge" the actions of her characters, it is against criteria with which they are already familiar.

So, like the 'magic' in her universe, the 'morality' is morally neutral too? The reader decides, based on their own subjective criteria whether a character is 'good' or 'evil' - Rowling will not offer an objective moral standard by which actions are to be judged. So, a reder is free to see either Harry or Voldemort as the 'hero' depending on their individual moral value system? Who says 'loyalty & bravery' are 'moral' or 'virtuous'? Certainly they cannot be said to be 'moral & virtuous' in & of themselves - that would depend on exactly what the character is being loyal to, wouldn't it? And as to 'bravery' - that isn't necessarily morally good - a Death camp guard who risked his life to force children into a gas oven would have been seen by his superiors as behaving 'bravely', even heroically.

So, again, there has to be some objective moral yardstick by which even loyalty & bravery are judged as good or evil.

I would also note that Rowling hails from a primarily secular society, and so the "absence" of God from her works is to be expected. I would no more expect Rowling to to portray her characters' magical powers as having their source in God than I would expect the abilities (such as intelligence and ingenuity) used by the Famous Five or the Borrowers or Doctor Who as having a divine origin (oops - showing my age again :rolleyes: ). If one has a strong faith, then there is no reason why one cannot simply assume that the magical powers of Harry Potter and his friends are God given, just as one would assume the same of the (generally more mundane) abilities any other characters from children's novels where no specific mention is made of God. And if one does not have a strong faith, then the issue is, as I have said, largely irrelevant.

Its not about 'God' - its about some objective moral standard against which the character's actions can be judged - Tolkien supplies one - & you don't have to be a Christian to accept Eru. Eru simply provides an objective yardstick by which the actions of characters in Me can be judged. Rowling doesn't provide one - the reader must supply their own. Problem? Rowling's secondary world is not self contained & is dependent on the primary world for something absolutely essential if it is to work. It is a secondary world absent of its own objective moral standard, of a source of Right & Wrong, of Good & Evil. It is not self contained in the way Middle earth is. If you wish there to be a 'God' in the HP universe you have to bring in your own, if you want morality, you have to supply it. As I said, a reader may decide Voldemort is the hero & Harry the villain if they wish. In Middle earth this is not logically possible, because Eru is the ultimate moral yardstick ('I think we'll get tired of that word soon!') by which characters are judged. A reader may be free to prefer Sauron to Aragorn or Frodo, but they are not free to decide he is 'Good' because Eru has set standards by which Good & evil are to be judged & by those objective standards Sauron is not good.

Selmo

06-17-2005, 08:26 AM

davem

06-17-2005, 09:52 AM

Where can I find Eru's yardstick in LoTR? There are no Ten Commandments, Book of Deuteronomy or Sermon on the Mount to stand as such. Is Eru even named?
Are the Valar or Maiar ever refered to directly?

All we get are vague hints like Gandalf's words to Frodo that he was meant to have the Ring by the will of someone/something other than Sauron or Gandalf being sent back after his encounter in Moria by some unnamed and undefined higher power.

I know there is more information in the Appendices but few people bother to read through them all and even fewer go on to The Silmarillion.

I think there are enough clear, or veiled, statements in LotR about higher powers, wills, the 'Rules' for the attentive reader to be aware of an objective moral value system being operative - even if that is some form of 'natural law' - what we don't get from the work is any sense that morality is subjective, without any relation to eternal values - indeed, Aragorn's words to Eomer are an appeal to an objective moral code/value system - because of things like this we are made aware of this 'code' & if we then look carefully we will see it cropping up in many places in the story. In HP there is no such appeal to a system of higher objective values because no such values exist.

alatar

06-17-2005, 11:46 AM

I think that this only serves to illustrate how vital it is that children are all educated about all faiths in an attempt to promote understanding and tolerance.

I would prefer a dose of rationality and skepticism myself. Being able to intelligently evaluate any faith or claim would serve a child better than to provide a buffet of faith systems as surely you'd leave a few off of the table.

My children are 7 (girl) and 5 (boy). I have not read the Harry Potter books myself and don't have them, and they are rather too young to be reading such books themselves yet, although we have seen the films. I would, however, have no concerns over the references to wizards, magic etc and I am perfectly happy for them to read the books. For the reasons that I have stated, it is just not an issue for me.

My oldest is 5, and he and his younger sisters ask to watch FOTR DVD EE disc 2 from Rivendell to the Khazad-dûm bridge scene. Surely this is screwing them up, but as they always have the option of (1) turning their heads, (2) having it turned off, I have no problem with them watching it. Also, I'm on the scene to explain what is going on along with what is really going on (Gandalf is actually telling a tennis ball that it cannot cross a bridge), to highlight the good moral issues (friendship, bravery, etc) and to sit with them as a family. So far, no nightmares, and the only negatives have been that my daughter feels bad for the cave troll and thinks that its name should be Susan.

Batman, the cartoon character (The Batman, Justice League Unlimited) is also permitted as it is watched under the supervision as above. I make a point of showing that Batman uses deduction to fight crime - no magic, no superpowers - just a regular human with a good brain.

Some people use Aesop. I'm using LOTR and DC comics. You can find your gold (keep!) or boogeyman (ban!) wherever you choose.

Mithalwen

06-17-2005, 12:54 PM

To make a long story short (and it is somewhat related here), relatives who had spent some time in England donated a huge set of Blyton books to my daughter. We turned avidly to them only to be made very uncomfortable with the depiction of Blacks. (Can't recall which story now, but the pictures were part of what formed our negative opinion.)

Anyhow, as we were cleaning out things we decided to donate the set to our local school. The school wouldn't take them! Because of race issues.

Did you ever face this with your kids? Have you discussed the issue with them? (That is my favoured approach to books, not banning them.)

Bethberry - many of Blyton's books were re-edited to deal with this several years ago to a degree of controversy. I have a very battered toycar which is improbably valuable because as well as featuring "Noddy and Big Ears" it also featured Golly who was made a "non-person" after a short production run. I think your appraoch is wise - books and people are products of their time and times have changed relatively recently in this regard. It is hard to believe that "The Black and White Minstrel Show" was a mainstay of family entertainment in the seventies ...

A while ago I reread the John Buchan "Hannay" stories and on occasions was shocked by comments referring to black and oriental people. But in itself it was an indication of how much progress has been made. I don't agree with the attitude but I can't condemn someone who essentially lived in a different world - if such things were written by a contemporary writer ......

Blyton is usually quite positive about gypsies though.... if I remember rightly, although I feel here to be unsound on feminist grounds ... seem to remember Anne waiting on her brothers hand and foot (personally would have drowned them in a vat of ginger beer ;) ).

But while these issues can be discussed, I agree that the main danger is in the he "sneaking out", and that is a more real danger than the "magic" - especially when the children go to visit some strange old man , Tamsomthing, who lives in the woods. That really sets the alarm bells ringing ...

Ainaserkewen

06-17-2005, 03:10 PM

Thanks to the parents who answered my questions. I just wondered if indeed the "risk" of fairy tale and fantasy was present in the minds of responsible parents, or just media hype.

Rumil

06-17-2005, 07:10 PM

Interesting discussion!

Luckily ?! I don't have children therefore the 'banning' issue does not personally resonate. However, on a more general platform, I still have to say that I'm amazed that in the USA, which, I'm led to believe, still has laws preserving freedom of speech, this subject still rears its ugly head.

First of all much appreciation of Saucie, Lindil, and many others, don't blame them if you dislike what I have to say!

A few points which I'm drawn to discuss -

Banning books will merely increase interest amongst potential readers - somehow I find this enormously comforting.

As a committed bibliophile, I can't abide book burning or censorship, at least amongst consenting adults. Mein Kampf was mentioned in this thread, I think that if Hitler's writings had been utterly suppressed then we would not be able to a) understand that period of history, b) be on our guard against similar nutters in future.

As for the Bible, Harry Potter, Medieval 'magic', the Koran and The Lord of the Rings, my opinion is that they're all works of fiction. I hope you will not torture and burn me as your co-religionists may well have done a mere few centuries (weeks?) ago if you feel offended by my opinion. I am quite happy if your opinion differs from mine, please extend me the same courtesy.

I think the real difference is that neither the Lord of the Rings nor Harry Potter has (yet!) been hijacked by a political or religious establishment in order to bend others to their will. I guess that there may be an element of the Green movement attempting to bend LoTR to their political agenda but this does not seem overly significant to me (though I would support many of their aims so may not be completely unbiased here).

Some have implied that Tolkien's work can only be fully appreciated by those who have some spiritual 'belief' (or irrationality, maybe?) and therefore JK Rowling is inferior (in this respect) as she does not conform to this belief framework. I absolutely disagree with this analysis. It appears to me that JK Rowling's books are more 'moral' than most. I also denigrate those who claim that morality can only stem from religion. As an atheist / agnostic (haven't quite decided as I'm not dead yet) this sort of attitude would surely condemn me to a life of thievery and murder, while I can assure you that I have committed no such acts! I imagine that the Spanish Inquisition would not have looked favourably upon the possessor of a book which claimed that demi-gods such as the Valar, in all contravention of christian teachings, ruled the world, even if they had the wit to see that it was a work of fantasy. In fact possession of books of any type generally seems suspicious to those of totalitarian bent (unless it is the book of the authorised Great Leader, Prophet or Disciple of course!)

I think that in the USA and the UK we have been so used to the idea of liberty that we are beginning to lose the appreciation of the freedoms that were so intensely prized by our forefathers and indeed foremothers. Beware of anyone trying to control what you read, listen to or view, soon enough they will claim to know what's 'best for you', then it gets really scary!

Frodo Baggins

06-18-2005, 08:46 AM

I was going to refrain but I just HAVE to wedge in my thoughts.

Yes as you know I am a Christian and tend more toward the fundamental side, thought not as extremely so as many of those I know. However, fundamental, outside religious circles at least, is defined as that which is basic, original, or primary. Many people these days confuse Fundamentalism with legalism. Legalism is what makes some Christians (I'm not sure all legalists are Christians) have a "holier than thou" attitude of "since I act this way or dress this way or wear my hair this way or don't read this I'm better than you." Many liegalsitst are little more than Pharisees.

Now, I don't recall Tolkien or any of his cohorts ever labelling his fiction as "Fundamentally Christian" or even allegorical. In his own preface to LOTR Tolkien notes how he hates allegory and never intended to write it. I do see where he is coming from about Christian themes, however. Many Christians, even when not writing Christian works, cannot refrain from burying Christian themes in them. My own love of God Himself makes me write Christian themes into everything whether it is religious or not. Take Lewis' Space Trilogy as another example. It's not a story thick with allegory, if there's any in it its hard to see, but there is no doubt just who Maleledil is.

I know a good deal many Christians who LOVE LoTR. Heck, my dad, who is even more narow-minded than me, (it that's possible) was the one that introduced me to LOTR. I also know some who hate it and call it "pagan". And they are ones I would shove under the legalist class.

You are all right, magic is more subtle in LOTR and it is not used for everything as in HP. There are also no schools of magic. As Galadriel says "For this is what your folk would call Magic, I believe; though I do not understand clearly what they mean; and they seem also to use the same word for the deciets of the Enemy."
Magic in LOTR, if it can be called that, is used sparingly and only at great need, kind of like lembas. ;) Many of those that use "magic" Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond, other Elves are kind toward those who are weak and do not look down their noses at those who are inept in the magical arts. Saruman aside of course, who is in the end just a grumpy old man. Dumbledore is a magician and little else. Gandalf is angelic in every way, looks aside. When he's at the doors of m Moria it remids me of the Heavenly Messenger of the Divine Comedy who opens the gates of Dis the city of hell for Virgil and Dante.

I think why the Christans are so up in arms over HP is this: In LOTR you know from the beginning who is on the good guy side and who is on the bad guy side(exceptions: Saruman and Wormtongue, but Tolkien makes them suspect from the start). In HP people seem to arbitrarily switch sides. Also Children have easily influenced minds, I know I did, still do. HP makes magic seem so easy and discribes it is such a details that the incantations and other tools of it can be easily repeated and learned. People, especially Christians, fear that children will find all this easy to learn magic in HP cool and want to learn it, only to be led into witchcraft. And it is well documented in the Bible that God finds witchcraft among the most deadly abominations. The "magic" in LOTR is not like this. It is hardly used and when it is, it's secreats are not revealed. And the power of those like Gandalf seem more like the power of the angels themselves not magicians.

Oh and as for the comment that "At least Harry Potter celebrates Christmas" events in LOTR were supposed to have happened BEFORE Christmas was invented. :rolleyes:

Last note. I have read the book of Revelation many times and there is only one dragon in it "behold a great, firey red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads." (Revelation 12:3) This is understood to be Satan. There is no "magic" in revelation. The only thing that comes remotely close is the power of God, His angels and His wrath, and the power of Satan and his demons.

Kath

06-18-2005, 09:46 AM

Frodo Baggins since you seem pretty well educated in the history and opinions of Christians in general can I ask what you feel the difference is between witchcraft and wizardry? Because it seems that is one of the major sticking points when cataloguing the differences between HP and LotR and why one is more suitable or acceptable than the other.

Frodo Baggins

06-18-2005, 12:32 PM

As far as I know, and I am no expert, Wizardry and Witchcraft are merely two terms for the same thing, i.e. the practise of black magic. Trees that talk, swords that glow, and rings with strange powers are never addressed as "magic" in LOTR except by the Hobbits. Hobbits, who often come across as rather small-minded and are quite ignorant of whatever goes on outside the Shire, seem to use the word "magic" for anything they do not understand or cannot explain. What is called magical by them is really "Elf-work"(glowing swords and rings of power(Power not magic)) or the oldest things in the world (Ents). Elves, Ents, and other creatures like them are very very mysterious. No one knows just why they are able to do the things they do. Elves perhaps are very powerful simply by being the Elder Childern of Eru. They are excellent at nearly everything they do because they are old and they are very strong and wise. All the power of the elves seems natural to them, a sort of "kindly inclining" "as it should be" thing. Whatever they do, no matter how fantastic it seems to men, Dwarves, or Hobbits, seems old, powerful, and natural, as natural as breathing. It is as if they still carry all the strength of the young universe. They don't have to learn munch about how, they just do.

I digress. Simply put, the "magic", if you even want to call it that, in LoTR is much more subtle and mysterious. In HP the magic is very open and if you say this or hold your hands this way and your feet another way you can do unordinary things. The power expressed in LOTR, as I have before said is more like supernatural power, more angelic than magical. The magic of LOTR is more mysterious and subtle, it's never know exactly how it happens or why. "This was forged (not telling how) and so it will do special things (not knowing what)". It seems that the "Magic" of LOTR is not practised by anyone who wants to learn how but comes naturally to some, mostly to those that are very old and very wise.

Take, for instance, what just came upon me as I was writing the preceeding paragraph. In Lewis' The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe there is the Deep Magic from the Dawn of Time and then the Deeper Magic from Before the Dawn of Time. But when Aslan describes what those two magics are, they seem more like laws than random magic. That is more near what the "magic" of LOTR seems to be, old ancient laws, "kindly enclining" "as it should be" ways that things just run naturallly.

I think what the difference is that Christians see in LOTR is that its "magic" is (as I have said before) not displayed as magic but more as powers held and used bythe evil one and those who are very old and wise or messengers and representatives of the Valar and Eru himself. Of course Eru and the Valar have to have power themselves becasue they made it all to begin with.

Originally, the word "Wizard" meant an old wise man, a sage, or an especally celver person. While one who practiced magic , especaily black magic, was labelled a witch. While witch is usually reserved for the female types who practise magic, a more proper name for the male variety is warlock, not wizard.

Much thanks to my dear friend Puddleglum who helped me with this.

Imladris

06-19-2005, 01:15 AM

Just a thought that occured to me as I read this very thought provoking thread:

So, like the 'magic' in her universe, the 'morality' is morally neutral too? The reader decides, based on their own subjective criteria whether a character is 'good' or 'evil' - Rowling will not offer an objective moral standard by which actions are to be judged. So, a reder is free to see either Harry or Voldemort as the 'hero' depending on their individual moral value system? Who says 'loyalty & bravery' are 'moral' or 'virtuous'? Certainly they cannot be said to be 'moral & virtuous' in & of themselves - that would depend on exactly what the character is being loyal to, wouldn't it? And as to 'bravery' - that isn't necessarily morally good - a Death camp guard who risked his life to force children into a gas oven would have been seen by his superiors as behaving 'bravely', even heroically.

So, again, there has to be some objective moral yardstick by which even loyalty & bravery are judged as good or evil.

I disagree. I believe that she her standard, her yardstick or whatever, is the Law of Nature (or the Law of Right and Wrong). To define what I mean:

This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that everyone knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it...but taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behaviour was obvious to everyone." -- Lewis

In LOTR you know from the beginning who is on the good guy side and who is on the bad guy side(exceptions: Saruman and Wormtongue, but Tolkien makes them suspect from the start). In HP people seem to arbitrarily switch sides. Also Children have easily influenced minds, I know I did, still do. HP makes magic seem so easy and discribes it is such a details that the incantations and other tools of it can be easily repeated and learned. People, especially Christians, fear that children will find all this easy to learn magic in HP cool and want to learn it, only to be led into witchcraft. And it is well documented in the Bible that God finds witchcraft among the most deadly abominations. The "magic" in LOTR is not like this. It is hardly used and when it is, it's secreats are not revealed. And the power of those like Gandalf seem more like the power of the angels themselves not magicians.

I've read the HP books many times, but didn't really catch any "switching of sides" but I digress...

Almost everyone who posts here compares the magic of LotR to the magic of HP without realizing that we shouldn't be comparing them at all. LotR and HP are totally different in the type of books they are. LotR is Mythical, HP is not. They are two different kind of stories, but instead Christians hold LotR (and Lewis) as a standard without considering that that is not the only type of fantasy there is. I think that scares them and hence, the cries for banning etc.

Again, these are just half formed thoughts that came to me as I tried to work out all the opinions and views of this thread in my poor tired brain, and I apologize if I missed the point entirely.

The Saucepan Man

06-19-2005, 04:42 AM

Did you ever face this with your kids? Have you discussed the issue with them? (That is my favoured approach to books, not banning them.)Well, it's not an issue with the Faraway Tree tales, so it is not something that I have had to address with them. As I recall, the Famous Five stories are (or were) rather 'politically incorrect', and (as Mithalwen notes) the Golliwogs of the Noddy stories have been banned. But I wouldn't label Blyton a racist, as she was very much a product of her times. One might as well label Tolkien a racist for his depiction of the Easterlings and Southerners (there is, for example, one reference to a Haradrim warrior which likens him to a half-troll). Personally, I don't think it is a big issue, as I think that there are far more influential factors in a child's upbringing. I loved the Famous Five and Noddy stories as a child, yet somehow managed to avoid growing up a white supremacist. Parental opinion and guidance is far more important, and I would most certainly address these issues with my children were they to arise.

But we're not discussing what matters to you, but what matters to certain fundamentalist Christians.Well pardon me from participating in what I thought was a discussion! We were, I believe, discussing why some Christians view the LotR and Harry Potter books differently, based on their respective depications of magic and the "absence" of God in the Harry Potter series. I was expressing my views on this issue. Is that not permitted?

I wasn't expressing my own views, necessarily, but attempting to show how LotR is essentially different from HP & why some Christians might have a problem with HP but not LotRFor someone who claims not be expressing his own views, you seem to be defending the distinction made by "some Christians" rather vigorously.

So, like the 'magic' in her universe, the 'morality' is morally neutral too? The reader decides, based on their own subjective criteria whether a character is 'good' or 'evil' - Rowling will not offer an objective moral standard by which actions are to be judged. So, a reder is free to see either Harry or Voldemort as the 'hero' depending on their individual moral value system?That is not what I was saying. Most young readers approach Rowling's works already equipped with a sense of what is "right and wrong" and the books reinforce that. And to suggest that there is scope in the books to champion Voldemort is, frankly, a ridiculous assertion. There is no more scope for this than there is scope to regard Sauron and Saruman as the heroes of LotR. The existence of a "God" figure in one (albeit impliedly) and not in the other makes no difference either way.

Who says 'loyalty & bravery' are 'moral' or 'virtuous'?When associated with characters who are fighting for good and against evil, then they are most certainly virtuous. Just as they are in LotR.

Its not about 'God' - its about some objective moral standard against which the character's actions can be judged - Tolkien supplies one - & you don't have to be a Christian to accept Eru. Eru simply provides an objective yardstick by which the actions of characters in Me can be judged. Rowling doesn't provide one - the reader must supply their own. Problem? Rowling's secondary world is not self contained & is dependent on the primary world for something absolutely essential if it is to work. It is a secondary world absent of its own objective moral standard, of a source of Right & Wrong, of Good & Evil. It is not self contained in the way Middle earth is.It is frankly absurd to suggest that every book for young readers, or even every fantasy book, must contain some self contained "objective moral yardstick". Harry Potter and his chums are depicated as behaving morally, according to standards which will be familar to readers - call them societal norms, natural law or what you will. Their actions thus reinforce the mesages that they are (hopefully) being taught by their parents and in school. Why is that a problem? It is clear what the "moral yardstick" is in Harry Potter's world without it needing to be expressly stated. It is that which prevails in the society that Rowling is writing for. And it is, in essence, no different from that presented in LotR.

People, especially Christians, fear that children will find all this easy to learn magic in HP cool and want to learn it, only to be led into witchcraft.LotR had much the same effect on me, in fostering an interest in fantasy, mythology and, yes, the occult. I do think that this is a case of double standards, simply because one contains (subtle) Christian imagery whereas the other does not.

As far as I know, and I am no expert, Wizardry and Witchcraft are merely two terms for the same thing, i.e. the practise of black magic.Is it not a "legalistic" approach to assume that all magic is black?

Trees that talk, swords that glow, and rings with strange powers are never addressed as "magic" in LOTR except by the Hobbits.I would have to disagree. Gandalf addresses the Rings of Power as "Magic Rings". He employs learned spells in both The Hobbit and LotR. But that is rather beside the point. If one excuses the use of magic in Middle-earth as a talent or "higher technology" innate to some characters which other characters are not sufficiently advanced to understand, then the use of magic in Rowling's works can surely be excused on the same basis. Just as the power to manufacture "glowing swords" and Rings of Power and the power of foresight are abilities natural to Elves, then so is the ability to use magic in Rowling's world an ability natural to certain individuals, who are able to harness and develop that ability at Hogwarts.

littlemanpoet

06-19-2005, 05:33 AM

I hope you will pardon my late arrival...

I too am a Christian. The group of Christians with whom I practice my faith shy away from Fundamentalism while embracing the Fundamentals of my faith. Lewis and Tolkien are honored, while Rowling seems to be an issue for continued discussion.

1. The original question.

Fifteen years ago, when I was still far too impressionable, and lived in the south (for a couple years) where Christian Fundamentalism is strongest, I felt compelled to disassociate myself Tolkien, and all of Lewis's fantasy, because it contained sorcery. Soon after I had made this decision, I was in a local Christian bookstore, perusing the racks, and noticed a book about the bad influence of Tolkien, Lewis, and all the rest. I checked it out and saw that the book was commenting on Galadriel as a well disquised witch who performs magic. The book admitted that Tolkien was popular with many Christians, but that they were being snowed by this author. Well, I knew better, and this extreme denunciation of something I knew to be very good, sort of helped remove the blinders in general.

2. Fantasy and Religion.

lindil is critical of Harry Potter because of an avoidance of religion. I find this interesting in terms of a recent discussion called
The Emblems of Religion don't belong ... or do they? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=11819&page=1) . In this thread, some of the same readers that are posting to this thread, asserted that religion has no place in any fantasy work, and they further asserted that there was no religion to be found in LotR. Meanwhile, others were posting various evidences of religion sprinkled throughout LotR. What I hope is not being done on the Downs, is that an absence of religion is being praised in LotR while being denigrated in Harry Potter. That would be a double standard.

That there is a Christmas in each Harry Potter book seems to have more to do with culture than religion, it seems to me.

There is one thing that is consistent throughout Harry Potter, though. There is a consistent moral compass. I don't know where the poster got it from who said that characters changed sides at a whim. I, like Imladris, never saw that in Harry Potter. If there was changing of sides, it was consistent with the story.

3. Feigned reality, feigned magic.

Tolkien wrote about his Legendarium that it was feigned history, feigned reality. Nevertheless, there have been many readers who have refused to view it as feigned. Likewise, Rowling has said that the magic in Harry Potter is feigned magic; yet there are readers who have attempted to use the so-called magic as if it was not feigned. The point is, it's feigned. It's not the real thing.

Being a Christian who believes the fundamentals of my faith, I wish believers and non-believers alike would not get their knickers all in a twist over magic in a story. It's a story, by gum! It's feigned magic. Just as everything in any story is feigned reality (including Eru ;)).

Hookbill the Goomba

06-19-2005, 07:43 AM

I think what sets The Lord of the Rings apart from Harry Potter, is the fact that Harry Potter depicts witchcraft as something even a child could do, and so it would encourage them to try it out. Yes, it is unlikely that everyone who ready Harry Potter will immediately want to learn witchcraft and Satanism... But The Lord of the Rings depicts Gandalf and the Istari as something that mortals cannot be a part of. Still, you will always get some people who refuse to believe this.

I have never seen Gandalf as a Wizard in the Biblical sense. That is why I do not think that Lord of the Rings is evil. Harry Potter, on the other hand, is very clearly a wizard in the Biblical sense. Thus, I do not approve of it.

Regarding the 'moral yardstick' this is an interesting topic. Anyone who knows the Bible will know that God's Moral standards are much higher than ours. God sees the sins of yester-year as if they were today, and knows every idle word. Many people say "I’ll get into heaven if I live a good life". This is not biblical; in fact, it’s regarded as one of Satan's teachings. Look at some of Jesus' laws;
"You have heard it said of old, 'you shall not commit adultery", well, I say onto you, whoever looks upon a woman, to lust after her, has committed adultery in his heart"
Also,
"He who is angry with his brother is in danger of judgement"
So, Lust is adultery, and hatred is Murder. NO ONE could possibly live up to those moral standards. Jesus, as we all know, died on the cross so that people didn't have to live up to those standards, instead we just needed to be forgiven and accept his payment. Christians should not claim to be good people, just forgiven.

The thing about Harry Potter is, that it dose not have any moral standards, its more a sequence of events that conforms to Hollywood's ideological views of how to be a good person. Despite the fact that there is no such thing as a good person. The Lord of the Rings, or more precisely, Middle Earth, is much more complex in its view of heroes and villains. There are countless times when we see that the 'good' people aren’t all good. Look at Feanor!!! Frodo is corrupted by the ring and tempted by it. Even Sam is! We could look at this as Tolkien giving the Christian message throughout his work, or just looking at human nature… probably both.

I'll stop rambling now...

littlemanpoet

06-19-2005, 05:04 PM

Harry Potter, on the other hand, is very clearly a wizard in the Biblical sense.

I guess it's not clear to me. Could you please describe this Biblical sense?

I couldn't even find the word "wizard" in my Bible.

Harry Potter does wizardry, which is a seemingly magical transforming power or influence, but so does Gandalf.

Harry Potter doesn't do sorcery, which is "the use of power gained from the assistance of evil spirits especially for divining" (Webster). There is the Witch of Endor, but that's not the same thing.

The thing about Harry Potter is, that it dose not have any moral standards, its more a sequence of events that conforms to Hollywood's ideological views of how to be a good person.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, Hookbill, with the quotes from the Bible on moral standards, other than to show that Christian belief holds all of us alike to be unable to save ourselves by our own morality, which I agree with. But are you trying to say that J.K. Rowling consulted Hollywood before she started writing the series? Or are you saying that she was already under the influence of Hollywood? And if so, could you give an instance from the books that show this?

Encaitare

06-19-2005, 08:29 PM

I guess it's not clear to me. Could you please describe this Biblical sense?

Perhaps the "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" bit of the Bible has something to do with what he's referring to. (I believe the quote is correct; I've seen it tossed around by many denouncers of paganism.)

SpM, cheers from me to you for your last post. I thank you for saying a lot of what I've been wanting to say, but could not find the proper words to say it as politely and eloquently. :)

Hookbill the Goomba

06-20-2005, 12:10 AM

A wizard in the biblical sense, in my mind, would be someone who uses witchcraft and "hocus-pocus-size-of-a-chafige". The use of natural things, and perverting them by use of said witchcraft. Harry Potter is human, and mortal, as a 'real' wizard would be, unlike Gandalf who is a higher being.
I can't find the Bible references right now (its too early in the morning :p ) But I will this afternoon.

are you trying to say that J.K. Rowling consulted Hollywood before she started writing the series? Or are you saying that she was already under the influence of Hollywood?

I'm saying the latter. Most modern types of media do. It’s kind of unavoidable. By "The Hollywood Ideology", I was kind of generalising, it's not just Hollywood that holds the ideologies, but its one of the most prominent. A form of conformity, in a way.

And if so, could you give an instance from the books that show this?

It’s more to do with the general layout of the books, being overtly thesis-antithesis-thesis, which is a Hollywood trend.

I'll have to update this post later when I have more time...

Bêthberry

06-20-2005, 07:54 AM

Well, it's not an issue with the Faraway Tree tales, so it is not something that I have had to address with them. As I recall, the Famous Five stories are (or were) rather 'politically incorrect', and (as Mithalwen notes) the Golliwogs of the Noddy stories have been banned. But I wouldn't label Blyton a racist, as she was very much a product of her times. One might as well label Tolkien a racist for his depiction of the Easterlings and Southerners (there is, for example, one reference to a Haradrim warrior which likens him to a half-troll). Personally, I don't think it is a big issue, as I think that there are far more influential factors in a child's upbringing. I loved the Famous Five and Noddy stories as a child, yet somehow managed to avoid growing up a white supremacist. Parental opinion and guidance is far more important, and I would most certainly address these issues with my children were they to arise.

Well, just for the sake of clarification and hopefully not to get too far off topic, let me say that I am a bit surprised that a loyer of your disputational skills, Sauce, would assume only a "worst case scenario". I think this scare about White Supremacists or racism overlooks the more subtle kinds of influences which affect our sensibilties. One doesn't have to believe that races of colour should be wiped out to fall prey to feelings of racial superiority and patronage. Why, just this weekend I was reading for the Chapter by Chapter discussion and came upon this passage in "Minas Tirith":

There dwelt a hardy folk between the mountains and the sea. They were reckoned men of Gondor, yet their blood was mingled, and there were short and swarthy folk among them whose sires came more from the forgotten men who housed in the shadows of the hills in the Dark Years ere the coming of the kings . But beyond, in the great fief of Belfalas, dwelt Prince Imrahil in his castle of Dol Amroth by the sea, and he was of high blood, and his folk also, tall men and proud with sea-grey eyes.

Of course, this passage occurs just after Pippin has indignantly defended his size to the arrogant guards of Gondor, so we are left wondering just what the narrator is trying to do or how much the narrator understands of Pippin's perspective. This isn't cruel or malevolent, yet it carries with it the wiff of habitual, pejorative denigration of 'swarthy' short races. It's the kind of thing Nevil Shute wrote of in The chequer Board, published in 1947:

Because he was uncertain what to do, he put his arms round her and kissed her... For a moment she yielded... then fear came to her, irrational, stark fear. When she was a little child, somebody had given her a golliwog, a black doll with staring white eyes and black curly hair, dressed in a blue coat with red trousers. It had terrified her; whenever she saw it she had screamed with fright so that it had been given to a less sensitive child. Now at the age of seventeen the same stark fear came back to her. What she had been subconsciously afraid of all her life had happened. The golliwog had got her.

I remember reading a wonderful essay--which I cannot find now--by a Black American, really sardonically funny--about his first victim. It recounts his experience walking down a dark street at night, realising that he is a figure of fear to the white people who quickly move to get away from him. There's more to racism than overt hatred.

What does this have to do with this topic? Well, all and all it seems to me that at least some parts of this discussion are based upon the idea that Harry Potter can have a bad influence whereas LotR has only a good influence. Part of Enid Blyton's popularity among children was due, I think, to the way that her books gave children a sense of their own power. They encouraged children not to be passive, but to be thinking creatures. I haven't read all of the HP series, but my recollection of the first book is that Rowlings does this also. They give children a sense of empowerment. But I'm not sure that LotR does this. It's enchantment and influence lies elsewhere. But with its constant emphasis on enclosing good against evil influence--even at the end when Aragorn bans men from The Shire--I cannot help but wonder if all this really creates the very passive atttiude of (some) forms of traditional religion where people are encouraged, even taught, to fear discussion.

I'm running out of time and am being called away. I'm not happy with how I've expressed this last idea, but it will have to do for now.

littlemanpoet

06-20-2005, 09:57 AM

It’s more to do with the general layout of the books, being overtly thesis-antithesis-thesis, which is a Hollywood trend.

This is news to me. I thought thesis-antithesis-thesis was from Hegel. If this is what Hollywood's up to, it has a higher intellectual calliber (sp?) than I've been crediting them with in some time. Did someone tell you this about Hollywood and t-a-t? If so, what did they tell you about it? If not, I'm still not sure what you mean by it.

Hookbill the Goomba

06-20-2005, 10:41 AM

I never said Hollywood invented t-a-t, but they use it allot.
When I refer to Hollywood, I'm more talking about you’re general big american films, and indeed most films these days. Hollywood is ladled with the blame for it, though I daresay it’s not the origin. I'm not sure what 'Hegel' is, but still... it’s a rule that Hollywood likes to follow.

The t-a-t theory has been associated with Hollywood for a long time now. Look at most films these days, they do follow the pattern of; "Everything's cool, and nice and happy", followed by "Oh no! Something has gone wrong! Lets put it back to right" ending with "everything's back to normal now! They all drank lemonade! The End!" Do you catch my drift?

In a way, The Lord of the Rings follows this, but to a lesser extent, i.e. nothing is quite the same as it was. The shire is never the same again, and indeed, Frodo swans off to Valinor never to see his Friends again. Many people believed that this was why The Lord of the Rings could never work as a Film, in that it does not have the truly 'happy ending'. Most of my friends say that this is Tolkien being realistic... :|

Anguirel

06-20-2005, 10:55 AM

I fail to see how Harry Potter follows your t-a-t pattern. Have you read it?

Each book starts with a description of boredom and frustration so acute it practically evokes Madame Bovary. The supremely ironic timing of Harry's birthday means he regularly "celebrates" while being denied any affection, and being cut off from contact with his only true friends. People pop by and insult his dead parents and himself. His cousin beats him into pulp if he can get the chance, as does his uncle. He is starved.

Personally, I can't see any lemonade there.

The central part of the book-while the mystery is being followed and solved-is usually the closest Harry gets to happiness. He's in the company of friends, in a remarkable school. But it's scarcely unalloyed cakes and ale, what with the whole insidious agents of Voldemort lurking everywhere side of things.

The conclusion always involves pain and terror, and, nowadays, usually death as well. Harry is left feeling futile, overburdened, guilty, depressed, you name it. Again, I fail to see the happy prancing pixies and the jovial mountains of fairy cakes.

I believe the films may have misled you; this is very much an a-t-a series, not a t-a-t one...

Hookbill the Goomba

06-20-2005, 11:09 AM

I have to hold my hands up here. I do not know that much about Harry Potter, I have not read it. But I have listened to the unabridged audiotapes while on a trip to London with my Grandparents. (I did spend a lot of time pointing out why The Lord of the Rings was better :p )

But I have many friends who have read all the books and have given me their opinion. From what they told me about it, that was the general view I got. So, I must apologise if I generalised too much. I was only going on what I had been told, which went along the lines of,

"Well," explained Friend, "he goes to this school and has a wonderful time and all that. Then this evil wizard chap-"

"All wizards are evil" says I,

"Yes, I know... Anyway, this chap comes along and everything goes wrong and he fights to return it back to normal... basically."

"Okay, I see."

So, there you go. My mistake.

littlemanpoet

06-20-2005, 05:19 PM

The "thesis-antithesis-thesis" plot outline you describe is that of the classic fairy-tale. At least Hollywood has fallen out of love with its former dalliance with "absurdist" film. You can thank George Lucas and Stephen Spielberg for that. It's no bad thing in itself.

As for "not suffering a witch to live", I thought that Someone's grace had fulfilled and rendered needless all that stuff.

Still, it's all feigned anyway.

The Saucepan Man

06-20-2005, 07:09 PM

I think what sets The Lord of the Rings apart from Harry Potter, is the fact that Harry Potter depicts witchcraft as something even a child could do, and so it would encourage them to try it out.It seems to me that this is a fair argument and probably the most credible basis for distinguishing the Harry Potter books from LotR. Nevertheless, I think that most young readers (those of an age likely to read the Harry Potter books) are perfectly capable of distinguishing fact from fantasy. And, if they are the sort of person who is likely to be interested in trying “witchcraft” out, then I would argue that they are likely to do so anyway, regardless of whether they read Rowling’s works or not. (As I have said, reading LotR provoked an interest in such matters in me, although most certainly not an inclination to put them into practice.)

The thing about Harry Potter is, that it dose not have any moral standards, its more a sequence of events that conforms to Hollywood's ideological views of how to be a good person.I don’t think that Rowling was particularly influenced by Hollywood, any more than any other modern day writer of children’s books. I suspect rather that the moral standards that feature in her books are her own. And, although I am no expert on her works, they seem to be pretty good ones to me.

A wizard in the biblical sense, in my mind, would be someone who uses witchcraft and "hocus-pocus-size-of-a-chafige". The use of natural things, and perverting them by use of said witchcraft. Harry Potter is human, and mortal, as a 'real' wizard would be, unlike Gandalf who is a higher being. Two points on that. First, there is no obvious indication in LotR (and much less in The Hobbit) that Gandalf is a “higher being”, and certainly little for the young reader to pick up on in this regard. And secondly, it is not just Gandalf who uses “magic” (in its widest sense) in LotR. The mortal characters do too - even the Hobbits (the One Ring, Sting, the Mirror of Galadriel etc), the characters with whom young readers are most likely to identify.

… let me say that I am a bit surprised that a loyer of your disputational skills, Sauce, would assume only a "worst case scenario". I think this scare about White Supremacists or racism overlooks the more subtle kinds of influences which affect our sensibilities … There's more to racism than overt hatred.My dear Bb, my posts are generally verbose enough without me adopting wholesale the style of argumentation that I employ in my professional life. :rolleyes: :D Truth is, I was exaggerating to make the point. But you are right, not all racism is overt. I most certainly do not consider myself racist in any shape or form, but I will freely admit that I am a product of my upbringing and position in society (white and “middle class”), and so I will inevitably have a different perspective on some issues than someone of, for example, Afro-Caribbean descent. I do not think, however, that reading the Famous Five books as a child had much of an effect on me in this regard, one way or another.

As I have said, I do not regard Enid Blyton as racist, but as a product of her times, just as I am. In this regard, my children are growing up in a much more multi-racial and tolerant society than I did, which is something that I welcome. As Mithalwen has pointed out, the Famous Five books have been edited to excise material which might today be regarded as “offensive”, so this is unlikely to be an issue, should my children ever wish to read them. But I am sure that they will come up againts racist views as they are growing up. I am confident that they will be sufficiently intelligent and tolerant to reject these, but I will always be willing to talk through such issues with them.

They give children a sense of empowerment. But I'm not sure that LotR does this. It's enchantment and influence lies elsewhere.I wonder whether the sense of empowerment is in the fact that readers (particularly young readers) will tend to identify with the Hobbit characters - those who undergo the most “empowerment” as the story progresses. One of Tolkien’s favourite themes was the ennoblement of the humble and I suspect that this is somthing which appeals to children and adults alike.

But with its constant emphasis on enclosing good against evil influence--even at the end when Aragorn bans men from The Shire--I cannot help but wonder if all this really creates the very passive atttiude of (some) forms of traditional religion where people are encouraged, even taught, to fear discussion.I am not entirely sure what you mean by this, Bb, but it seems to me that there are sufficient “ambiguous” characters - those who acts are both “right” and “wrong” at various times (such as Boromir, Denethor, Gollum and even Eowyn) - to engender intelligent thought in the minds of those who are sufficiently receptive. Similarly, I remember thinking on reading The Hobbit recently that Tolkien presents quite a sophisticated moral dilemma with Bilbo’s predicament (stuck between two mutually antagonistic forces of “good”) on the eve of the Battle of Five Armies.

Perhaps that might be a basis on which to distinguish, and even criticise, the Harry Potter books - that the characters are too clear cut, either good or evil with no shades of grey. I do not know the books well enough to say for certain that this is the case but, if it is, there might be a basis for arguing that they present less material to stimulate intelligent thought on moral issues in the minds of young readers.

Mithalwen

06-21-2005, 06:33 AM

I heard this this morning and thought of this topic. I think it is spot on as to where the real danger of "magic" lies.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/thought/documents/t20050621.shtml

Fordim Hedgethistle

06-21-2005, 08:12 AM

In an odd way, my beef with HP is probably the same as these ultra-orthodox-Christian fundamentalists' beef. I object to the HP books because their depiction of the world is utterly materialist. There is no real 'magic' in the books insofar as the spells and potions all have purely rationalist explanations. They are merely extensions of the scientific-technological view of the world that is now the primary mode of understanding. The way to get something done -- to have power -- is to figure out the technique whereby that can be accomplished.

In the HP books the individual magician/scientist is entirely capable to the task of conquering evil without the aid of any larger beneficent force in the universe guiding him along. This stance is essentially anti-religious.

LotR's depiction of magic shares nothing with this. Magic in Middle-earth is not a science but an art (or an Art). There is a mystery to it that defies mortal understanding (but which does not fool it or deceive). The place in M-E where we find a Harry Potter view of magic is in Isengard, where Saruman is trying to develop technologies with which to control the power of nature.

The primary difference between the two, however, is that Tolkien does not have faith in the ability of the individual to conquer evil without help from the 'outside' (Eru or God). That is why those who object to HP do not object to LotR, I suspect.

The only difference between the ultra-orthodox fundamentalists and myself in our approbation of Tolkien's work is that while they think that the Bible or God is entirely sufficient to redress the inability of the individual to battle evil, I believe that the communal effort of 'good thinkers' is sufficient to that larger task.

alatar

06-21-2005, 09:17 AM

Thanks, Mithalwen, for the link.

My question would be, in regards to the thread, is this way of 'magical' thinking or mindset enhanced by reading books such as LOTR or Potter or not?

I assume that many adults would see the books obviously as harmless fantasy ("magic isn't real, silly...") yet don't see that they practice their own types of magic on a daily basis, whether that would be reading a horoscrope, consulting a psychic, seeking out a faith-healer or wearing magnets on one's wrists. Did this way of thinking come from books read as a child, or was it from the culture or education system?

Members of my own family want me to bury a statue of a Saint in our yard in order to sell our house more quickly. I politely told them that I will not entertain such silliness nor promote such superstitious thinking (even though our house hasn't sold yet, and we may start getting desperate :eek: ).

One can believe whatever one chooses, and some beliefs are harmless, but as seen some have deadly consequences. What really torques me is when it involves children who don't have the wherewithal to make decisions for themselves and so have to rely on their parents, who may or may not be clueless.

Surely many parents of young children have considered 'demonic possession' (one of mine must have been giving Satan too hard of a time and so he sent her above ground ;) ) as the reason for a child's poor behavior, but just as bad are parents who are ready to place their hyperactive children on the Ritalin bus not due to evidence but because of poor parenting skills ("it keeps little Jimmy quiet while I'm watching TV...").

Sorry for the rant.

Read a book to a child - even Harry Potter - and I think that some good will come of it.

the guy who be short

06-21-2005, 09:19 AM

I object to the HP books because their depiction of the world is utterly materialist. There is no real 'magic' in the books insofar as the spells and potions all have purely rationalist explanations.

The magic in HP can only be described as magic, not an extension of scientific knowledge. Waving a wand and muttering a few words generally doesn't cause much effect, other than to attract a few odd looks. ;) There is no real rationale behind the magic that I can see.

The place in M-E where we find a Harry Potter view of magic is in Isengard, where Saruman is trying to develop technologies with which to control the power of nature.

Saruman's pursuit of technology cannot really be seen as a pursuit of magical knowledge, unless we class technology as magic. The way in which Saruman industrialises with no care for the environment demonstrates Tolkien's anti-industrialisation stance rather than a dislike of magicks.

Bêthberry

06-21-2005, 09:48 AM

There is no real 'magic' in the books insofar as the spells and potions all have purely rationalist explanations. They are merely extensions of the scientific-technological view of the world that is now the primary mode of understanding. The way to get something done -- to have power -- is to figure out the technique whereby that can be accomplished.

In the HP books the individual magician/scientist is entirely capable to the task of conquering evil without the aid of any larger beneficent force in the universe guiding him along. This stance is essentially anti-religious.

Whoa, Fordim, have you been reading A.S. Byatt's attitude about HP? She objects to what she calls a lack of truly perilous stuff in HP. I must send your comments to Lush. She will be so not amused. ;)

I am not entirely sure what you mean by this, Bb, but it seems to me that there are sufficient “ambiguous” characters - those who acts are both “right” and “wrong” at various times (such as Boromir, Denethor, Gollum and even Eowyn) - to engender intelligent thought in the minds of those who are sufficiently receptive. Similarly, I remember thinking on reading The Hobbit recently that Tolkien presents quite a sophisticated moral dilemma with Bilbo’s predicament (stuck between two mutually antagonistic forces of “good”) on the eve of the Battle of Five Armies.

Perhaps that might be a basis on which to distinguish, and even criticise, the Harry Potter books - that the characters are too clear cut, either good or evil with no shades of grey. I do not know the books well enough to say for certain that this is the case but, if it is, there might be a basis for arguing that they present less material to stimulate intelligent thought on moral issues in the minds of young readers.

I do think you are right that LotR acknowledges a complexity in moral choices. Complexity of moral dilemma is not, however, completely at odds with the sense that some things are too evil to be contemplated and that goodness must often shut itself off from potentially evil influences in Arda. I suppose what I was getting at was the existence of a continuum of this perspective, that rather than allow discussion, debate, intermingling, there is a tendency in LotR to close off good, to restrict the borders. This happens with Melian's Girdle, with the Shire at the beginning of LotR under the unacknowledged protection of the Rangers and with Aragorn's decree at the end. I'm not saying that LotR is as close-minded as those who see banning or censorship as the only viable option, but I think there are some similarities of attitude.

Kath

06-21-2005, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Bêthberry
But with its constant emphasis on enclosing good against evil influence--even at the end when Aragorn bans men from The Shire--I cannot help but wonder if all this really creates the very passive atttiude of (some) forms of traditional religion where people are encouraged, even taught, to fear discussion.

I don't really have the energy to look at all the points raised here recently and many have already been discussed to death anyway, but this one caught my eye.
I'm still not entirely sure as to what you meant but I just thought I'd mention that this is similar in HP. The young witches and wizards are all taken off to a school that is hidden from the Muggle world to protect both sides. Muggles are banned from Hogwarts as Men are banned from the Shire, but in neither case are the opposing sides forbidden to communicate. I don't think that they fear discussion, just change.

littlemanpoet

06-21-2005, 01:31 PM

My guess would be that the wizards and witches in HP fear both chaos and a new batch of witch hunts.

The magic in HP, as Fordim says, follows the general perameters of "if you say this and do this, THAT will happen". That's scientific. However, I don't think Rowling's story telling limits ALL the magic to quite that. Well, perhaps it does, but still she is able to pull off WONDER, which rates pretty high with me.

The Saucepan Man

06-21-2005, 05:48 PM

In the HP books the individual magician/scientist is entirely capable to the task of conquering evil without the aid of any larger beneficent force in the universe guiding him along. This stance is essentially anti-religious.I wouldn't say anti-religious (a word that might more appropriately be applied to Pullman's books) but areligious.

I hate to keep labouring the point, but Rowling lives and works in a society that is (unlike the US) largely areligious, by which I mean that the majority of people do not have strong religious convictions. In the UK today, Islam probably has a stronger following than Christianity. But most people are quite happy getting on with their lives without feeling the need for any strong belief in some omniscient deity guiding them. I am assuming that Rowling, like me, is just such a person and so her work is bound to reflect her approach in this regard (in the sense of not feeling the need to explain the existence of magic in her world by reference to such a deity).

Given that this is the case, why is it not possible for people who have strong religious convictions to (willingly) suspend their belief and accept a fictional fantasy world (which is what Harry Potter's world is, despite its apparent setting in modern day Britain) in which God does not take centre stage, just as I willingly suspend my belief when I read LotR and accept the existence of Eru in Middle-earth? Really, it is not going to bring the world crumbling down around them and turn all their children to Satan. Take it from me as someone who has led a largely areligious (although most certainly not amoral) life. ;)

alatar

06-21-2005, 09:02 PM

Given that this is the case, why is it not possible for people who have strong religious convictions to (willingly) suspend their belief and accept a fictional fantasy world (which is what Harry Potter's world is, despite its apparent setting in modern day Britain) in which God does not take centre stage, just as I willingly suspend my belief when I read LotR and accept the existence of Eru in Middle-earth? Really, it is not going to bring the world crumbling down around them and turn all their children to Satan. Take it from me as someone who has led a largely areligious (although most certainly not amoral) life. ;)

Note tongue in cheek --> :p

Coming from that "religious" place across the pond, I would say that one argument for the ban regarding the Potter series is that the fight against evil must be fought not only on the big battlegrounds but also in the back alleys, in the nurseries, the schools - pretty much everywhere - as the eternal destiny of the children is at stake, and what parent would like to see their child go to hell? That Devil is sneaky, and he does not sleep, and it's books today about witchcraft and tomorrow it's gonna be public demon worship...

Rowling, obviously an agent of Satan, has used the gifts given to her by the Dark One to create a book series that is popular with children. Satan, knowing that younger children are more impressionable and, being rather impatient, did not want to wait until these kids were seduced by rock and roll (an old staple of the going to hell crowd) later in their teenaged years. These books glorify occultism and witchcraft, for gosh sakes! And the fact that Hollywood has gotten behind the books is prima facie evidence of satanic involvement.

Here (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/012/34.113.html) is one sad tale of what can happen.

Note that I believe none of the above, and also mean to insult no one's beliefs.

Is it that Potter is the latest boogeyman for (primarily) Christians who (1) have little better to do, (2) require an enemy for something *to* do, (3) see the Devil in lots of things (like a evil being Rorschach's test?), (4) know little to nothing about what their religion actually says, and (5) are more energized and exciting about fighting the Devil in the pages of Rowling than fighting the 'demons' that exist in their souls?

For those of you old enough to remember, there was even a similar outrage regarding the movie "E.T." (which I will never watch). One prominent (at that time) Christian stated that Hollywood was trying to make us 'like' and accept ugly little ET-like toady thingies as this would allow for an easier acceptance of demons (who, as we all know, are also ugly as all evil things are...). And he was serious!

Sometimes I'm not sure whether to laugh or to cry.

Hookbill the Goomba

06-22-2005, 12:05 AM

Is it that Potter is the latest boogeyman for (primarily) Christians who (1) have little better to do, (2) require an enemy for something *to* do, (3) see the Devil in lots of things (like a evil being Rorschach's test?), (4) know little to nothing about what their religion actually says, and (5) are more energized and exciting about fighting the Devil in the pages of Rowling than fighting the 'demons' that exist in their souls?

Unfortunately, many of you're points there are too true. There are few enough Christians in the world today, and those who claim to be, many are not true Christians. Many have chosen to see it as a sign of the times... Sometimes I agree.

Looking at Church history it’s easy to see where you are coming from. I do not mean to insult any Catholics that are here, but point (4) is very true. My father was brought up a Catholic before he got saved, and he tells me that the reading of the Bible is not banned, but neither is it encouraged. Its only in relatively recent history that the Bible has been allowed to be read in secular Catholicism, so there are bound to be many people who do not know a lot about what the Bible actually says. This is what My Father tells me from his experience; please correct me if I am wrong...

I do sometimes wonder about the demonic nature of H-P, to my mind, Satan's teachings would be much more subtle. On the other hand, one could look at it this way; The church has become less and less significant in modern society, plus sin has become, slowly, more acceptable. The best example of this is Blasphemy; 100 years ago you would be stoned for it, but now its just common slang to use the name of God in vain. So, the very fact that something like H-P is around goes some way to support this. Yes, there are worse books around; it is the fact that H-P is aimed at Children that causes unsettlement.

Of "The Demons that exist in their souls" I can sympathise. From my Bible studies, I get the impression that full on Demonic possession takes many daemons, but one on his own can plant thoughts. The story of when Jesus cast out a legion of Daemons from the wild man is a good example of it taking many daemons to posses someone fully. Still, one has to realise what daemons acutely are, that is fallen angels. They can easily deceive people. The comical image of Satan as the Lord of Hell, wearing all red and with a trident is misleading. Firstly, Satan isn't the master of Hell. For Hell, the lake of fire, is the prison set aside for him and his angels at the end of time, and of course, all those who have sinned and do not have their name in the Lamb’s book of life.

Well, that’s all I can think of just now. *Sleeps*

Mithalwen

06-22-2005, 06:53 AM

Unfortunately, many of you're points there are too true. There are few enough Christians in the world today, and those who claim to be, many are not true Christians. Many have chosen to see it as a sign of the times... Sometimes I agree.

Looking at Church history it’s easy to see where you are coming from. I do not mean to insult any Catholics that are here, but point (4) is very true. My father was brought up a Catholic before he got saved, and he tells me that the reading of the Bible is not banned, but neither is it encouraged. Its only in relatively recent history that the Bible has been allowed to be read in secular Catholicism, so there are bound to be many people who do not know a lot about what the Bible actually says. This is what My Father tells me from his experience; please correct me if I am wrong...

*

Hookbill, I am not Catholic and no longer Christian but I have to say that what you are implying is rather arrogant and insulting. It is arrogant for a start to assume you are saved - and that members of a different Christian denomination with a different tradition and perspective are ignorant of their religion. The bible and Christianity are not the same thing all though clearly you belong to a "bible based" denomination. The traditional teachings of the church have a greater role in the longer established denominations such as Catholicism - particularly Catholicism which feels a great sense of continuity with Saint Peter. You may not agree with it but you are clearly not in a position to say they are ignorant.

As for bible reading - I very much doubt that it was banned as such although it certainly had limited access before printing and when all books were writtten in Latin. The development of the printing press certainly coincided with the rise of protestantism. Access to the bible in English meant that people could read and make up their own minds and reduced the power of the priests as instructors and sole interpreters of Holy Writ....... how ironic that fundamentalist protestants now seek to limit access to books. La plus ca change .............

alatar

06-22-2005, 09:20 AM

Hookbill, I am not Catholic and no longer Christian but I have to say that what you are implying is rather arrogant and insulting. It is arrogant for a start to assume you are saved - and that members of a different Christian denomination with a different tradition and perspective are ignorant of their religion. The bible and Christianity are not the same thing all though clearly you belong to a "bible based" denomination. The traditional teachings of the church have a greater role in the longer established denominations such as Catholicism - particularly Catholicism which feels a great sense of continuity with Saint Peter. You may not agree with it but you are clearly not in a position to say they are ignorant.

I don't think that Hookbill was being "arrogant and insulting," as (1) I don't think that that was what he was trying to do in his post and (2) his generalized observations are commonly held in the community. My wife and her family are Catholic, and I have made the same observation - note that I do not include all, just the small set that I have observed.

I would also like to point out that there are Protestants who also do not read their Bible nor understand/care what's therein.

As for bible reading - I very much doubt that it was banned as such although it certainly had limited access before printing and when all books were writtten in Latin. The development of the printing press certainly coincided with the rise of protestantism. Access to the bible in English meant that people could read and make up their own minds and reduced the power of the priests as instructors and sole interpreters of Holy Writ....... how ironic that fundamentalist protestants now seek to limit access to books. La plus ca change .............

Not saying anything about religion nor especially anything about any specific religion, but knowledge is power, and to hold it secret and close allows one to maintain control. Think of guilds, of an aunt's secret recipe for cookies, of special knowledge from a supernatural source.

Mithalwen

06-22-2005, 10:07 AM

Bêthberry

06-22-2005, 10:14 AM

If I may gently tiptoe into Estelyn's moderating domain, I suggest that posters keep the thread topic in mind and return to considering points in the Harry Potter books and LotR rather than making generalisations about religion. PMs can always be used to discuss off topic points.

Bethberry,
Moderator for Rohan

Hookbill the Goomba

06-22-2005, 10:22 AM

I do not mean to offend; it’s just what I think. Not that what I think is often reliable... or listened to... :(

Mithalwen, my statements were based on what I have observed. The term 'saved' is what my father uses to refer to his actual payer, as while he was brought up, his parents never brought this to his attention. I do know that Catholics are taught that being saved is essential, it was just my grandparents were a little set in their ways and were huge believers in the traditions rather than the Bible. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with holding a few traditions, when those traditions divert from scripture and start to take centre stage, then I tend to get a little nervous and sometimes objective because of what the Bible says.

Access to the bible in English meant that people could read and make up their own minds and reduced the power of the priests as instructors and sole interpreters of Holy Writ....... how ironic that fundamentalist protestants now seek to limit access to books. La plus ca change .............

This is where I agree with you. As John the Baptist says, "I must decrease as he increases." Giving power over other people's spiritual life is dangerous, and I belive it is unscriptural (a la, Church of the Nicolitians). I have heard many people liken it to the Babylonian teachings regarding how the priests should be the soul interpreters ect, ect. But this causes arguments and things are broken, and I cannot fully see the connection.

I did not mean to be insulting, and I do not call people who hold other belief systems to me, ignorant. I hold my beliefs due to the evidence I have witnessed and experienced.

clearly you belong to a "bible based" denomination

I wouldn't say that. I wasn't brought up in a church that was particularly Bible based. I formulated my opinions from reading scripture and studying it. I find it fascinating, personally, and it only gives me a desire to go out and tell others about Christ. As Christians are commanded to "Go into all the world and make disciples of every creature". Besides, I do not like the term "Denomination", we are all one church, its just many people worship in different ways. If people prefer the more traditionalist way, then it is good for them if they are saved. Catholic or protestant, you can still be saved. I do not believe the Bible teaches different.

Hem... I think we are moving off topic here, so before the Barrow Wight closes this thread, I'd better finish on topic...

So, moving swiftly on, Harry Potter has not been banned in my Church, but children who read it are advised to take caution because of its witchcraft-based narrative. All in all, I am always going to be of the opinion that The Lord of the Rings is a better book... Ye Downers agree?

alatar

06-22-2005, 10:31 AM

"My father was brought up a Catholic before he got saved" ..... It may not have been his intention but I think that statement is likely to be offensive....well I found it so and I am only a lapsed anglo-catholic.....

Possibly offensive to some, though I would assume that Hookbill did not mean to be so.

Again, in the community (as heard on a local Christian talk show), being Catholic and "being saved" (which I assume means giving one's life over to Christ) are routinely considered to be separate things. This would also apply to Protestants who are members of whatever demonination yet are not saved until they 'take the plunge.'

Back to the thread, I was reminded of an old C-movie (it was bad) where there is a discussion regarding whether the school kids in the movie can put on a play by Shakespeare. The anti-play side (show as Christian bigots) quotes him, showing how lewd and prurient are his words, whereas the pro-play side quotes Scripture, demonstrating the same.

So not only is the Bible banned in some places due to its message, it could also be banned for its content. Not sure that I would want those less mature reading Song of Solomon.

And I'll throw this in as I too try to return to topic, but the real reason that I have not yet read the Potter series is that my former boss, whom I did not really like, gave the first book to me as a gift before I had children. I thought that that was in poor taste, and so link Potter books with Bad Boss.

Pretty illogical? Probably, but maybe not any more so than linking Potter with practicing witchcraft?

Hookbill the Goomba

06-22-2005, 11:05 AM

I absolutely agree, alatar. Belonging to a 'denomination' and giving one's life to Christ are different things. It doesn’t actually matter which denomination you belong to, so long as you are forgiven...

Back on topic.

The Bible is, I think, banned in some places. Although, I am not sure if it is because of its message, more because it is religious. Moreover, I would not be surprised if it did get banned for its message, i.e. what Jesus says;

"Men will hate you for my name, because I preach that the world is Evil"

Harry Potter shouldn't be banned on it's anti Christian teachings. I mean, every other religious book would be banned on those terms. People should be aware of the dangers of what witchcraft is, and realise that it is a fictional story. You can't discriminate someone because they teach something different. That is not good. I have often witnessed to Muslims, firstly by finding common ground, usually the moral law, before giving them the gospel.
I fear I did get a little carried away with my previous two posts, so that I apologise for. It is something I feel passionate about. I mean, I do get rather offended by blasphemy, and it seems rampant and I have caught many Christian out, using God's name in vain.

All in all, Harry potter shouldn't be banned, but if children are buying it, they should realise that it is fictional and that the practice of witchcraft is a dangerous thing.

Formendacil

06-22-2005, 11:48 AM

If anyone has any doubt as to which faith I follow, I refer them to my signature. In the event that they still don't know, here are few hints: "Mary", "JPII", and "Roman Collar"...

However, to get back to the main topic, I refer you to a couple quotes from Hookbill and Mithalwen:

Looking at Church history it’s easy to see where you are coming from. I do not mean to insult any Catholics that are here, but point (4) is very true. My father was brought up a Catholic before he got saved, and he tells me that the reading of the Bible is not banned, but neither is it encouraged. Its only in relatively recent history that the Bible has been allowed to be read in secular Catholicism, so there are bound to be many people who do not know a lot about what the Bible actually says. This is what My Father tells me from his experience; please correct me if I am wrong...

As for bible reading - I very much doubt that it was banned as such although it certainly had limited access before printing and when all books were writtten in Latin. The development of the printing press certainly coincided with the rise of protestantism. Access to the bible in English meant that people could read and make up their own minds and reduced the power of the priests as instructors and sole interpreters of Holy Writ....... how ironic that fundamentalist protestants now seek to limit access to books. La plus ca change .............

As a practising Catholic, much interested in history and theology, and contemplating entering the seminary a year from now, I can confirm some of this...

The practise of only having clerics read the Bible in the Middle Ages did come from habit. After the fall of Rome, the only people in the West who COULD read the Bible were monks and priests, for the most part. As everyone ought to remember, it was the monastaries that saved western learning.

This developed into habit, and as Mithalwen notes, there was hardly a Gideon's Bible available for everyone who wanted...

Yes, this is ontopic. I'm getting to my point....

This changed shortly before the Protestant Reformation, with the arrival of the printing press, but the Church was slow to change. The Church has always had a very healthy respect for tradition- too healthy at times, but it is a respect that many other institutions lack entirely. Furthermore, this was a sorry time in Church history, with numerous abuses going on. And when the Protestants championed Bible-reading by the masses, the Church's knee-jerk reaction was to go the other way. And this remained the case pretty much until the past century.

But the Catholic Church was not without it's reasons. One thing that separates Catholics from Protestants, and has been a bone of contention between them, is that Catholics believe (or are supposed to believe) that only the Church has the authority to interpret Scripture. People may get insights from it on their own, maybe personal revelations, but the message intended by God in any particular passage is to be determined by the Church and not however the reader pleases.

As a result, the Church had good reason to be somewhat concerned with the reading of the Bible by the masses. The Church, after all, is called to shepherd its faithful, and keep it in Communion with God. Now, as everyone ought to know, the Bible has more than a few passages that, if interpreted at face value with no acknowledgement of context, translation, or figurative speech, could well be interpreted in a way widely different from the proper interpretation, thus leading to a misunderstanding and a misbelief on the part of the reader.

Therefore, in order to spare it's members the possibility of falling away from the true faith due to misunderstanding, and because of its healthy respect for tradition, the Church did not encourage reading of the Bible by the Laity for many years.

Of course, this changed in recent times, with the realization by the Church that it is better to have its members reading the Bible and being aware of its proper interpretation than to keep them in safe, but ignorant, bliss, where they would be ripe prey for anyone who knew the Bible and had an alternative view.

Now, to my point:

I see the actions of the fundamentalists concerning Harry Potter as being highly reminiscent of the actions of the Church concerning the Bible. In both cases, those being prohibitive were concerned for those in their care, either their children or the laity.

The Catholic Church was concerned with keeping its members safe from false teaching, fulfilling its mandate- even if the choice they made to do so wasn't the best one.

Similarly, the fundamentalists are concerned with keeping their children safe from the occult and witchcraft, doing their duty as Christian parents- even if the choice they make isn't necessarily the wisest.

Perhaps its time for the fundamentalists to realize what the Catholics realised some time ago: that it is better to teach those in your care to DISCERN what is right and what is wrong, what is real and what is evil/fictional, than to shield them in the hope that they will never reach a situation where they would need to use such a knowledge. Just as a Catholic is bound to find someone who has contrary Biblical views, so to is a fundamentalist child bound to encounter the occult or demonism in some form, some time.

Now, with regards to the Lord of the Rings, I admit to not knowing why the critics of the day didn't pounce on it. At the time of its publication, there was none of the huge mass of background information which we so diligently enjoy on this site, and the critics wouldn't have known much about it anyway. However, I have a theory:

Harry Potter is a series in which magic is in your face. The book is about a wizard, about his time spent in a wizarding school. It describes his spells and the magical world in detail. Quite frankly, without magic there is NO Harry Potter. With the Lord of the Rings, the situation is quite a bit different. Although magic is certainly there, and plays some important roles, it is never more than a supporting cast member. It takes up far less of the "screen time" and is described in far less detail.

Therefore, going by the argument that Harry Potter is being banned by fundamentalist because of the threats it COULD pose to children, the Lord of the Rings is quite a bit less likely to be potential threat to children because of the much weaker concentrations of magic in it, thus leading to a lower threat, and no banning on the same massive- and public- scale as Harry Potter.

There! See, I did stay ontopic. :p

Hookbill the Goomba

06-22-2005, 12:01 PM

Harry Potter is a series in which magic is in your face. The book is about a wizard, about his time spent in a wizarding school. It describes his spells and the magical world in detail. Quite frankly, without magic there is NO Harry Potter. With the Lord of the Rings, the situation is quite a bit different. Although magic is certainly there, and plays some important roles, it is never more than a supporting cast member. It takes up far less of the "screen time" and is described in far less detail.

Good point. I'd also like to make a quick point about some small, yet important, diction in The Lord of the Rings. The Hobbits seem to refer to the ring, at least to begin with, as "a magic ring" where as everyone else calls it "The Ring of Power" There seems to be a difference, in my mind. To me, Gandalf wields Power, not magic. Where as Harry Potter openly uses magic.... I thought it was an interesting thing.

Mithalwen

06-23-2005, 12:18 PM

All in all, Harry potter shouldn't be banned, but if children are buying it, they should realise that it is fictional and that the practice of witchcraft is a dangerous thing.

Do you seriously think that any child with the capacity to read it would think it was factual? Rather unlikely surely....

Mind you the people who seek to ban it, probably also wish to ban the teaching of the theory of evolution, seeing Genesis as documentary rather than allegory .....

davem

06-25-2005, 11:37 AM

I think its important to keep in mind that Rowling is not depicting true Witchcraft - anymore than Tolkien is when he refers to the Lord of the Nazgul as the 'Witch-King'. Both have constructed an entirely negative pseudo-'witchcraft' - for Rowling it has 'positive' connotations, for Tolkien negative ones, but neither of them are attempting to depict Witchcraft as it actually is. I had a long correspondence some years back with an initiated Witch & he was as friendly, compassionate & decent a guy as you could wish to meet (or hear from ;) ).

The point is, Witches draw their 'power' from a 'Higher' (or perhaps it would be better to say a 'Deeper') source - whether that source is seen as 'nature' or the Goddess, or the God & Goddess. Satanism is a Christian heresy & clearly did not exist before the appearance of Christianity.

Now, the point of this is to try & make sense of why (some) Christians seek to ban the HP books. They are not trying to ban Witchcraft, because they have no real idea what Witchcraft actually is - they confuse/conflate it (often deliberately) with Satanism, & are seeking to 'ban' that. Basically, what drives them is a desire for control.

Unfortunately, Rowling has fed into this 'Christian' power trip by misusing the terms 'Witch' & 'Wizard'. While she has presented her Witches & Wizards in a positive light, she is not actually presenting true Witches at all. As a result she has given her child readers a totally fallacious concept of Witches. Her greatest 'sin' in this regard has been in not placing her 'magic-users' within a philosophical/religious tradition. For instance, true Witches would go out of their way to avoid doing harm, as they believe that any harm done to another - particularly harm done by magical means - will cause the Witch her/himself to suffer three times the harm in return.

So, the problem with Rowling's approach to magic is that it lacks this philosophical/spiritual background - true Witchcraft is a highly complex spiritual path which requires years of dedicated work & study to master - years in which those who only seek power & self aggrandisement will tend to drop out or learn better.

All this is a very roundabout way of saying that what Rowling is presenting in her books is neither Witchcraft nor Wizardry, & certainly not 'Satanism' - which is a horse of a very different colour. Looked at in this light, what certain 'Christian' groups are doing is less attempting to ban a fantasy but rather using a fantasy as a weapon to ban another religious tradition. Unfortunately, Rowling has aided them in this by deliberately refusing to give a spiritual tradition to support her Witches' & Wizards' practices. She has also, because of this, offered a very misleading idea of what Witchcraft actually is - principally, that it is both easy & self serving. From this point of view it is difficult to argue that her books may do harm - not to the children who read them, but to the followers of other spiritual traditions - Witches & Pagans in particular.

Having said that, most Witches & Pagans I've come across like the HP books - for the way Witches are presented in a positive light at least. Mind you, they have suffered from some very negative 'Christian' propaganda over the centuries.

Mithalwen

06-25-2005, 11:56 AM

"Her greatest 'sin' in this regard has been in not placing her 'magic-users' within a philosophical/religious tradition."

I have to say that this is dumping an awful lot on Rowling who never claims to be more than a storyteller. Having spent Wednesday evening watching "A Midsummer Night's Dream" I don't see that Shakespeare places his magic users in a tradition either so why not have a pop at him too? Magic has been a feature of many children's books - I remember enjoying a series of books as a child featuring a school for witches (The littlest witch?) - it was read out loud in class (quite possible by a teacher who was also the vicar's wife). I don't remember people getting their knickers in a twist about those. If Rowling has a sin it was to be so popular.....

Lalwendë

06-25-2005, 02:35 PM

It's interesting how many people have described Gandalf as being an 'angelic' figure. Of course, it's easy for us to say that, as we have access to a discussion board such as this, but casting my mind back to when I first encountered Gandalf, I saw him as nothing remotely like an angelic figure. Instead, he followed on from all the fairy tales I had been brought up on, and in my youthful mind, he was simply The Coolest Wizard Of All Time. He still retains something of that aura for me today, despite being able to intellectualise his role in Middle Earth and relate it to a greater cosmological idea.

So while we might argue, as rational adults (both old and young) that Gandalf's magic is theologically acceptable because he relates to an angelic figure, I wonder how many young readers 'get' this concept? His role is not so clear to a first time young reader, and neither is that of many other characters, which is why re-reading bears such fruit in terms of new understanding gained. In contrast I would argue that in HP the terms of the world in which he lives are made very clear.

In HP there are Wizards and Witches and there are Muggles, and Rowling makes it clear that the possibility of any ordinary child being other than a Muggle is remote. Children cannot become Wizards without going to Hogwarts or one of the other schools (and Hagrid is given as an example of one who was banned from practising), and they cannot go there unless they are invited. Nothing they do otherwise will make any difference. Under these kinds of rules I would say that the worst most children could do with the influence of the books would be to daydream that they would get a Hogwarts letter, much as I used to daydream that the fireside rug was really a magic carpet or that if I climbed the tree in the garden I would meet Moonface and the Saucepan Man. ;)

What I am getting at here is to wonder why some should find LotR acceptable for a child while HP is not? Do children themselves really pick up on anything we might see as 'deep'?

I don't really see that LotR is any less 'sinister' than HP or any other series of fantasy type fiction, certainly not in the eyes of the casual or young reader. So why is it more acceptable? I think it is that it is more established, while HP is a relatively new phenomenon, and this inevitably instills fear in grown-ups, possibly annoyed that their children keep clamouring for more HP products (not the sauce...). At the time LotR came out it was a more innocent world in many respects, with parents happy to leave their children alone with tales of goblins, elves, witches and pixies, and such tales have been told to children from the beginning of time. It seems that today many more people are seeking to protect children from such things when history does not really bear out their fears. If people are growing up and rejecting religion then it is down to other things than the sorts of tales that have always been told to children.

Lathriel

06-25-2005, 05:00 PM

I think it is a thing of today to make a big deal out of certain things.
Harry Potter is just a kid's book. That is why it doesn't have as much depth as LOTR. I don't think Rowling expected her books to become so popular nor to be taken so seriously.
I am certain that children can decide what is fact and what isn't. I remember that when I was a kid ( and that wasn't very long ago)I was able to see what was true and what wasn't. Of course there were times when I wished this world I had just read about in a book was true but I still knew it wasn't.
I never understood why there were adult versions of HP. It is such a kids book and it was definitly not meant for adults(Of course they can still read them) or meant for deep study.

littlemanpoet

06-25-2005, 05:47 PM

davem, you are directly contradicting things you said on three different threads I can think of: "What breaks the enchantment", "And Eru Smiled", and "Emblems of Religion don't belong in fantasy - or do they".

Do you hold with your most recent post, or with what you said earlier?

While she has presented her Witches & Wizards in a positive light, she is not actually presenting true Witches at all. As you said, it's a work of fantasy.

Her greatest 'sin' in this regard has been in not placing her 'magic-users' within a philosophical/religious tradition. Does religion now belong in fantasy?

Christians seek to ban the HP books. They are not trying to ban Witchcraft, because they have no real idea what Witchcraft actually is - they confuse/conflate it (often deliberately) with Satanism, & are seeking to 'ban' that. Basically, what drives them is a desire for control. No, this is to supply a psychological understanding to a basically theological issue. Christians of the Fundamentalist variety that you are lumping with the rest of us (ahem) see only Christianity versus Evil. Luke says that Jesus said "if you're not with me, you're against me." Therefore, since the CF's are convinced there is a spiritual war going on for the hearts and souls of humanity far and wide across the globe, they are called to do battle. Since they see all non-Christian faith as falsehood, they do not (and do not see the need to) distinguish between Wicca and Satanism. And all the defenses claimed by both groups as to what they are, or are not, means nothing to CFs. What you must understand about CFs is that they are convinced that they are the good guys, no matter how obvious it might be to you that they are evil.

The above is why they attack Harry Potter. They see only Christianity (as interpreted by themselves) versus the evil world. Harry Potter is an especially dark part of that world. Yes, it is a rather negative view, but it is logical within its own confines, as any closed system is (Islamic Fundamentalism has the same qualities).

The Saucepan Man

06-25-2005, 07:34 PM

Her greatest 'sin' in this regard has been in not placing her 'magic-users' within a philosophical/religious tradition.If that is a 'sin', then it is one which Rowling shares with countless others. From Hans Christian Anderson and the Brothers Grimm down to L Frank Baum, Enid Blyton, Roald Dahl and whoever created Chorlton and the Wheelies. Children's tales throughout the ages have included 'magic-users' without feeling the need to place them within any philosophical or religious tradition. I fail to see why Rowling should be singled out by Christian fundamentalists, Wiccans or anyone else for writing the same sort of tales that have been fascinating children throughout the ages.

littlemanpoet

06-25-2005, 08:51 PM

I fail to see why Rowling should be singled out by Christian fundamentalists, Wiccans or anyone else for writing the same sort of tales that have been fascinating children throughout the ages.

It may be just a matter of timing, from a historical perspective. You see, the strongly eschatological (end times) bent in Fundamentalist theology led them into a "separate from the world" kind of stance. Therefore they stayed out of that especially muddy thing called politics ... that is, until things got worse than they could stand, and people like Falwell spoke up and said "America is a great Christian Nation! We can't let the heathens take it over!" Thus was born the Moral Majority (which some assert was neither of the two words) and the Christian Fundamentalist jump into politics AND the culture wars, as they are called. Star Wars was one of their first media targets. They don't trust C.S. Lewis or Tolkien, but probably note that their fellow Christians who are NOT fundamentalist, hold those two in high esteem. Harry Potter, by contrast, is authored by a modern and a woman (perhaps I'm exaggerrating the CF viewpoint with that :p), and contains no Aslan or Eru. Prime target material for the culture wars. So, timing, I think, SPM.

davem

06-26-2005, 03:39 AM

davem, you are directly contradicting things you said on three different threads I can think of: "What breaks the enchantment", "And Eru Smiled", and "Emblems of Religion don't belong in fantasy - or do they".

Do you hold with your most recent post, or with what you said earlier?

As you said, it's a work of fantasy.

Does religion now belong in fantasy?

Probably am. But I think there's a difference between what Tolkien was doing & what Rowling is doing. Tolkien set his story in what is effectively another world - for all he suggested that it was this world in the ancient past. Rowling has deliberately tied the HP world to this one. HP lives in this world. No-one can go to Middle earth & become a Wizard - that world is gone forever. That is why we are so moved by the story.

Its because Rowling has linked the HP world so closely to this one that it is valid to make connections between the Witches in her book & the Witches in our own world. Rowling does not even seperate the 'magical' from the mundane worlds - as does Lewis. The worlds 'bleed' into one another - probably the reason for a lack of a spiritual/philosophical background, now I think about it. There is only this single 'reality', this one world. The HP universe exists totally 'within the circles of the world'. As such it is closer to a 'realistic novel' than the kind of fantasies produced by Tolkien & Lewis. Therefore, one can criticise the way the contemporary world is presented in HP, & the extent to which it is presented correctly. If a writer wishes to set his/her story in the contemporary world they should get their account of that world correct, just as a SF writer is expected to have a working knowledge of science & not get the basics wrong.

littlemanpoet

06-26-2005, 05:13 AM

davem

06-26-2005, 09:03 AM

Although the worlds bleed into one another, they are two different worlds. Rowling has created a transitional fantasy.

When magic affects our world, such as a massive quantity of letters from Hogwarts invading the home on Privet street, Rowling creates excitement and wonder.

When Harry steps into a house, a bus, or into a magical car, he has transitioned into the Hogwarts world. All the rules have changed. Magic no longer is affecting our world, magic is the way things are done. Even greater excitement and wonder, with the addition of mystery.

I can see this, but Harry can do magic in this world, so he is a wizard in both worlds. Hermoine is a called a Witch in this world. If she was called a 'scientist' in this world we would expect her abilities to conform to what we know of scientific theory & practice. I don't think that what Rowling has created is a classic 'transitional fantasy' - which, like the Narnia stories, involves the movement from one self contained world to another. The Thomas Covenant stories of Stephen Donaldson likewise have a movement from one world to another, but while Covenant can perform magic in The Land he cannot do so in this world. Yes, there is an element of the breaking in of the otherworld into this one, but that is a result of a 'doorway' opening for the central character to pass through. This is an interesting subject, & kind of echoes what happens to the Hobbits of the Shire when 'magical' events/beings - like Gandalf - enter into the Hobbits' world & draw them into the 'otherworld' of Middle earth. There is then a passage over a river to enter that world. The point of the story could be seen as an attempt to preserve the seperation of the worlds. The Ring is an otherworldly object, brought into 'our' world to prevent Sauron, the Dark Lord of the otherworld, getting his hands on it. When he discovers where it is he sends his forces through to regain it. The Ring has then to be taken back to its world - principally to destroy it, but also to keep the two worlds seperate. In HP the two worlds are basically one - the magic exsts in this world, but is hidden or covered up by the Ministry of Magic. So, not exactly a 'transitional fantasy'. Its not a case of two seperate, self contained,worlds co-existing

As to the philosophical/theological underpinnings, whereas I may sympathize with what you are suggesting, I think you're asking something of the work that it is not meant to give. What are the phil/theo underpinnings of Grimm's fairy tales? Of the Snergs stories? of Alice in Wonderland? et cetera.

I think my points actually cover this - the otherworld may have its own 'phil/theo underpinnings or it may not, but it is seperate from this one - which has its own rules. The stories you mention take place in the otherworld - humans visit them but they don't belong there - I'm reminded of the incident in Smith with the Birch tree. In HP there is, as I said, no 'transition' from one world to another, there is simply one world. The magic is of this world - its just that most people - muggles - can't do it.

littlemanpoet

06-26-2005, 12:59 PM

Another fantasy novel occurs to me in this connection: Neil Gaiman's American Gods; also his London subway novel, the name of which I forget. Those two novels also function the way Harry Potter does. Do they also abuse the way you suggest?

Anticipating the application of The Saucepan Man's question about "why Harry Potter, now", and not Neil Gaiman's, I'd say that it's an issue of popularity as well as timing.

It strikes me that more fantasy novels are going to be this "non-traditional" kind of "transitional fantasy", and I think this is because there has been a paradigm shift in the consciousness of modern readers as opposed to just 30 years ago, when Thomas Covenant was written, namely: Tolkien's thesis and wish for escape, consolation, and recovery, seems to have occurred to our society as a whole, in that many readers have recovered a sense of, and desire for, the fantastic; for wonder. One result of this is that magic (for lack of a better word) is understood and accepted as possible in our world, rather than having to go outside, or into space, or underground, to find it. The frame of mind seems to accept that the fantastic can happen here, and now, instead of beyond our borders. Far from being a problem or 'sin', I think that this is a fascinating development which allows for all kinds of new stories to be written, and I congratulate Rowling on her ability to tap into the desire that had been woken by Tolkien and others. Expect more stories like it. As I said before, each of these stories needs to be judged on its own merit as story. As soon as you have started critiquing it in terms of spiritual/philosophical underpinnings, or whatever this world standards, you have broken the enchantment, which is something many of us have a far better understanding of than we did a few short months ago. ;)

davem

06-26-2005, 01:25 PM

One result of this is that magic (for lack of a better word) is understood and accepted as possible in our world, rather than having to go outside, or into space, or underground, to find it. The frame of mind seems to accept that the fantastic can happen here, and now, instead of beyond our borders. Far from being a problem or 'sin', I think that this is a fascinating development which allows for all kinds of new stories to be written, and I congratulate Rowling on her ability to tap into the desire that had been woken by Tolkien and others. Expect more stories like it. As I said before, each of these stories needs to be judged on its own merit as story. As soon as you have started critiquing it in terms of spiritual/philosophical underpinnings, or whatever this world standards, you have broken the enchantment, which is something many of us have a far better understanding of than we did a few short months ago. ;)

Problem being - the magic originates within this world. It does not have an external source. There is nothing beyond the circles of the world. Neither is there any other place to go to after death - Harry's parents merely hang around as ghosts - inevitably, as there is nowhere for them to go. Also, nothing can 'break in' to this world. This world is a closed system. If people are to be 'saved' they must save themselves, there is no external,objective standard of Good (or evil).

Tolkien's 'escape' includes (as it must if it is to be a true escape) the escape from death - ie the escape from the circles of the World, to a place where there is 'more than memory'. In HP all there is after death is memory - ghosts. What writers like Rowling do is not make this world more 'magical' they simply make it odder & more chaotic. The 'magic' has no logic, no explanation. In a fairy story set in a secondary world this would not be a problem - it would be simply a 'given'. When it happens in this world it requires an explanation in terms of the 'rules' of this world - or at least an explanation of why this world's rules are incorrect.

littlemanpoet

06-26-2005, 01:29 PM

You are asking for more than the story is meant to give. If this is necessary for you in all your fantasy, I wish you luck in finding satisfying reading material.

davem

06-26-2005, 04:35 PM

You are asking for more than the story is meant to give. If this is necessary for you in all your fantasy, I wish you luck in finding satisfying reading material.

I'm not a big fan of fantasy per se, but I don't see why we can't expect products of the genre to be Art as well as entertaining. Do you think Rowling wasn't capable of that, or was it that she just couldn't be bothered?

littlemanpoet

06-26-2005, 05:59 PM

I'm not a big fan of fantasy per se, but I don't see why we can't expect products of the genre to be Art as well as entertaining. Do you think Rowling wasn't capable of that, or was it that she just couldn't be bothered?

I think Rowling was capable and achieved it, so the second part of your question does not obtain. It's not Tolkien calibre, but what is? Not every mineral in the ground can be diamonds, my friend.

The Saucepan Man

06-26-2005, 07:08 PM

Anticipating the application of The Saucepan Man's question about "why Harry Potter, now", and not Neil Gaiman's, I'd say that it's an issue of popularity as well as timing.I acknowledge of course that Rowling comes under particular scrutiny because of the current popularity of her works. As far as I am concerned, however, logic dictates that, if one is to criticise one body of work on the basis that it fails to meet certain criteria, then one should criticise all works that fail to meet the same criteria on the same basis. It is this lack of logicality in the approach of those who would seek to ban Rowling's works that I find unacceptable.

Davem - I find your distinction between tales set in "our world" and those set in an "other world" overly technical. Rowling's works are set in a world where wizards and witches live alongside muggles. That is a fantasy world, regardless of the familiarity of many of the surroundings. It is not real, any more than Oz, Narnia, Middle-earth or the world of the Brothers Grimm's tales are. The distinction between all of these worlds and the real world is a distinction which most young readers are perfectly capable of making. To the extent that they are not, then the failure lies in their upbringing, not in the authors of the books that they read.

This is why I find it both illogical and unacceptable that Rowling's works are singled out as being such a bad influence on young readers, when the multitude of other tales which similarly have no "theological underpinning" are not.

That said, I regard the lack of any "theological underpinning" as irrelevant, given that all of the tales that we are discussing here clearly have a strong moral underpinning. When one strips away the superficial devices of magic and wizardry, the messages that they are giving to their readers are good ones. I fail to see a problem.

Lathriel

06-27-2005, 10:04 AM

Some of those adults who want HP banned probably don't realize that the kids themselves are capable of making their own desicions about what is fantasy and what isn't. They think that when young kids read it they will believe every word. I think these people are just too overprotective and don't give their children some space to make their own choices on such matters.

lmp you might be right about the transitional fantasy books. I have already seen so many HP clones.

I myself don't always like "transitional fantasy". I think it can quickly become cheesy or the main character from our world is all questions throughout the book, thus there is no real chance for character development. When I do read "transitional fantasy" I really read several pages of the book and flip through it etc. for if it is well done it is very neat.

Overall I think people are making too big of a deal about HP. It is just a childrens book and not meant to be taken seriously. I would be much more concerned if I found my child flipping through a book in the Erotica section. (The saction has lately been popping up in Chapters and I always quickly walk past it)

littlemanpoet

06-28-2005, 04:02 AM

... logic dictates that, if one is to criticise one body of work on the basis that it fails to meet certain criteria, then one should criticise all works that fail to meet the same criteria on the same basis. It is this lack of logicality in the approach of those who would seek to ban Rowling's works that I find unacceptable.

Quite. However, we are dealing with a branch of Fundamentalism here. And as with Islamic, Christian Fundamentalism has its own logic which has its bases in fear, a sense of dis-empowerment, and the adulation and adherence to a charismatic leader who speaks what their hearts secretly believe and promises what they desire. Thus they follow a Falwell or bin Laden, preferring clear leadership to logic. (Funny, it just occurred to me that Hitler fits this definition too - so Nazism was a kind of Germanic Fundamentalism.)

Obviously unacceptable, but maybe more understandable. Of course, you probably understand already.

Kath

06-28-2005, 04:18 AM

Quite. However, we are dealing with a branch of Fundamentalism here. And as with Islamic, Christian Fundamentalism has its own logic which has its bases in fear, a sense of dis-empowerment, and the adulation and adherence to a charismatic leader who speaks what their hearts secretly believe and promises what they desire.

This made me think that perhaps the fear in these circles about HP may be due to the internal message of the book. Voldemort is this charismatic leader who makes promises to his followers that they will be richly rewarded, and anyone who stands against him does so in fear. Possibly Fundamentalists fear that people will draw parallels between the way of life that they follow and the occurrences in the book. There have been some posts on this thread that say Fundamentalists are, if not stupid then at least unable to see that there is a distinction here, maybe they cannot see this distinction as it is similar to their religion.

Of course this occurs in LotR as well so there is the major flaw in my theory!

Feanor of the Peredhil

06-28-2005, 01:38 PM

Since it's taken me this long to discover this fascinating thread, I've got a long post addressing many comments. Here goes:

In Rowling's world magic is of this kind - people are not born with natural abilities that may appear to the Sams of this world as 'magic'. They study & practice to gain powers they would not have had otherwise
Not exactly, davem. Just like in Tam Pierce's land of Tortall, where some people are born with the Gift, Rowling's wizards are either born with or without magic (remember Squibs and Muggle-borns). The point of the school is not to teach them evil magic and that sort of thing, it's to teach them to develop the powers they were born with. A safe haven for them, much like Xavier's school for gifted youngsters in X-Men.

No concentration or manipulation of the individuals mind, energy etc..., just a parody version of 'magic'.
Actually, lindil, you're wrong. Upon the introduction of Professor Snape, he says "There will be no foolish wand-waving", among other things, saying that Potions class is far more subtle. Also, the study of Occlumency, which is shielding your mind against attack (Leglimency). Harry refers to Leglimency as "mind-reading" and once again, Snape brings the point of subtlety and how the mind is many-layered and cannot be read as a book, but can still be observed and prodded.

HP is for all practical purposes arguably neck and neck on the first 2 levels, but so far leaves one completely w/out direction as to any afterlife, revelation of purpose, destiny etc.
Hey, hey! What about those ghosts floating around? Nearly Headless Nick tells Harry in Book 5 that the reason Sirius won't come back in ghost form is because his life was complete and he was not afraid to continue on to what came next. Nick was still hanging out because he was afraid to face the unknown and so chose a poor imitation of life. Harry seeing his parents in Book 4 was a fluke, but they came back sort of in angel form to give guidance and love to their kid who was about to die. Also, Dumbledore's words on Flamel: "To the well organized mind, death is but the next great adventure." There is mention everywhere of life not being the end. Just no mention of what the end actually is. Which mirrors LotR and the Silm in that Men die, but nobody knows what happens after.

I mean I don't believe magic works but if it did it would be immoral to use it.
Quite frankly, Mith, I have to disagree with you. I don't believe in magic (a lot of superstitious hocus-pocus, as far as I'm concerned, much like ghosts) in the way of chanting a spell and getting results, or that sort of thing. But if it did exist... is it not worse to ignore a gift, than to use it for a good purpose? Although, really, I just sounded like Boromir in regards to the Ring.

The only magic I see is what lies before me on a regular basis. The love between parent and child. Budding flowers and newly opened leaves. A fresh layer of snow glimmering in the early morning light. What's more magical than the beauty of existence? Onward...

Magic is a neutral power & only its use determines whether it is good or evil.
You got it, dave. Magic is not good or evil in and of itself, it is a tool to be used. Unlike the Ring which was made for evil uses and so became evil by default, magic is an ability, like physical strength, or skills with debate. It is entirely up to the individual to make the choice whether to use it for good or evil.

but then, who decides what a 'good' or 'bad' use of magic is? Where/what is the yardstick?
It's pretty easy. Bad magic hurts people (like Voldemort trying to purify the world by killing off half-bloods and Muggles, or like Umbridge's quill). Good magic helps people (like Lily dying to save Harry, or Hagrid helping his veggies grow).

If we start to think that all works which include witches, wizards, elves and suchlike must have a theological structure then where does it stop? Do we ban all fairy tales and nursery rhymes? The world would be so boring and colourless without them.
*shudder* A world with no art? What would be the point of living? Although I suppose some truly *insert words* people could say that since art is only imitation of what God has already made, then art is evil in and of itself and should also be banned. I'll admit that I've heard such ideas of modern art, but since the idea was tied to the Nazi party...

I'm using LOTR and DC comics.
Hey alatar, do you come in clones? One about 18, not nearly ready for kids yet, but maybe eventually, and available at a location near me? ;) :p

Dumbledore is a magician and little else. Gandalf is angelic in every way, looks aside.
Dumbledore is a good man, and a good role model. I'll even venture to say that he's a heck of a lot more accessable to children than a grouchy old angel. He's the grandpa we all wish we had; there to teach us the difference between good and evil, to protect us as much as he can, and to smile a lot and enjoy the fun things in life (like ten-pin bowling and chamber music). Gandalf, though a good role model if you're interested in subtle leadership, religious connotations, explosives, and short tempers, is harder for kids to understand than the benevolant head of the school.

There is no "magic" in revelation. The only thing that comes remotely close is the power of God, His angels and His wrath, and the power of Satan and his demons.
Which, to many, is magic in and of itself.

In the HP books the individual magician/scientist is entirely capable to the task of conquering evil without the aid of any larger beneficent force in the universe guiding him along. This stance is essentially anti-religious.
Sure it is. But that doesn't make it wrong. It just makes it entirely unreligious. See, the trouble with religious folks is that they automatically assume that if their religion is "right", then every other way of thinking is "wrong". Why not stick with plain old faith (personal relationship with God, as it's been defined) and spirituality and go with a nice moral lifestyle, trying to help others, trying to make the world a better place; without condemning people, or books?

I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with holding a few traditions, when those traditions divert from scripture and start to take centre stage, then I tend to get a little nervous and sometimes objective because of what the Bible says.
What scares me more is that people take books written by men as supreme truth. Men are fallible, with the possible exception of the Pope, who, of course, never makes mistakes.

Another thing about Harry Potter... any kid who sits down with a book that's got a brightly coloured dust jacket depicting a cartoon kid with a wooden stick and actually believes that this book is "real" has some seriously negligent parents.

And boy do I have a crazy feeling some of you lot would hate Lamb: the Gospel According to Biff. That book is just plain hilarious but if you're easily offended, avoid it like the plague. It spends a few hundred pages making fun of Jesus in a well-written sort of way, and yet a story that involves flying broomsticks and house-elves with a penchant for socks and knit hats is more of a threat to Christianity and the eternal salvation of the soul. :rolleyes:

littlemanpoet

06-28-2005, 02:29 PM

This made me think that perhaps the fear in these circles about HP may be due to the internal message of the book. Voldemort is this charismatic leader who makes promises to his followers that they will be richly rewarded, and anyone who stands against him does so in fear. Possibly Fundamentalists fear that people will draw parallels between the way of life that they follow and the occurrences in the book. There have been some posts on this thread that say Fundamentalists are, if not stupid then at least unable to see that there is a distinction here, maybe they cannot see this distinction as it is similar to their religion.

Well, my sense is that Fundamentalists would be scandalized by the association you have made, and say something like, "But we're nothing like them! We're doing God's will, not Satan's!" Of course, if you tried to explain to them that breeding hate and fear are an evil that they are guilty of, they would then answer that it is right to hate and fear evil, and it's only the power of Jesus that can overcome it (that last part is something I do not deny, but there is much that I understand differently than my fundamentalist <ahem> brethren such that my belief in that final phrase leads me toward attempts at reconciliation and justice rather than censorship).

Orominuialwen

06-28-2005, 04:31 PM

Men are fallible, with the possible exception of the Pope, who, of course, never makes mistakes. But that's not what the Catholic Church teaches. The Pope, as an individual, is fallible, but the Church as a whole is not. Just wanted to clear that up.

Feanor of the Peredhil

06-28-2005, 08:14 PM

But that's not what the Catholic Church teaches. The Pope, as an individual, is fallible, but the Church as a whole is not. Just wanted to clear that up.
Ah, sorry. So the Church's platform of noninvolvement during the Holocaust can be construed as not being a mistake? The Inquisition was loads of fun as well.

My point, tongue in cheek though it was, is that the Church has been wrong before, so who's to say the Fundementalists who are trying to say that fantasy stories are wrong... aren't wrong also?

Not that I'm saying it's the Catholic Church that is behind book banning as we speak of it, but that churches in general have been wrong in the past and people should not forget it.

littlemanpoet

06-29-2005, 04:01 AM

So the Church's platform of noninvolvement during the Holocaust can be construed as not being a mistake?

Feanor, your'e being just a tad offensive in regard to the Catholic church, which is beloved those who belong to it (which doesn't happen to include me). This is not Gaurhoth.

The "papal infallibility" doctrine is very specific and circumscribed, such that only a specific kind of pronouncement from the papal see is considered to be infallible. I don't happen to accept the doctrine myself, but that's an aside.

Nevertheless, the point you're trying to make about churches not always being right, is apt.

Lalwendë

06-29-2005, 06:20 AM

I've been thinking about Harry Potter (as you do ;) ) and I would suggest it's not a transitional fantasy at all, it is set in our world. So is it fantasy? It is entirely based in the real world where there is a shadowy existence of wizards, witches and fabulous creatures which we as Muggles cannot see. All this is being kept hidden from us by the Ministry of Magic who interestingly co-operate with real world Government including our Prime Minister - as seen when Sirius Black escaped.

The activities of the wizarding community are kept hidden, there is even a Misuse of Muggle Artifacts Department which covers up misdemeanours of experimenting wizards like Mr Weasley, who indeed faced discipline at work because of his own activities. There is even the Office of Misinformation which comes up with lies to tell Muggles when they have seen a magical creature; these are then passed on via the real world civil service.

This is more akin to The X Files which portrays a hidden, shadowy aspect of society where strange creatures, aliens and 'men in black' operate. This is all going on under our very noses too, kept hidden by the powers that be. I for one liked to speculate on the possibility that things portrayed in The X Files might be 'real', as it invited us to do so, playing on our paranoia. The difference with Harry Potter lies in that we are all brought up with fairy tales and are eventually told or discover for ourselves that there is 'no such thing' as a wizard like Dumbledore, nor are there unicorns or three headed dogs. The same thing is not said of shadowy government agents and secret experiments.

So I'd venture to say that Harry Potter isn't dangerous in any way, as we all eventually (and possibly sadly :( ) learn that the magical good/evil world of fairy tales doesn't exist in our own world. Whether it exists in another world or form is a different matter entirely. Possibly the most serious danger arising from Harry Potter is that children might want to follow in his footsteps in the form of his career ambitions. He wants to join the Ministry of Magic and become an Auror. Maybe hordes of young people brought up on Harry Potter will take a sudden interest in joining the Civil Service? ;)

Feanor of the Peredhil

06-29-2005, 06:45 AM

Feanor, your'e being just a tad offensive in regard to the Catholic church, which is beloved those who belong to it (which doesn't happen to include me). This is not Gaurhoth.

Nevertheless, the point you're trying to make about churches not always being right, is apt.
Many apologies to any I've offended. I did not mean to be directly so. Or really, indirectly. I could have made the simple "What about the Salem witch trials?" comment, but it's been over-done so many times that people might begin to plug their ears to it, so to speak, and not notice my point.

It is entirely based in the real world where there is a shadowy existence of wizards, witches and fabulous creatures which we as Muggles cannot see.
Parallel universe, Lal?

Bêthberry

06-29-2005, 07:01 AM

I'm sure all of you can imagine my very great disappointment when I discovered, after having left King's Cross station last August (in the midst of a fire alarm in the Tube station below) that there is indeed a platform nine and three quarters at King's Cross, with directions for us tourists to find it. Clearly, that fire alarm was a conspiracy. I really don't feel, having been pushed out into London, that I was saved from a greater evil. ;)

Of course, there were many signs concerning Middle earth about Oxford.

Legolas

06-30-2005, 08:50 PM

Please leave out your personal opinions and social commentary on religions, countries, etc. out of this forum and focus on the original topic, else this thread will not be open much longer.

I had also just been reading Harry Potter and remembered that when it came out, and now, it had been banned in many churches and church schools because it was condoning witchcraft and other things that went against church teachings.

I was just wondering whether The Lord of the Rings received this type of response when it was published, as it contains many of the same elements (think Dementors/Nazgul and so on, you can do it for most of the book).

alatar

07-14-2005, 11:41 AM

Along with the release of the new Potter book there is this (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162516,00.html), which of course would be as expected.

"We just have to generate some news somehow...hmmm, maybe still up and old controversy or two?"

littlemanpoet

07-14-2005, 02:44 PM

Based on the article, which doesn't exactly say enough, it would seem that Ratzinger's concerns about Harry Potter would obtain equally to LotR. Given that, I disagree with him about both.

Blur good and evil? How? I haven't seen that in any of the novels. Fantasy tends to accentuate the differences between good and evil .... that is, unless you have a skewed sense of evil because your beliefs are tinged somehow with fundamentalism, which means you're sure that you're right. At least the pope prefers to fight with a pen instead of bombs.

Kath

07-14-2005, 03:29 PM

the Potter novels blur the boundaries between good and evil and impair young readers' ability to distinguish between the two

Erm, no. If anything they have incredibly obvious divisons between good and evil and help young children to distinguish the two. But I think this has been said and argued with before.

Lathriel

07-16-2005, 05:21 PM

I actually picked up the Harry Potter book yesterday at Chapters at 12:00. My friend had pre-ordered the book so I decided to pick it up at 12:00 and take a look at all the Harry Potter freaks etc. (Don't mean freaks in a bad way)

Kath

07-17-2005, 05:47 AM

Maybe that's part of why the books generated such a response. For them to be so popular that thousands of people will willingly sit outside a bookstore til midnight just to be the first ones to get and read the books does speak of an obsession that we will never have a chance to see with LotR. I don't believe that LotR was popular enough when released to warrant this kind of attention so there would be less of a reason for people to feel threatened by it.

Nilpaurion Felagund

07-20-2005, 11:09 PM

People (even those who believe in a loving God) find it easier to hate than to love.

alatar

07-21-2005, 08:09 AM

Or is it that the Christian scriptures state that one should not dabble in witchcraft/sorcery (Deuteronomy 18:9-11, Galatians 5:19-21, Leviticus 19:31, Leviticus 20:6 ) and the oft quoted verse regarding permitting witches/sorcerers to live (Exodus 22:18 and similarly Leviticus 20:27).

Is it that Christians fear that their children will somehow turn to witchcraft, being influenced by the Potter books, and though no one would stone witches today, these children would have gone over to the dark side, and be an affront to the Christian God?

littlemanpoet

07-21-2005, 09:08 AM

Hookbill the Goomba

07-21-2005, 09:27 AM

Is it that Christians fear that their children will somehow turn to witchcraft, being influenced by the Potter books, and though no one would stone witches today, these children would have gone over to the dark side, and be an affront to the Christian God?

The fear is more for the fact that they will go to Hell. People anger God, rather than offend him, with any kind of Sin. And no one who sins can enter heaven, as shown in 1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 10:

9Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

But even if all these sins have been committed, grace is still granted. Christianity is not about following rules, because no one can possibly follow them all. And besides, breaking one commandment is as bad as breaking them all. To follow Christ is to be forgiven, not someone who follows a load of rules to the letter. That doesn’t mean we can still go out and sin. If you are a true Christian, you won't want to, because it angers God.

Besides, there is blasphemy all over the place these days, and no one seems to care. If you insult any other deity, you are thrown in prison or something (perhaps not so extreme, but you see what I’m getting at), but it’s some how okay to insult (for lack of a better term) the Christian God. I hear people saying "Oh my G**" and shouting Jesus' name as a curse. This is all blasphemy and that is an insult to God. Sin, angers him. Witchcraft is a Sin. It angers God.

alatar

07-21-2005, 12:56 PM

But even if all these sins have been committed, grace is still granted. Christianity is not about following rules, because no one can possibly follow them all. And besides, breaking one commandment is as bad as breaking them all. To follow Christ is to be forgiven, not someone who follows a load of rules to the letter. That doesn’t mean we can still go out and sin. If you are a true Christian, you won't want to, because it angers God.

So what then exactly is the issue with the Potter series? As I understand it, the books may promote interest in witchcraft and may also blur the lines between good and evil. If all of this can be forgiven (that is, even if one were to become a witch then recant), then why the outrage?

Aren't Christians (I use them as an example as I am more familiar with this religion and group) supposed to "be in the world yet not of the world?" To me this means that Harry Potter and ilk could be used as a way to evangelize, as seemingly there are many people who have read the books. I know that LOTR has been and is used in this manner too.

Thoughts?

Hookbill the Goomba

07-21-2005, 01:00 PM

So what then exactly is the issue with the Potter series? As I understand it, the books may promote interest in witchcraft and may also blur the lines between good and evil. If all of this can be forgiven (that is, even if one were to become a witch then recant), then why the outrage?

How would you feel about a series that promoted rape and murder as something good and fun for kids?

alatar

07-21-2005, 01:27 PM

How would you feel about a series that promoted rape and murder as something good and fun for kids?

Is that how you see it? I've not read the books, and so did not see it as something that extremely felt. There are many dangers out there, and as a parent I think that it's my job to screen what my children will read, view, etc. However, one day I won't 'be there' to guide them, and they will have to make a selection/choice using their own wits. Hopefully I will show them by guidance and by example that some choices are unhealthy.

But I'm not sure that by 'banning' these books in my household (my kids aren't at the reading age yet, and so this is hypothetical) is doing my children a service. Would it not be better to read them together and show my children that, although Harry is a witch (or whatever he is), he (in my worldview) is just a fantasy person and that the world does not work thus.

I mean no disrespect, but there are parts of the Christian Old Testament that I would not want my children reading until they were older.

My children own the first movie and have watched it a few times. I don't know the difference between the books and the movie, but the movie has made no impact in regards to my children and increased interest in witchcraft. LOTR has, however, produced an interest in swordplay (but that is most likely my doing).

Anyway, my point (if there in one in this post) is that there is a lot worse out there, and if we teach our children to be discerning, along with guiding them and helping them to mature, then we would be doing a greater service to them than by just seeking to get HP banned, as there will always be something else on the horizon that will require banning.

Note that if this 'discussion' should be moved to PM, that would be fine.

Cheers.

Kath

07-21-2005, 01:59 PM

How would you feel about a series that promoted rape and murder as something good and fun for kids?

Where on earth do you find that in Harry Potter! Any murdering is done by the baddies in the book and as such it is shown as being repellent. And I don't remember anything about rape in it.

Lalwendë

07-21-2005, 02:06 PM

Hookbill the Goomba

07-21-2005, 02:07 PM

I was giving an extreme example. :p I did not say that it was actually in Harry Potter, but its the same thing in God's eyes.

alatar

07-21-2005, 02:15 PM

I had a response all typed up but really all I want to ask is why are we all getting so worked up about the vague possibility that a story might, just possibly, maybe, at an outside chance, lead someone into 'witchcraft'? Do people even know what 'witchcraft' is?

Thanks Lalwendë. Those are points that if I have not made, then I would like to make them. There is much worse out there, and I would assume that those children that go awry were influenced by much more than just a book or a series of books. Children model more of what they see than what they read etc.

And there are many groups, Christians included, that have misconception about others' beliefs, whether they are of other demoninations with a religion or other world religions/belief systems, such as 'witchcraft' or Wicca.

Feanor of the Peredhil

07-21-2005, 02:56 PM

And there are many groups, Christians included, that have misconception about others' beliefs, whether they are of other denominations with a religion or other world religions/belief systems, such as 'witchcraft' or Wicca.
Cheers, alatar.

Now I'm going to paraphrase an author that I really liked but whose name has escaped me. He wrote "Lamb: the Gospel According to Biff" which is a terribly funny and extremely irreverant portrayal of the Christ's teenage years. What he says in the end is that if reading a book makes you question your faith, than your faith wasn't strong enough to begin with. That's my words for adults, now here's children.

I know kids are impressionable, but if, as a parent, you take part in what your kids are reading/experiencing, and guide them a bit with discussions on why witchcraft should not be tried in our world, but that in a book, it's part of the story, and that sort of thing, it should not be a problem.

To use an example, I'm nearly 18. I still discuss a lot of what I'm reading with my parents, especially if it's odd or in some way disconcerting. Reading Huxley's Brave New World, I talked to my parents and brothers about how eugenics and the way people are created for a purpose can tie in to God creating individuals for a purpose (my brothers are not remotely religous, but my dad's Catholic and my mom Methodist). Good and evil are discussed using Harry Potter (I was upset at the end of Six, but I'll save it for when more people have actually read Half-Blood Prince and I'm not spoiling it) and the LotR.

Even though I'm not a kid any more, my parents still play an active role in my life. Duh, I wouldn't want it any other way. But my point is, parental involvement really keeps kids, not to sound all cold and cynical but, molded to the way you want them.

And here's another paraphrasing (this one from Tamora Pierce): Only those who want to be corrupted will become so. If your kids are going to be swayed into doing some weird "stuff", than there must have been something up to begin with. It's just like the prejudice against certain video games. Inanimate objects do not force kids to do things. They are simply there.

Nilpaurion Felagund

07-21-2005, 07:33 PM

It's easier to see that people walking between Mordor and Gondor are either soldiers of the Black Tower or of the White.

It's easier to attire yourself in the livery of the White Tower and say, "Destroy the soldiers of the Black Tower!"

However, we Christians--yes, I'm referring to all of you there, even the one who wrote that article--are called to love first and foremost. However unpalatable the concept, we're supposed to love Saddam Hussein. We're supposed to love that kid hooked on drugs, even his dealer. We're supposed to love the one who just got an abortion, even the doctor who did it. We're supposed to love those who dabble in (detestable, yes) witchcraft, and even those who are remotely interested in it. Why? Read your Romans 5:8. That's why.

Instead of doing that, we are content to stay in our Minas Tirith, and say to other people, "If you do not fall under the rule of Denethor, you are not with us."

Post-traumatic possum. I think I just confused people with my switches between LR quasi-quotes and real-world stuff. Sorry.

Encaitare

07-21-2005, 10:31 PM

This whole thing has gotten really off topic, and the idea of the condemnation of entire groups of so-called "unrighteous" people makes me feel very uncomfortable.

littlemanpoet

07-22-2005, 09:54 AM

Perhaps the whole issue is not one of Christians versus witchcraft. Alatar makes a good point about "in but not of the world". You see, it seems to me that there is a psychological piece to this issue as well as the religious/faith issue: there are people who are given to fear, and there are people who have wrestled with their fear and have become courageous. I'm trying to make the transition myself. Anyway, there are a lot of Christians who are given to fear, and they need - yes, need - objects for their ready fear. Harry Potter is simply one of the chosen objects. There are also a lot of Muslims who are given to fear, and they cry out against the Great Satan in the West, by which they usually mean the USA. But there are also courageous Christians and Muslims - and wiccans, no doubt - who have moved past fear to understanding; these people do see themselves as part of a community and try to build others up. When there is real Evil afoot, aka actual bombings and murders, etc., the fearful and the courageous tend to forget their differences and band together to deal with the real threat in their midst.

All of which is to say, I really think this is not a Christians versus witchcraft issue.

Nilpaurion Felagund

07-23-2005, 10:42 AM

If people who denounce LR (and Harry Potter) stand back for a while and see if what they're doing is helping them or not, I think the outrage would stop.

C'mon, people! We're supposed to be letting morality flow from within, instead of attempting to enforce morality at large! It never works, anyway--see the Inquisition and Calvin's Geneva. And Communist Russia, for that matter.

And as for the Professor being a "hellbound Roman Catholic"--ha! Double ha! This guy understands my faith better than I do (but I'm trying to change this now, of course). If people took the time to know their "enemy"--instead of attacking it outright (and foolishly, I might add)--they might realise they're not really up against an enemy. Then, the outrage might stop.

But this wouldn't happen. As I have said, people will find it easier to hate than to love. :(

davem

08-01-2005, 10:47 AM

Just found a discussion on the Pope's comments re HP on the Second Spring (http://p203.ezboard.com/fsecondspringfrm10) website. This is from Professor Ted Sherman's post:

Rowling is a more sophisticated and complex author than many literary folks give her credit for. She does write "addictive" page-turners, as Francesca called them, but they are more than that, especially with each successive novel. She is creating a universe that is internally consistent (as Tolkien did), but that is also closely related to our own world. She's doing this for at least a couple reasons: she's writing a fairy-tale (or a series of fairy-tales if you want to look at each story independently) and all fairy-tales are ultimately about our world, the world we inhabit with all its problems. Remember, it was Tolkien who said (and I quoted this in my talk last summer--which was about Tolkien's "On Fairy-Stories" essay and Harry Potter) that "creative fantasy is founded upon the hard recognition that things are so in the world as they appear under the sun; upon a recognition of fact, but not slavery to it" ("On Fairy-Stories"). I don't know whether Rowling is familiar with the essay; but her fairy-tale is just as founded upon the hard recognition of fact as any modern, realistic novel. She is first and foremost telling a story, but her story does have a point, and part (at least) of that point is how does one behave and engage in the ongoing battle between good and evil? And the answer she continually shows Harry coming to is that one engages evil on a very personal level, and that the only way to combat evil is to do it oneself. One cannot wait for others to solve the problem, to defeat Voldemort, to report the suspicious package at the tube/train station, etc. As is attested to Burke (which I also quoted last summer), evil thrives when good men do nothing. Lord Voldemort returns in Book 4 and thrives in Books 5 and 6 precisely because the wizarding community turned its back on Harry and Dumbledore who were telling them the truth about Voldemort's return. And as Harry sees, and others in the larger tale only gradually learn and accept, it is up to each of them to decide whether or not to stand in the way of evil. We saw at the conclusion of Bk 4 what happens when an innocent got in Voldemort's way--he was killed.

Rowling's larger story is a parable or fairy-tale of spiritual warfare. As a parable or fairy-tale it can be read on at least two levels, the superficial (literal) level of rollicking good story, and the deeper (analogical) level of spiritual enlightenment. At this deeper level, we see a boy with no spiritual understanding or development when we first meet him develop (by the end of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix) into someone who now ponders the mysteries of life--and death. Indeed, it is the death of his godfather that awakens in him the desire to know what happens to people when they die. And it is through the "loony" Luna Lovegood (notice that surname!) that Harry is reminded about the voices he heard "beyond the veil" (a _very_ biblical metaphor and image there) and taught that he will see Sirius, and indeed his entire family, once again. The name Rowling gives to Luna suggests, I believe, the foolishness of God--she is taken for a fool by most of the students, but only because she is different, she believes things they don't, and she sees and understands things they don't. She is akin to the medieval fool who was commonly thought "touched by God." She is an analogue to many "holy fools" or "fools for Christ."

solarisa

08-01-2005, 11:52 AM

i doubt it. my opinion is lotr isn't...witchcraft...for example, sauron, he blackens nature, while galadriel tends it, and nature flourishes... i dunno, hp is about wands, and things against church. but our church doesn't ban it, on the contrary alot of my church friends are not fans, but avid readers. apart from the wands, etc. the story and morals inside is down to earth and a good read.

*i recommend hp! :D

**plus since churches havent banned lotr yet it's wasn't too big a problem, right??

HerenIstarion

08-02-2005, 02:35 AM

Problem being - the magic originates within this world. It does not have an external source. There is nothing beyond the circles of the world. Neither is there any other place to go to after death - Harry's parents merely hang around as ghosts - inevitably, as there is nowhere for them to go. Also, nothing can 'break in' to this world. This world is a closed system. If people are to be 'saved' they must save themselves, there is no external,objective standard of Good (or evil).

I'm bound to turn off 'banning books' course, and stray from Tolkien up to and extent, but I have a minor bone to pick here.

The attitude towards death as the worst that can happen is Voldemort's position, and is shared by characters who do not yet know better. Though 'dementor's kiss' be a huge mistake on Rowling's part, unless, of course. she distinguishes soul from spirit and soul is supposed to mean the psychological image of the person, or midset that is being lost when dementor kisses one. (the distinction is never made clear, or not made clear yet, hope to see something in books to follow)

But Dumbledore, up to and including volume 5 (I haven't got to 6th yet, there may be more interesting things to come there, I'll come back later with them) constantly hints about death as being not the worst that can ever happen.
Dumbledore tells Ron and Harry by the end of Book I:

After all, to the well-organized mind, death is but the next great adventure. You know, the Stone was really not such a wonderful thing. As much money and life as you could want! The two things most human beings would choose above all -- the trouble is, humans do have a knack of choosing precisely those things that are worst for them

It is Ron and Harry's flaw not to follow suit:

So the Stone's gone?" said Ron finally. "Flamel's just going to die?"
"That's what I said, but Dumbledore thinks that -- what was it? -- 'to the well-organized mind, death is but the next great adventure.
"I always said he was off his rocker," said Ron, looking quite impressed at how crazy his hero was.

It is Ron's and Harry's lack of understadning, not Rowling's (which seems to me siding with Dumbledore):

'But there can't be anything worse than the Avada Kedavra Curse, can there?' said Ron. What's worse than death?'
'Maybe it's something that can kill loads of people at once,' suggested George.
'Maybe it's some particularly painful way of killing people,' said Ron fearfully

Hint by opposite, the whole conversation seemed to me. The dialogue certainly has a taint of implying these kids do not know all there is to know, and therefore, death is not the worst, extending the logical chain to indicate death is not that bad, by and large

In book 5, when Dumbledore directly opposes Voldemort in the ministry, such and intercourse occurs:

There is nothing worse than death, Dumbledore!' snarled Voldemort.
You are quite wrong,' said Dumbledore, still closing in upon Voldemort and speaking as lightly as though they were discussing the matter over drinks

And, finally, there is a hint that there is something beyond the world, and the evaluative shade the conversation again bears indicates that it is good to get there. I refer to Harry's hope that his dead godfather Sirius may have stayed with him as a ghost, as he inquires Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, or Nearly Headless NIck, Gryffindor's resident ghost, if Nick have seen Sirius:

He will not come back,' repeated Nick. `He will have… gone on.'
`What d'you mean, "gone on"?' said Harry quickly `Gone on where? Listen - what happens when you die, anyway? Where do you go? Why doesn't everyone come back? Why isn't this place full of ghosts? Why -?T
'I cannot answer,' said Nick.
`You're dead, aren't you?' said Harry exasperatedly. `Who can answer better than you?'
'I was afraid of death,' said Nick softly. `I chose to remain behind. I sometimes wonder whether I oughtn't to have… well, that is neither here nor there… in fact, I am neither here nor there…' He gave a small sad chuckle. `I know nothing of the secrets of death, Harry, for I chose my feeble imitation of life instead

I suppose all this must have found further development in Book VI, as I've said, I'll get back.

C'mon, get off it, I myself thought there was nothing worse than death when I was fifteen!

But any time Dumbledore and Harry are paired over the subject, they are almost Gandalf/Frodo-like figures, one wiser instructing the younger one in order for the latter to get the correct view of the world. It is not in an instant that Frodo comes to share Gandalf's opinion, is it? Same with Harry/Dumbledore.

And as for 'magic originates within the world' issue, just as good it does so. Otherwise, the 'book banners' would indeed have had grounds to have some grudge against Harry Potter series. To quote myself from Acceptance of Mythology (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=6078) thread:

As a piece of literature, it is somehow closed on itself, therefore, inside its boundaries, one must rely on what is stated in it. Now, it is not said in it that all witches of HP performed some rites to draw their power from Enemy

On the other hand, what is said in it, and as far as the HP story goes is never unsaid, the magical powers of non-muggles in HP are not supernatural to the extent that those are not drawn outside of nature, but are something people are born with, as natural good sight, or musical talent. There is no free will involved in becoming a wizard for Harry Potter, he is natural born one. As this is concept, than common principles come in. As one can use his/her cleverness to good or bad ends, so one can use one's magical abilities.

People you looked up in a dictionary were quite ordinary men and women, who became sorceres and witches as a consequence of act of choosing

Which moves HP magic onto the same plane as ME one is - natural gift of Creator, used, according to choices performed with the free will, to be in accordance with His will or to disobey him

And further note - I won't return to this here topic unless I read book VI, as I'm afraid someone must have read it already and may spoil my fun quoting some more samples :D

Turgon Philip Noldor

08-02-2005, 06:06 AM

I can't answer this question, not really at least. There is a difference between the LOTR and the Harry Potter. Harry Potter seems to make direct use of Witch Craft, and the Author makes it out to be a good thing. LOTR is deferent, J. R. R. Tolkien has magic in his book, but the book does not dwell around magic. I don't know enough about Harry Potter to say more then that, but I hope that helped the conversation if only a little bit.

Elu Ancalime

01-28-2006, 09:10 PM

I think its a bit silly, banning books from school and public libraries. Religous places (churches, synagoges, mosques, etc) I guess have their own rules, since it is religon, but i think the main problem is that some kids get really into it, and play around like they're wizards battling monsters and read HP all the time. Then they get carried away and such.... But its usually either little kids who dont know any better and adults dont want any impression on them, or really (please excuse this term, at least here me out) honest-to-goodness-nerds that formulate their own Muggle religion and what not. Have I personally met someone like this? No, but I assure you there are. Sure, I think it would be really (mark me, really) cool to stop time and spend a year in Middle-Earth in the Fellowship or something. But I cant do that, so I have real things in my life....But anyway, the problem is when someone dosnt know when to take a break or a reality check or something. I admit, that after I 'discovered' Tolkien for about two or three years, i was in a sort of DIL-IM-A. (sp :D ) I read through all the Lost Tales, HoME, Silm, all that good stuff, all through Encyclopedia of Arda, so....Tolkien isnt exactly making new stuff, um....So I honestly did not involve myself in Tolkien for about six months (hehe not too long). And it was a nice little breather, but I found The Barrow Downs (forum anyway) and now I can disscuss Tolkien with other people!

Bottom Line? Healthy Obsession, Steady Moderation. (hmm...rhyme)
________
Toyota Tundra Specifications (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Toyota_Tundra)

Raynor

01-29-2006, 02:23 AM

Magic seems to accompany the other races as they fade; while both Sauron and the elves use magia and goeteia, they, as "mythological" figures, are bound to dissappear. The dwarves seem to have magic abilities (judging from their song in the Hobbit, their participation in the magic protection of the troll hoard, their moon letters and the magic doors of Moria).

Concerning the race of Men, Tolkien states in letter #155 that magic "is an inherent power not possessed or attainable by Men as such"; the only exceptions found to this are the swords of the Westernesse "wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor" and the healing power of Aragorn (but in both cases there is an "elven descendancy" element involved).

The hobbits are a branch of Men, so it is rather unlikely they have magic powers (more or less seriously, Tolkien notes in the first chapter of the hobbit that "there is little or no magic about them, except the ordinary everyday sort which helps them to disappear quietly and quickly when large stupid folk like you and me come blundering along, making a noise like elephants which they can hear a mile off").

In the fourth age, the presence of magic among Men is bound to be restricted to the use of whatever magical objects are left (glowing swords, elven ropes cloaks and boats, the palantiri and to a much lesser extent Galdadriel's blessed earth given to Sam).

Nogrod

01-29-2006, 01:58 PM

[QUOTE=Raynor]Magic seems to accompany the other races as they fade; while both Sauron and the elves use magia and goeteia, they, as "mythological" figures, are bound to dissappear. /QUOTE]

Good point.

I see here Tolkien's kind of a sorrowed-romantic vision of the grand-days passing away. The age of mythology has come to pass over and we humans just run this world, ever more tehnocratically & byrocratically

It also reminds me of a similar vision by T.S. Elliot and his "The Hollow Men" (in the Waste Land, 1921). If you haven't ever heard of it, check it out!

Aiwendil

01-29-2006, 05:54 PM

Raynor wrote:
Concerning the race of Men, Tolkien states in letter #155 that magic "is an inherent power not possessed or attainable by Men as such"; the only exceptions found to this are the swords of the Westernesse "wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor" and the healing power of Aragorn (but in both cases there is an "elven descendancy" element involved).

There's also Isildur's cursing of the Dead Men of Dunharrow (which again may be put down to Elvish descent" and Beorn's shape changing (which cannot be). I think there is enough evidence to show that the statement that magic "is an inherent power not possessed or attainable by Men as such" is not strictly true (and Tolkien seems to have come to this conclusion as well, as indicated by his note against that passage).

Still, I think you are right that magic is, as a general rule, not accessible to humans in the way it is to Elves.

narfforc

01-29-2006, 07:04 PM

littlemanpoet

01-31-2006, 03:02 PM

Isildur had The One Ring on, therefore the power to [curse] was enhanced by the ring.

Do you really think the Ring had a direct bearing on this curse? That's a new idea to me. Never occurred to me before; not that I discount it, I'm just interested to learn if others besides narfforc have made this connection?

Raynor

01-31-2006, 03:35 PM

Because The Dead Men of Dunharrow broke their pledge to fight for Isildur at The Battle of the Last Alliance, they were cursed. Surely this was after the battle, when Isildur had The One Ring on, therefore the power to do so was enhanced by the ring.According to The passing of the grey company, RotK, Isildur's words towards the king of the mountains occured before the actual war.

However, another would be exception to the "no magic for Men" rule is found in the Pukel-men (apparently a branch of hobbits), in refference to their transfer of power to artefacts (cf. The atani and their languages, HoME XII).

davem

01-31-2006, 03:38 PM

Because The Dead Men of Dunharrow broke their pledge to fight for Isildur at The Battle of the Last Alliance, they were cursed. Surely this was after the battle, when Isildur had The One Ring on, therefore the power to do so was enhanced by the ring. If men had no ability with magic, how could The Witch-King of Angmar have been a powerful sorcerer, before he held one of the rings for mortal men doomed to die. Was not The Mouth of Sauron supposed to have been a Black Numenorean and also a powerful sorcerer?

I don't think its that Men had no ability with magic, but that magic was not an innate ability - it was a 'power' they could take to themselves, against the will of Eru. This is what leads them to evil - they cannot use magic with 'authority'. Thus it will always tend to corrupt them, whatever their motivation in using it.

Kath

01-31-2006, 04:15 PM

davem

01-31-2006, 04:34 PM

Nice to see people in here again!

I'm not sure davem that you could say men using magic always leads to corruption, especially if you take Raynor's example of the Pukel men. It may be that it's only when power is added to the mixture that it corrupts people. The Witch King and Isildur were powerful people, and could see how magic would enable them to gain more power and more control, whereas the Pukel men were (as I recall) simple people with interest in and power over their environment alone, so they would have no desire to move beyond it. Surely magic can only corrupt if there is the potential for corruption, and there need to be circumstances to create this potential.

I suppose the question is whether the abilities of the Pukel Men are innate or a product of 'study'. I think Tolkien was opposed to the practice of what we could call 'ritual' magic. Are they manipulating natural forces? Tolkien stated that 'magic' is an aspect of the Machine, a seeking after technology to control & coerce things/people, hence the Ring is the ultimate Machine within Middle-earth, & the other Rings are lesser Machines. All technology (which in Middle-earth includes Rings, Palantiri, etc) is 'evil' in that its purpose is to remake the world in the user's own image - even if that was not the intent behind their making.

Of course, the Machine is actually a way of thinking & the objects produced are manifestations of that - attempts to actualise deisre. Tolkien sets Art against the Machine. Art attempts to (sub) create a secondary world in the mind, while the Machine is an attempt to alter the world. So, yes, it is a question of the potential for corruption in the individual, but the use of magical objects is an outward sign of that inner corruption. I would note that the Pukel Men were hardly successful as a species.....

Nogrod

01-31-2006, 05:13 PM

I suppose the question is whether the abilities of the Pukel Men are innate or a product of 'study'. I think Tolkien was opposed to the practice of what we could call 'ritual' magic. Are they manipulating natural forces? Tolkien stated that 'magic' is an aspect of the Machine, a seeking after technology to control & coerce things/people, hence the Ring is the ultimate Machine within Middle-earth, & the other Rings are lesser Machines. All technology (which in Middle-earth includes Rings, Palantiri, etc) is 'evil' in that its purpose is to remake the world in the user's own image - even if that was not the intent behind their making.

Of course, the Machine is actually a way of thinking & the objects produced are manifestations of that - attempts to actualise deisre. Tolkien sets Art against the Machine. Art attempts to (sub) create a secondary world in the mind, while the Machine is an attempt to alter the world. So, yes, it is a question of the potential for corruption in the individual, but the use of magical objects is an outward sign of that inner corruption. I would note that the Pukel Men were hardly successful as a species.....

Good stuff! You are putting so many interesting lines here to be appreciated, that it would require an essay to even try to comment a bit! But maybe a couple of things to begin with.

It's interesting to note, that Tolkien had received his learning during a time, when certain trends in anthropology & religious studies were the top of the pops'. For instance Frazer's "the Golden Bough" (anyone: read it someday, if you have time: lots of wonderful stories in it). That time, they talked about "symphatetic magic", eg. they had an idea, that earlier cultures were like the then modern western cultures, which were already having as their first aim the technological superiority over the nature (and the utopia of a technologies to make all their dreams come true). So all old beliefs, rituals and customs, were interpreted in this same manner; as ways of having an effect over nature, or manipulating it, by magic (and later by religion) - and just being overtly wrong when compared to science of their days.

That should have offended Tolkien, in quite a modern way indeed. But as I think the Tolkien connoisseurs' would agree, Tolkien disliked basically the idea of technologically manipulating the world (that is propably one of the main reasons why one can read a kind of sorrowness in the text, when Tolkien is telling us about the beginning of the age of men).

In this context, which i guess, is quite "natural" way of interpreting the issue, you put forward the even more interesting idea, that you count the rings also as these technologial pieces of craft (vs. nature, one must presume?), then the whole setting changes a bit, doesn't it? So "technological pieces", understood in the widest sense possible, could do something good, f.ex. the possibility of elves remaining in the Middle Earth, of Gandalf having the powers he had etc.?

(Well, it propably is a question of from whose standpoint you define good? But Tolkien was not a relativist!)

Looked from this point of view, there is a notion in Tolkien, that you could help things with technology - although it would end up in sacrifices'.

So beating technology requires technology, but if you use it to defy your technological opponent, you will be consumed in the fight?

This seems to be a good one! Let's open this up a bit more...

littlemanpoet

01-31-2006, 08:52 PM

According to The passing of the grey company, RotK, Isildur's words towards the king of the mountains occured before the actual war.Thanks for the clarification, Raynor.

...Pukel-men (apparently a branch of hobbits)...This is not apparent to me at all. From LotR and Unfinished Tales it seemed to me that they are akin to the indigenous prehistoric folk from any given place in western (and maybe not only western) Europe. Their magic is fascinating as in it seems to be well, animistic after a fashion, not against nature: more Art than Technology.

Art attempts to (sub) create a secondary world in the mind, while the Machine is an attempt to alter the world. So Lothlorien is part of the Machine? I can see how this can be so in principle, but there seems to be so much Art in this particular Machine that it minimizes (not the alteration but) the 'evil'. Perhaps this is best understood on a continuum.

So beating technology requires technology, but if you use it to defy your technological opponent, you will be consumed in the fight?This seems to be what Sauron, Saruman, Denethor, and Boromir (until he repented) thought, except for the last phrase of your question. The strategy of the Fellowship was, in fact, to not use the technology, and to destroy it.

Now, how does this compare to J.K. Rowling's use of Technology versus Art? Or is she dealing with an entirely different set-up? If so, what is it? Is it valid on its own terms? (That last question is really a devil's advocate question, since I readily enjoy her stuff).

Aiwendil

01-31-2006, 09:58 PM

the Pukel-men (apparently a branch of hobbits)
This is not apparent to me at all. From LotR and Unfinished Tales it seemed to me that they are akin to the indigenous prehistoric folk from any given place in western (and maybe not only western) Europe.

I was always under the impression that the Pukel-men were Druedain - and that the Druedain were most certainly not Hobbits. The powers of the Pukel-men/Druedain are shown also in "The Faithful Stone". Here we have something that's quite obviously magical (and not merely in the way that Hobbits have "magic") and that also seems to be entirely good and natural. So to answer Davem's question, I would guess that the the abilities of the Pukel-men were innate. This is similar, I think, to Beorn's skin-changing - but then the Druedain provide an example that no one is likely to write off by excluding it from the Legendarium.

davem

02-01-2006, 08:39 AM

So Lothlorien is part of the Machine? I can see how this can be so in principle, but there seems to be so much Art in this particular Machine that it minimizes (not the alteration but) the 'evil'. Perhaps this is best understood on a continuum.

I suppose we can think in terms of two Lothloriens (Lothlorii?). The one we enter in LotR is a (hyper)natural place, Faerie itself. It is not, as it later becomes a 'faux Valinor' (was that Child's or Lyta's term?). In LotR we follow the Company into Faerie, & see it especially through Frodo's eyes, as though seeing colours & experiencing trees for the first time - it is another reality, but an entirely natural one (ie not a false construct, a 'deceit'). It is living Art .

Its only later that Tolkien presents us with the story of Galadriel & Celebrimbor & her deisre to rule a land where there is no death. It is at this point that Lorien becomes in part a manifestation of the Machine, & Galadriel herself a manipulator of reality (ie of the primary world) through the power of Nenya. This is Art 'embalmed' & thus not truly alive. I'm drawn to the former Lorien, but almost repelled by the latter - it makes me feel like I'm being duped.....

Nogrod

02-01-2006, 10:23 AM

[[QUOTE]QUOTE=Nogrod]]So beating technology requires technology, but if you use it to defy your technological opponent, you will be consumed in the fight? [QUOTE]

[QUOTE=littlemanpoet]
This seems to be what Sauron, Saruman, Denethor, and Boromir (until he repented) thought, except for the last phrase of your question. The strategy of the Fellowship was, in fact, to not use the technology, and to destroy it.

I agree with this common reading myself, but what striked me in davem's message, and seemed to be opening interesting ways of interpreting the whole issue, were these sentences:

[QUOTE][QUOTE=davem]Tolkien stated that 'magic' is an aspect of the Machine, a seeking after technology to control & coerce things/people, hence the Ring is the ultimate Machine within Middle-earth, & the other Rings are lesser Machines. All technology (which in Middle-earth includes Rings, Palantiri, etc) is 'evil' in that its purpose is to remake the world in the user's own image - even if that was not the intent behind their making.

So was it just an accident, that Gandalf kind of just happened to have the powers' he used to change the events in LotR? Were Imladri's & Lorien's being able to stay so long as to have their part in the making of the new world, just due to their being nice elves?

So how about, if all this was really a work of "machines" (we really would need to define now here, what the word 'machine' means, or change the word!), the work of a world that was becoming, using all these heroes as it's own tool? So, in the end, the Great Victory over the bad principle led straight to the hands of technology & "machines"? Navigating past Scylla led straight to the hands of Charybdis? Elves and Maiar needed rings to fight rings, and thence disappeared from the world that those rings primarily were the first sign of (with Palantiri)?

I'm not suggesting, this is a fool-proof interpretation, or even the most fruitful one. But certainly it gives some food for thought! At least to me it has given that. :)

Raynor

02-01-2006, 02:32 PM

I don't think its that Men had no ability with magic, but that magic was not an innate ability - it was a 'power' they could take to themselves, against the will of Eru. This is what leads them to evil - they cannot use magic with 'authority'. Thus it will always tend to corrupt them, whatever their motivation in using it.I think it is a double-faceted issue. First there is the motivation; a nazgul falls to the dark side "sooner or later – later, if he is strong or well-meaning to begin with" (cf The shadow of the past); also, Bilbo was safe for a good while from the corruption of the ring (and later saved altogether) because he showed pity in possessing it. The other side would be the mere strength of mind of the user: the "pre-power" rings were just dangerous to Men, not corrupting, in and of themselves - also, Aragorn does resist Sauron's influence when he using the power of the palantir.
Tolkien stated that 'magic' is an aspect of the Machine, a seeking after technology to control & coerce things/people, hence the Ring is the ultimate Machine within Middle-earth, & the other Rings are lesser Machines.Well, he does distinguish between kinds of magic, esspecially in relation to the one of the elves (cf Letter #131):

"I have not used 'magic' consistently, and indeed the Elven-queen Galadriel is obliged to remonstrate with the Hobbits on their confused use of the word both for the devices and operations of the Enemy, and for those of the Elves. I have not, because there is not a word for the latter (since all human stories have suffered the same confusion). But the Elves are there (in my tales) to demonstrate the difference. Their 'magic' is Art, delivered from many of its human limitations: more effortless, more quick, more complete (product, and vision in unflawed correspondence). And its object is Art not Power, sub-creation not domination and tyrannous re-forming of Creation"
Art attempts to (sub) create a secondary world in the mind, while the Machine is an attempt to alter the worldI think that the elven Art too alters the world, but it still remains "good", as noted above - they weren't "bulldozing the real world, nor coercing other wills".
All technology (which in Middle-earth includes Rings, Palantiri, etc) is 'evil' in that its purpose is to remake the world in the user's own image - even if that was not the intent behind their making."It would no doubt be possible to defend poor Lotho's introduction of more efficient mills" - letter #155 ;).
The Witch King and Isildur were powerful people, and could see how magic would enable them to gain more power and more control,I don't think that Isildur desired more power and control through the ring (which would have been a sign of coruption, which I doubt, since in his scroll he is all too willing to leave the ring to his heirs). He considered the ring "of all the works of Sauron the only fair" (cf. Council of Elrond, FotR).
Surely magic can only corrupt if there is the potential for corruption, and there need to be circumstances to create this potential.Yet this potential exists in all Ea (even for the valar, who could at least err as a result, cf Letter #212, or show possesiveness, such as in the rising of the Pellori Mountains, cf Myths Transformed), since evil/corruption have been sub-creatively introduced and futhermore there is the actual marring of Melkor.
Looked from this point of view, there is a notion in Tolkien, that you could help things with technology - although it would end up in sacrifices'Concerning the real-world, he has a rather hard stance:
There is the tragedy and despair of all machinery laid bare. Unlike an which is content to create a new secondary world in the mind, it attempts to actualize desire, and so to create power in this World; and that cannot really be done with any real satisfaction. Labour-saving machinery only creates endless and worse labour. And in addition to this fundamental disability of a creature, is added the Fall, which makes our devices not only fail of their desire but turn to new and horrible evil. So we come inevitably from Daedalus and Icarus to the Giant Bomber. It is not an advance in wisdom! This terrible truth, glimpsed long ago by Sam Butler, sticks out so plainly and is so horrifyingly exhibited in our time, with its even worse menace for the future, that it seems almost a world wide mental disease that only a tiny minority perceive it. [As far as outcome of the culmination of evil use of the machine, he has little doubt: (Letter #96)Well the first War of the Machines seems to be drawing to its final inconclusive chapter - leaving, alas, everyone the poorer, many bereaved or maimed and millions dead, and only one thing triumphant: the Machines.]

In his fantasy realm, his attitude is a bit more nuanced; he is more tolerant, in some cases, to the use and users of technology/Machine; Sauron "was not indeed wholly evil, not unless all 'reformers' who want to hurry up with 'reconstruction' and 'reorganization' are wholly evil, even before pride and the lust to exert their will eat them up", cf Letter #153; the elves of Eregion themselves, (even though compared to the catholics who would make tools, which given the circumstances, "are pretty certain to serve evil ends") are not necessarily to be blamed, even if aware of the consequences of their actions.

However, he also states (Letter #155):

"The Enemy, or those who have become like him, go in for 'machinery' - with destructive and evil effects - because 'magicians', who have become chiefly concerned to use magia for their own power, would do so . The basic motive for magia - quite apart from any philosophic consideration of how it would work - is immediacy: speed, reduction of labour, and reduction also to a minimum (or vanishing point) of the gap between the idea or desire and the result or effect. But the magia may not be easy to come by, and at any rate if you have command of abundant slave-labour or machinery (often only the same thing concealed), it may be as quick or quick enough to push mountains over, wreck forests, or build pyramids by such means. Of course another factor then comes in, a moral or pathological one: the tyrants lose sight of objects, become cruel, and like smashing, hurting, and defiling as such."

[In matters of writting style, it is also stated in the Notion Club Papers, that "real fairy-stories don't pretend to produce impossible mechanical effects by bogus machines. " - a role which is no doubt left to magic itself ;)]

davem

02-01-2006, 02:53 PM

I think that the elven Art too alters the world, but it still remains "good", as noted above - they weren't "bulldozing the real world, nor coercing other wills".

Well, they weren't 'coercing' perhaps, but they were controlling - there was no 'stain' on Lorien. We can only take this to mean no parasites, no fungi, nothing to mar its 'perfection'. As I said, the Lorien we are introduced to in LotR is a 'hyper-natural' place, almost a higher state of nature, a glimpse of Arda Unmarred, yet there is no sense that it has been 'forced' into being that way. We don't even question how it is that way, we simply accept it. It is not an 'alteration' of the primary world but rather another 'state' of it.

Once Tolkien introduces the story of Galadriel's desire to rule a land free of death & corruption & her use of Nenya to bring this about, suddenly we are dealing with "bulldozing the real world,", because she is not allowing natural processes to occur. She will not allow death to enter in to Lorien. The trees are not allowedto die, parasites are not allowed to exist, because she does not want them to. Her suppport of the Ringbearer is a surrendering to nature, an allowing it to be. Only then could she truly be herself.

Their 'magic' is Art, delivered from many of its human limitations: more effortless, more quick, more complete (product, and vision in unflawed correspondence). And its object is Art not Power, sub-creation not domination and tyrannous re-forming of Creation"

This may describe the Elves at their best (Vanyar & Teleri), but I can't see that it applies to either the exiled Noldor or the Sindar. Certainly his condemnation of them as 'embalmers' would seem to contradict this statement.

Nogrod

02-01-2006, 05:19 PM

[QUOTE=Raynor] Well, he does distinguish between kinds of magic, esspecially in relation to the one of the elves (cf Letter #131):
"I have not used 'magic' consistently, and indeed the Elven-queen Galadriel is obliged to remonstrate with the Hobbits on their confused use of the word both for the devices and operations of the Enemy, and for those of the Elves. I have not, because there is not a word for the latter (since all human stories have suffered the same confusion). But the Elves are there (in my tales) to demonstrate the difference. Their 'magic' is Art, delivered from many of its human limitations: more effortless, more quick, more complete (product, and vision in unflawed correspondence). And its object is Art not Power, sub-creation not domination and tyrannous re-forming of Creation"[QUOTE]

But what is this art - power dualism about? In this context one would have to read 'art' as conjoining with an overtly romantic vision of artistry, fancied by the late 19th century poets' & painters' that got hold of the wider public imagination, at least after the WW2, and with the ideas of power then attaching to the nuclear bomb, Stalin etc. (Tolkien, of course being academically schooled, should have been cognizant of these ideas quite earlier, with lots of fellows' being productive artists' at the time). But what I myself am interested in, is, whether this interpretation on Tolkien is correct to begin with.

So was Tolkien a conservative "luddite" (you remember this James Ludd, who went to destroy machines?), who just tried to say that machines are bad, or was his relation to technologies' more subtle?

I would here vote for a more "down to earth" Tolkien, who saw the inevitableness of the advances of technologies and the requirement of sacrifices in front of them - that could actually bring forth good things, but quite a loss as well, f.ex. as a disappearance of "magic" with it. It's kind of a basic thing: when things change, they will be different: you lose something and you acquire something. And with a certain personality, you just take the new good things as given, and just make a slight sigh to the remembrance of the things past.

So should we be happy with the new things (peace, stability, welfare etc.) or sigh for the lost (action, heroism, virtues, honour etc.)? That's a question we could put to ourselves too....

Raynor

02-01-2006, 05:56 PM

Once Tolkien introduces the story of Galadriel's desire to rule a land free of death & corruption & her use of Nenya to bring this about, suddenly we are dealing with "bulldozing the real world,", because she is not allowing natural processes to occur.I wonder what is natural indeed (in Ea); as far as I can see it, a place in which the essence of Melkor is spread throughout creation, accelerating all decay, phisical and not only, is not natural. The fact that she tries to stay that decay isn't in any less blamable that the efforts of the valar to undo the evils of Melkor. Is the world bulldozed in Valinor? I think not - and that it occurs only where the influence of the Marrer can reach.
This may describe the Elves at their best (Vanyar & Teleri), but I can't see that it applies to either the exiled Noldor or the Sindar.From the Sil, we pretty much know that the vanyar "received song and poetry" - artful indeed, but it is not the Art we are talking about; the Teleri are enamoured of the sea, with the height of their Art were the swan ships of Alqualonde.

The noldor? Oh, the noldor.. ;). They learned mostly from Aule, the smith of gods, and thus became "the most skilled of the Elves" (cf. The begining of days, Silmarillion). In Of Eldamar and the princes of Eldalie, we are also told that the "Noldor were beloved of Aule, and he and his people came often among them. Great became their knowledge and their skill; yet even greater was their thirst for more knowledge, and in many things they soon surpassed their teachers"; they even made Manwe's sceptre, and of their chief objects, the silmarils, it is said in Letter #131: "by the making of gems the sub-creative function of the Elves is chiefly symbolized". To conclude, I am pretty sure it was (primarily) the Noldor who Tolkien had in mind when talking about the elven Art.
So was Tolkien a conservative "luddite" (you remember this James Ludd, who went to destroy machines?), who just tried to say that machines are bad, or was his relation to technologies' more subtle?Imo, letters #75 and #96, quoted above, pretty much points to the first option.
So should we be happy with the new things (peace, stability, welfare etc.) or sigh for the lost (action, heroism, virtues, honour etc.)?Well, Estel, hope, would imply that of all His designs, the issue must be for his Children joy (cf Finrod's debate) - so I will go with the first option, again :).

davem

02-02-2006, 12:24 PM

I wonder what is natural indeed (in Ea); as far as I can see it, a place in which the essence of Melkor is spread throughout creation, accelerating all decay, phisical and not only, is not natural. The fact that she tries to stay that decay isn't in any less blamable that the efforts of the valar to undo the evils of Melkor. Is the world bulldozed in Valinor? I think not - and that it occurs only where the influence of the Marrer can reach.

Well, two wrongs don't make a right. She is still attempting to dominate the world (or at least her little part of it). It may not be 'blamable', but it is an atttempt at dominance over nature. Yes, she's playing her part in the battle against Sauron, but in the end she surrenders & accepts that she cannot do that without a moral risk. The only guarantee of victory is to take the Ring - which is the end of the particular road she had chosen. In the end I think she realises that what she did was wrong & repents of it.

To conclude, I am pretty sure it was (primarily) the Noldor who Tolkien had in mind when talking about the elven Art.

I think this would apply to the pre-Rebellion Noldor only

Raynor

02-02-2006, 04:13 PM

She is still attempting to dominate the world (or at least her little part of it). It may not be 'blamable', but it is an atttempt at dominance over nature.Yet domination is the realm of the Enemy, not of the elves; I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one :).
The only guarantee of victory is to take the RingI doubt there is any power in Middle Earth who could wield the ring and achieve a _desireable_ victory - the only outcome is another Sauron.
I think this would apply to the pre-Rebellion Noldor onlyIt depends on which moment we decide the rebellion started; even if so, what Vanyar/Teleri object could match Celebrimbor's Ellesar(s)?

davem

02-02-2006, 04:18 PM

Yet domination is the realm of the Enemy, not of the elves; I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one

I wonder about Galadriel's words to Frodo, that what he saw in the Mirror 'is also in my mind'

I doubt there is any power in Middle Earth who could wield the ring and achieve a _desireable_ victory - the only outcome is another Sauron.

Yet she's clearly considered the possibility of taking it...

It depends on which moment we decide the rebellion started; even if so, what Vanyar/Teleri object could match Celebrimbor's Ellesar(s)?

We don't know what they got up to after the Noldor cleared off....

Raynor

02-02-2006, 04:31 PM

I wonder about Galadriel's words to Frodo, that what he saw in the Mirror 'is also in my mind'She was reffering to the Eye, which she most likely saw before in the mirror.
Yet she's clearly considered the possibility of taking it...Yet how much of that consideration stemmed from herself, and how much was a mere influence of the ring (which apparently tempted even Gandalf)? The ring's influence is too general to describe her, Imo.
We don't know what they got up to after the Noldor cleared off....A matter of personal opinion I guess :).

davem

02-02-2006, 04:35 PM

She was reffering to the Eye, which she most likely saw before in the mirror.

But why is the Eye 'in her mind'? Tolkien did state that the Elves of Eregion had 'flirted with Sauron'.

Yet how much of that consideration stemmed from herself, and how much was a mere influence of the ring (which apparently tempted even Gandalf)? The ring's influence is too general to describe her, Imo.
A matter of personal opinion I guess :).

She wanted victory over Sauron, yet even before that she desired control over nature. Probably both.

Raynor

02-02-2006, 04:52 PM

But why is the Eye 'in her mind'?She plainly states that her mind is closed to Sauron; the explanation could be that the mirror images form directly in viewer's mind - or that she is merely concerned with Sauron.
Tolkien did state that the Elves of Eregion had 'flirted with Sauron'.Yet Galadriel wasn't one of the 'flirters' since she saw through his disguise, which caused Sauron to turn against her and led to her departure.

davem

02-02-2006, 05:02 PM

She plainly states that her mind is closed to Sauron; the explanation could be that the mirror images form directly in viewer's mind - or that she is merely concerned with Sauron.

That's one explanation.

Yet Galadriel wasn't one of the 'flirters' since she saw through his disguise, which caused Sauron to turn against her and led to her departure.

Again, that depends on how you interpret 'flirting with Sauron'. What, exactly does that mean? My take on it would be not that they were interacting with Annatar, but that they were 'flirting' with what Sauron symbolised - desire for power, control, domination - what else were the Rings for? They were 'flirting' with the Machine, & so was Galadriel. That's why she was tempted by the One Ring for a time. The 'later' Lorien is very close to the Machine. Its interesting that when the ultimate Machine (the One) is destroyed so is Lorien....

littlemanpoet

02-02-2006, 09:52 PM

I would here vote for a more "down to earth" Tolkien, who saw the inevitableness of the advances of technologies and the requirement of sacrifices in front of them - that could actually bring forth good things, but quite a loss as well, f.ex. as a disappearance of "magic" with it. It's kind of a basic thing: when things change, they will be different: you lose something and you acquire something. And with a certain personality, you just take the new good things as given, and just make a slight sigh to the remembrance of the things past.

So should we be happy with the new things (peace, stability, welfare etc.) or sigh for the lost (action, heroism, virtues, honour etc.)? That's a question we could put to ourselves too....

There seems, however, in Tolkien's Letters and Ring story, a sense of loss of something very good and beautiful, and the onset of something qualitatively inferior, and less good.

I see your point, Raynor, that Galadriel is trying to preserve a reality, in Lorien, that is the ideal and original reality, as expressed in Valinor. However, I see davem's point as well, that such an endeavor is vain in Middle Earth, and as such, not only doomed to fail (as she well knows .... "the long defeat" ....), but a mis-use; a technological effort, in as much as it is against the state of things. So even though the "state of things" in Middle Earth is cursed by Melkor's taint, it is nevertheless the way things are, and to try to stop them is to part from wisdom. Galadriel, as powerful as she was, was able to achieve the thing for a longer period of time, but only because Sauron's Ring still existed. Does that not clarify the futility of Galadriel's Art in the case of Lorien ... that it was based upon the existence of the One Ring to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them?

davem

02-03-2006, 05:51 AM

I think this is the point - Galadriel's motives may be right, her heart may be in the right place, but her methods are ultimately those of the Enemy. That's her tragedy in a way, & makes her acceptance of her doom (& the doom of Lorien) so poignant, coming as it does out of a realisation of her folly & a repentance for it.

drigel

02-03-2006, 08:17 AM

Was her repentance directed towards her methods? Or rather was it directed towards the pride that drove her to ME in the first place? And once there, after an age, to rule? One needs to live in Blessed Realm to have a standard to shoot for, otherwise all you have is a Girdle that keeps everyone out. Whether her magic is parallel, or derives from the same source as Sauron's, her desire to rule and make order (to me) is what needs to be compared, if there is any comparison to make. But, this makes her poignancy much more of a human condition for me.

It seems to me, especially in the 2nd and 3rd ages, that she does see the end clearly. For her, a few thousand years is a fleeting thing. And if Sauron wasnt around marring things, her purpose in Lorien would be less clear. I dont see her regretting using her abilities, nor do I see her regretting the use of Nenya. Her regret reaches back before the sun and the moon rode the sky, when she was a young, fiery, ambitious, talented elf who was adventerous, and got caught up with some doomed Noldor. What was happening in Lorien was the last grasps that delayed an end that was hastened by what Sauron was doing.

all my opinion of course :)

Bêthberry

02-03-2006, 08:33 AM

I cannot tell you all how many times, seeing this thread in my "New Subscribed Threads", that I have read the thread title as "Outage". And for a moment I sit there in confusion wondering who or what was outed. :eek:

Reading through this analysis of Galadriel has been intriguing, and it sets me off on a related idea, which I throw out here, for what it is worth. Do correct me--gently ;)-- if I misinterpret the points here.

There seems to be some agreement that Galadriel's intentions were nostalgic, that is, a looking backward and longing for something viewed as better in the past. And, general agreement that while her intentions might have been admirable her method erred. Can we extrapolate this to many readers' interpretations of LotR?

It seems to me that many readers enjoy Tolkien because he offers a nostalgic vision of a past world that was better than our sordid present one--higher, finer, free of dross. It upholds an idealism of values and behaviour which, as many readers also point out, are absent from modern literature. (Critics, too, but I won't go there for this thread!) Obviously I am generalising here.

So, if we are to view Galadriel as tragically in err for her nostalgia, is there anything else in Tolkien which would "correct" or equally suggest that readers are in err for a nostalgic reading of Tolkien? (I'm using this term 'err' not proscriptively but simply descriptively for the sake of the argument here, as everyone knows that I don't subscribe to the theory that there is only one way of reading a text.) I am here suggesting that Galadriel is used as a model for a prime 'reader' of Middle-earth and that when we decode her reading as tragically wrong, we step back and see if this decoding can be applied--applicability!--to our own readings of Middle-earth. (Or those of some of us.)

Is it possible that Tolkien gives us a text which invites us to fall into the elvish habit of nostalgia, to enjoy it and revere it and be inspired by it, but in the end he provides subtle suggestions that such nostalgia is a false or misplaced longing? Does Tolkien undercut the major response he seems to create in his readers? Are we to repent of our reading?

I'm not saying he does, just throwing out some thoughts which the discussion here brought to mind as possibilities.

littlemanpoet

02-03-2006, 10:25 AM

drigel: That Galadriel's methods included Art based upon the Technology of the Ring, shows how far she has fallen in her pride. So yes, it's most deeply the pride that she repents from, but also the method, for by not taking the Ring from Frodo, she places herself at the mercy of chance ('if chance you call it').

It occurs to me that Galadriel, for all her wisdom and power, has not seen certain things until Frodo shows them to her in his more intuitive wisdom. I call it intuitive because he was not entirely aware of what he was doing by offering her the Ring. For example, I doubt that Galadriel realized how far she had fallen until she was forced to examine herself in response to Frodo's offer.

Bêthberry: Galadriel's Art/Technology is not the only instance of this nostalgia in LotR. Other examples of it are Treebeard and the Ents, and indeed the entirety of the Rohirrim story-line, which is (in part) a 'might-have-been' but for the Norman conquest.

In our reading? Are you suggesting that we tend to read LotR according to late 20th century lenses and need to let it speak to us in a new 21st century way? And that Tolkien suggests this very thing in the course of the story? The end of the War of the Ring ushers in a completely new Age of Man (read Humanity). But the social norms don't change, only the demise (or diminishing) of Art (magic). Somehow I don't find in Tolkien an acceptance of this without much regret and mourning.

drigel

02-03-2006, 11:16 AM

LMP well put. I wasnt implying that see saw all, merely the inevitable Defeat, and pre-Frodo - it was probably a vision where she would diminish, and, like her people, "...dwindle to a rustic folk of dell and cave, slowly to forget and to be forgotten". Post-Frodo, she "..will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel". What caused me to make the initial post was it seemed the sins of the ring maker were being thrown at the ring wielder. She (to me) didnt start the drama, but she did see how her ring could help affect her strategy of defiance towards Sauron.

Frodo bent his head. 'And what do you wish?' he said at last.
'That what should be shall be,' she answered. 'The love of the Elves for their land and their works is deeper than the deeps of the Sea, and their regret is undying and cannot ever wholly be assuaged. Yet they will cast all away rather than submit to Sauron: for they know him now. For the fate of Lothlorien you are not answerable, but only for the doing of your own task. Yet I could wish, were it of any avail, that the One Ring had never been wrought, or had remained for ever lost.'
This shows me that she knew her use of the technology would only at best be a long postponement of the inevitable, as all the Eldar (at least) knew by that time.

After all,
The evil that was devised long ago works on in many ways, whether Sauron himself stands or falls.

I would add (with toungue in cheek) also that Galadriel, with all her machinations faults and witchcraft, was a very key instrument in the bigger strategy of the defeat of Sauron, so one could say that her use of technology/magic and her desire for order and rule were meant to be thus.
:)
Beth thats an intriguing thought. I would almost say Romanticism is rearing her head at the idea. But, I would say that, at this time, I dont have (or remember) a longing for the good old days, but something somewhere in my genes apparantly does, which marks the genious of the works.

Raynor

02-03-2006, 11:47 AM

I think this is the point - Galadriel's motives may be right, her heart may be in the right place, but her methods are ultimately those of the Enemy.But that is exactly what makes the difference - the motives, because, as Tolkien states in Letter #155, both the good side and the evil one use the same means of magic.
Its interesting that when the ultimate Machine (the One) is destroyed so is LorienShe had to depart, sooner or later; she realised the age of Men has come at last and it was about time she left.
So even though the "state of things" in Middle Earth is cursed by Melkor's taint, it is nevertheless the way things are, and to try to stop them is to part from wisdom.I disagree with the "larger" meaning of your words - we are bound to fight the marring, which is the most formidable attack on Eru's creation. The marring is present everywhere; while in some places it is stronger (due to various factors in the past) and one could move to a "better" place, you can't escape it altogether - so you have to "fight" it, by whatever means available. Galadriel's influence on her surroundings is far less Machinistic than the very machines Men are bound to use in the history of their progress; her relation is one of cherishing, not of antagony.

davem

02-03-2006, 12:40 PM

Is it possible that Tolkien gives us a text which invites us to fall into the elvish habit of nostalgia, to enjoy it and revere it and be inspired by it, but in the end he provides subtle suggestions that such nostalgia is a false or misplaced longing? Does Tolkien undercut the major response he seems to create in his readers? Are we to repent of our reading?

We wonders.... Was this diichotomy set up deliberately by Tolkien, or was it a reflection of his own inner conflict.

(Sorry for the long quote - this is from Verlyn Flieger's 'A Question of Time' pps 111 - 112)

But the Elvish weakness was in these terms naturally to regret the past, and to become unwilling to face change: as if a man were to hate a very long book still going on, and wished to settle down in a favourite chapter. Hence they fell in a measure to Sauron’s deceits: they desired some “power" over things as they are (which is quite distinct from art), to make their particular will to preservation effective: to arrest change, and keep things always fresh and fair. (Letters 236)

But its just here that Tolkien falls foul of his own ambivalence about the passage of time. For all his stated philosophical position, he cannot help imbuing his narrative with a mixed message, a rueful rationale for change covering a deep nostalgia for what has passed and is passing, in spite of all its Hobbit jollity, its mushroom and pipeweed, its victories and celebrations, The Lord of the Rings is suffused with a sense of transience and loss. The Shire changes, the Ents never find the Entwives, Frodo loses his Ring, his finger, and himself and cannot really go home. “However the fortunes of war go," Theoden says to Gandalf, "may it not so end that many fair things pass from the earth?" (Two Towers 155). It does so end, and all the renewal and rejoicing do not put back what was lost. Theoden speaks for Tolkien, but so does Gandalf, when he replies to Theoden: "To such days we are doomed,"
The fact is that like his Elves, Tolkien hoarded memory, He, too regretted the past; he, too, was unwilling to face change and wanted to arrest history, to keep hold of the past in the present. He, too, wanted escape from what he called "the Robot Age," escape from the 'grim Assyrian' absurdity of top-hats, or the Morlockian horror of factories" (“On Fairy-Stories" 148, 150). And so, in a sense, he subverts his own message, surrounding his Elves and their lands with an aura of such golden nostalgia that their appeal is almost impossible to resist. But he also knew that real escape is impossible. We are where we are, and we cannot go back to where we were; we can only long to. Tolkien is susceptible to the Elven impulse and yet capable of seeing its fallacy, subject to the confusion of the heart that feels one thing and the head that knows another. And so there is a concealed sting in Lorien's beauty. Its timelessness is not the unspoiled perfection it seems. Rather, that very perfection is its flaw. It is a cautionary picture, closer in kind to the Ring than we'd like to think, shown to us in all its beauty to test if we can let it go.
The Lord of the Rings is, among many other things, a story about the ability to let go. The Ring is the obvious example, the clearest picture of the possessiveness engendered by possessions, and the corruption that grows with the desire to keep. It is easy to see the Ring as evil, and while Frodo's inability to give it up is both unexpected and inevitable, what happens to him appears to be an extraordinary tragedy, not something the reader can readily identify with. The timeless beauty of Lorien is the deeper example. It is more difficult to recognize as such, because, unlike the Ring, Lorien and everything about it in the narrative make us want to keep it, make us want, like Frodo, to stay there. We love Lorien, as, quite clearly, its author loved it. The beauty of Tolkien's Elves and their Elven lands blinds us to their significance in his world and his narrative.
Nonetheless, this very sense of passing and loss that on one level Tolkien mourned, on another level he celebrated. For to be capable of living is also to be capable of dying, and without death there can be no rebirth. Elves preserve. Men grow and die and grow again. It is in this respect that the Contrast between Elves and Men is of such importance to Tolkien's vision. But while the contrast itself is apparent to any reader of Tolkien's work, it is a safe bet that many readers mistake its overt purpose and consequently ap. predate the wrong values in each culture, valuing immortality above mortality and Elves above Men.

drigel

02-03-2006, 12:51 PM

We wonders.... Was this diichotomy set up deliberately by Tolkien, or was it a reflection of his own inner conflict.

I think we are, in a roundabout way, doing what the author intended - to contemplate the nature of mortality of man.

I am here suggesting that Galadriel is used as a model for a prime 'reader' of Middle-earth and that when we decode her reading as tragically wrong, we step back and see if this decoding can be applied--applicability!--to our own readings of Middle-earth. (Or those of some of us.)
Nice! I would suggest rather that Galadriel is used in LOTR as a model for a prime reader for the psychology of High Elves. You get a lot of history with Elrond and Cirdan. But with Galadriel, sigh, you get as close to Valimar as a mortal can be.

:)

Lalwendë

02-03-2006, 02:02 PM

Maybe this explains the Gift of Death - that Men are not doomed to resisting change, they never have to fight the urge to live in a pickled version of the distant past, as it simply will not happen to them; they will die long before that 'doom' affects them. I think in Tolkien's work we see that change is inevitable. It might not be nice, but it is going to happen whether we like it or not. The Gift of Death allows Men to escape this tragedy; Aragorn will not live to see all his efforts in the War of the Ring fall, eventually, to nothing. And perhaps this is why Elves are naturally expected to live in the Undying Lands, as once there, they are protected from death and decay and change.

We visit this secondary world just as that 'magic' is about to decline and fade. I wonder if our own world ever had any of that magic anyway? We'll never know, but we can be sure that there was plenty of suffering in all periods of history, and in Tolkien's world there is plenty of suffering too. Not only is there the suffering of our 'heroes' like Frodo, but there is the suffering of the peoples enslaved by Sauron, the Ents who know they are going to die out, Hobbits made to starve when the Shire is taken over - it might be a fantasy world, but it's no Utopia.

Galadriel in Middle-earth is really a big fish in a small pond, and she is no fairy princess, she is an Elf who has ambitions. She wants to create and rule her own realm, and it is to these desires that Celebrimbor panders when he tries to woo her with gifts such as the Elessar and Nenya. They are gifts of power and potency, not trinkets. She knows that when the Rings lose their power she has two choices: go back to the Undying Lands and be one of many fish in a pond, or stay in Middle-earth but lose her realm, and become as one of the 'common Elves' who she rules.

Raynor

02-03-2006, 05:12 PM

I think in Tolkien's work we see that change is inevitable. It might not be nice, but it is going to happen whether we like it or not. The Gift of Death allows Men to escape this tragedy; Aragorn will not live to see all his efforts in the War of the Ring fall, eventually, to nothing. And perhaps this is why Elves are naturally expected to live in the Undying Lands, as once there, they are protected from death and decay and change.I think it is easy to see the elves as mourning for a lost condition and wanting to linger in Middle Earth, where they are superior just by their nature. But do these really describe them (completely), esspecially the noldor? Does Galadriel maintain a "Machinistic" kingdom, steadfast in time? I don't picture it as such..

The noldor are described as the most skilled of the elves (surpassing even their teachers - Aule, the smith of gods and his followers); the manifestations of their sub-creative talents are the most extraordinary of all elven Art.

Is ME change something that elves (completely) dread? I doubt it (from Dangweth Pengolodh, HoME XII):

But to the changefulness of Ea, to weariness of the un-changed, to the renewing of the union: to these three, which are one, the Eldar also are subject in their degree. In this, however, they differ from Men, that they are ever more aware of the words that they speak. As a silversmith may remain more aware than others of the tools and vessels that he uses daily at his table, or a weaver of the texture of his garments. Yet this makes rather for change among the Eldar than for steadfastness; for the Eldar being skilled and eager in art will readily make things new, both for delight to look on, or to hear, or to feel, or for daily use: be it in vessels or raiment or in speech.It can further be said that the elves would dread the steadfastness defining the 'undying' lands, rather than the change of ME - or at least in the matters of language, which brought them much delight (same source):
Speech is fully living only when it is born; when the union of the thought and the sound is fallen into old custom, and the two are no longer perceived apart, then already the word is dying and joyless
[However]
Yet long since, AElfwine, the fashion of the World was changed; and we that dwell now in the Ancient West are removed from the circles of the World, and in memory is the greater part of our being: so that now we preserve rather than make anew. Wherefore, though even in Aman - beyond the circles of Arda, yet still with Ea - change goes ever on, until the End, be it slow beyond perceiving save in ages of time, nonetheless here at last in Eressea our tongues are steadfast; and here over a wide sea of years we speak now still little otherwise than we did - and those also that perished - in the wars of Beleriand, when the Sun was young.A steadfast language = dead language (at least from their point of view).

According to Letter #181, the elves represent "the artistic, aesthetic, and purely scientific aspects of the Humane nature raised to a higher level than is actually seen in Men. That is: they have a devoted love of the physical world, and a desire to observe and understand it for its own sake and as 'other' - sc. as a reality derived from God in the same degree as themselves - not as a material for use or as a power-platform. They also possess a 'subcreational' or artistic faculty of great excellence". Their ennoblement of the Men race (at least through the union of the blood lines) is part of a divine plan. In the same text quoted above, Dangweth Pengolodh, it is stated that:
Others perceiving that in nothing do Men, and namely those of the West, so nearly resemble the Eldar as in speech, answer that the teaching which Men had of the Elves in their youth works on still as a seed in the dark And in Myths Transformed it is stated that "in their association with the warring Eldar Men were raised to their fullest achievable stature". Legolas notes that those exiting Lothlorien are "changed" - for the better.

My conclusion would be that the elves had a certain critical role in ME: to raise Men to a higher level, a point illustrated by the above refferences; yet in Middle Earth, the marring of Melkor threatens to accelerate not only the waning of the elven hroa due to the fire of their spirit but also their means of existence (general decay nature, which affects even the gift of the valar, lembas, whose corn can neither grow under the shadow of 'normal' plants, nor can it withstand the evil winds bearing the influence of Melkor). In order to conclude their mission to its fullest success, the elves need protection against such factors, a protection given by the power of their rings. I see Galadriel's realm as one in which the elves are allowed to manifest their sub-creative skills in all matters of life, to successfully resist Sauron and to ultimately fulfill a critical part of Eru's plan: the raising of Men to a higher level of their potential.

davem

02-03-2006, 05:24 PM

I see Galadriel's realm as one in which the elves are allowed to manifest their sub-creative skills in all matters of life, to successfully resist Sauron and to ultimately fulfill a critical part of Eru's plan: the raising of Men to a higher level of their potential.

I could see this applying to Rivendell, but hardly to Lorien. Lorien is increasingly cut off from the world of Men as a direct consequence of Celeborn & Galadriel's policy.

Lalwendë

02-03-2006, 05:31 PM

I think that Men are able to 'reach their potential' without the Elves - as shown in Men like Faramir - he may look fondly on his Numenorean heritage but he is living in Gondor, a long way from the Elves. The only Man we see who has had extensive dealings with Elves, and with Lorien, is Aragorn. In this respect I can see that he must have received a great deal of learning and guidance from the Elves, but again, it must from Rivendell that he gains the greater influence. Lorien's isolation from the world of Men has resulted in it being viewed with great suspicion by Men, so if the Elves were meant to help Men achieve their potential then those in Lorien have failed, surely?

Nogrod

02-03-2006, 07:59 PM

Isn't it also in a way, that we have two traditions present at the same time, at least in the west. The one would say, that the mankind has fallen from paradise and continues to fall. Everything that is, is less than what was. The second would say, that we, as a mankind, are climbing the ladders of enlightenment and evolution, to the future, that will be all the better for everyone?

[=Raynor] According to Letter #181, the elves represent "the artistic, aesthetic, and purely scientific aspects of the Humane nature raised to a higher level than is actually seen in Men. That is: they have a devoted love of the physical world, and a desire to observe and understand it for its own sake and as 'other' - sc. as a reality derived from God in the same degree as themselves - not as a material for use or as a power-platform. They also possess a 'subcreational' or artistic faculty of great excellence". Their ennoblement of the Men race (at least through the union of the blood lines) is part of a divine plan. In the same text quoted above, Dangweth Pengolodh, it is stated that:
Quote:

Others perceiving that in nothing do Men, and namely those of the West, so nearly resemble the Eldar as in speech, answer that the teaching which Men had of the Elves in their youth works on still as a seed in the dark

And in Myths Transformed it is stated that "in their association with the warring Eldar Men were raised to their fullest achievable stature". Legolas notes that those exiting Lothlorien are "changed" - for the better.

My conclusion would be that the elves had a certain critical role in ME: to raise Men to a higher level, a point illustrated by the above refferences; yet in Middle Earth, the marring of Melkor threatens to accelerate not only the waning of the elven hroa due to the fire of their spirit but also their means of existence (general decay nature, which affects even the gift of the valar, lembas, whose corn can neither grow under the shadow of 'normal' plants, nor can it withstand the evil winds bearing the influence of Melkor). In order to conclude their mission to its fullest success, the elves need protection against such factors, a protection given by the power of their rings. I see Galadriel's realm as one in which the elves are allowed to manifest their sub-creative skills in all matters of life, to successfully resist Sauron and to ultimately fulfill a critical part of Eru's plan: the raising of Men to a higher level of their potential.

I must say, I'm at odds with this "raising men to a higher level of their potential". Isn't Tolkien more like a romantic, who kind of lays before our eyes, what we could have been, but which we never were?

The elves of Middle Earth need protection, yes. But why are they entangled with such "technological" devices as rings? Isn't this just a story of a great fall, when even the (once fallen?) elves had to cling with artifical things to maintain even a part of what they had been?

The times', they are a changing? So decay everywhere? Clinging on to the first story. Tolkien's story of it?

Tolkien's vision of art might be a subject to another discussion. He surely was a child of his time (as we too are, of course). But some basic, conceptual things could be opened from the vantage point of history...

Bêthberry

02-04-2006, 09:24 AM

Bêthberry: Galadriel's Art/Technology is not the only instance of this nostalgia in LotR. Other examples of it are Treebeard and the Ents, and indeed the entirety of the Rohirrim story-line, which is (in part) a 'might-have-been' but for the Norman conquest.

In our reading? Are you suggesting that we tend to read LotR according to late 20th century lenses and need to let it speak to us in a new 21st century way? And that Tolkien suggests this very thing in the course of the story? The end of the War of the Ring ushers in a completely new Age of Man (read Humanity). But the social norms don't change, only the demise (or diminishing) of Art (magic). Somehow I don't find in Tolkien an acceptance of this without much regret and mourning.

Now lmp, you know better than to suggest I would say there is one way to read a text. :p

I was simply trying a bit of applicability, extrapolating the logic suggested here about Galadriel to two items, LotR itself and the general ethos of readers who post here at the Downs. Is Galadriel a model for the average Downs reader? I merely ask. Do we have multiple images of the reader in LotR? Are the hobbits one kind of reader and the elves another and do readers find themselves reading the text the way their favoured character reads the events? Do some readers identify closely with the translator conceit that they have distance from these other modes? But this is to digress....

The logic developed here concerning Galadriel sought in the text itself to find a way to consider her character and behaviour, rather than impose an 'outside' criterion from the primary world--and that is in the finest tradition of discussion here at the Downs--to tweak out every little inconsistency or unexplained point in the Legendarium. You add a couple more examples that could be examined using the same approach. Treebeard and the Ents are likely candidates, of course, but even more intriguing is your point about Rohan. (You are getting into the mead hall business, aren't you! Splendid!)

What is the role of nostalgia in the Rohirric outlook, that is, the characters? Or are you saying that Tolkien himself created a nostalgic, revisionary history for The Mark?

I see that davme continues his great desire to find aspects of the author's psychology in the text. Intriguing this.

Nice! I would suggest rather that Galadriel is used in LOTR as a model for a prime reader for the psychology of High Elves. You get a lot of history with Elrond and Cirdan. But with Galadriel, sigh, you get as close to Valimar as a mortal can be.

Well, Elrond isn't all High Elf is he? so is his nostalgia tempered by his understanding of the Gift of Death? Or is he 'saved' from Galadriel's error by his understanding?

littlemanpoet

02-05-2006, 07:06 AM

Wow! :eek: Away for almost two days and look what happens!

I'll be glad when Rowlings' series is complete, so we have the whole thing to look at and can discuss the thing knowing what she's really driving toward. For now, we're still in the dark. That seems to be one difference between her and Tolkien: we know by the end of Chapter 2 what the big themes are in LotR; after five books of Harry, we're still not sure what Rowlings' big themes really are.

But that is exactly what makes the difference - the motives, because, as Tolkien states in Letter #155, both the good side and the evil one use the same means of magic. I can't agree. Gandalf refuses the Ring when Frodo offers it because he knows that it would corrupt him, though he would begin his tyranny with good motives. Tolkien's saying that dehumanizing means (technology) are ethically wrong (or at least inferior or dangerous) even if one's motives are good.

My conclusion would be that the elves had a certain critical role in ME: to raise Men to a higher level...I agree that we should not paint with too broad a brush regarding the Elves as somehow always wrong for realizing their ability of profound subcreation. But I cannot disagree more strongly with your conclusion: it's too Human-centered, which the first three Ages most certainly were not. The raising of certain Men to the highest level attainable, is a by-product rather than the primary purpose of the Elves. It must be remembered that ALL of Tolkien's Legendarium is based on myths and legends told and written in the past; or on hypothetical proto-words Tolkien subcreated as must- or should-have-been. Those myths are about Elves who without fail affected Men, most often for the worse, as has been discussed elsewhere on the Downs, but not as their God-(or Eru)-given purpose!

I think that Men are able to 'reach their potential' without the Elves - as shown in Men like Faramir - he may look fondly on his Numenorean heritage but he is living in Gondor, a long way from the Elves.I think the relation of Men and Elves and 'full potential' is chasing after the bucket at the end of the rainbow. It should be noted, also, that in the mythos Tolkien created, blood-lines were of utmost importance, and in Faramir the Numenorean ran true, and Tolkien "plays this up", so to speak, to show that Faramir is noble in the way that Aragorn is; and Faramir had Gandalf for a teacher (one more reason why Denethor despised both); point being, Faramir learned at just as noble feet as did Aragorn.

What is the role of nostalgia in the Rohirric outlook, that is, the characters? Or are you saying that Tolkien himself created a nostalgic, revisionary history for The Mark?I must admit to a certain degree of confusion (a failure to adequately comprehend) regarding this 'hobbits as readers' idea of yours. It's not the way my mind works, I guess. At any rate, I'm saying the latter. That does not, of course, mean that I don't see the former as a possibility. That said, it seems to me that the Rohirrim are described as a folk still existing in their poetic age. They have not yet made certain distinctions required for nostalgia to even be possible for them. They do revere their past (as opposed to their history, which is an entirely different thing, but that is fodder for a different thread), but that's not the same thing as nostalgia.

Tolkien, however, did indeed write a nostalgic revisionary feigned history for "The Mark". (For those of you who might feel as if you're a little 'outside' this particular aspect of the conversation, Bethberry and I are referring to the West Midlands, that part of England with which Tolkien so closely identified himself; this land was known historically as Anglo-Saxon Mercia, which just happens to be the Latinate form of "The Mark".) I know he says so himself ... somewhere. But what does this say to us, beyond the fact that Tolkien wrote about what he loved?

Lalwendë

02-05-2006, 08:01 AM

Tolkien, however, did indeed write a nostalgic revisionary feigned history for "The Mark". (For those of you who might feel as if you're a little 'outside' this particular aspect of the conversation, Bethberry and I are referring to the West Midlands, that part of England with which Tolkien so closely identified himself; this land was known historically as Anglo-Saxon Mercia, which just happens to be the Latinate form of "The Mark".) I know he says so himself ... somewhere. But what does this say to us, beyond the fact that Tolkien wrote about what he loved?

Funnily enough I've just been reading the passage in The Road to Middle-earth which refers to the Rohirrim. Here Shippey says that Tolkien aimed to recreate not the real Anglo-Saxons but the version of them as seen in poetry and legend. I think he is correct - the real Saxons revered the horse but were not known as great riders in battle, and much Anglo-Saxon culture was in fact concerned with trade and land. They did not ride around with spears looking for battles, much as the Rohirrim sometimes seem to do! Tolkien's 'version' of this culture does seem to be his own vision, rather than what 'actually happened'.

I think as well that there is another difference between the Rohirrim and the 'real' Anglo-Saxons. The Rohirrim are on the cusp of developing a written literature of their own, but they are still in the oral stage; the Anglo-Saxons had a period of relative stability in which to develop a rich culture in England - this was then cut off as it was flowering.

Raynor

02-05-2006, 09:26 AM

Ok, some more on the issue of the rings (letter #181):

"The 'Three Rings' were 'unsullied', because this object was in a limited way good, it included the healing of the real damages of malice, as well as the mere arrest of change; and the Elves did not desire to dominate other wills, nor to usurp all the world to their particular pleasure.But with the downfall of 'Power' their little efforts at preserving the past fell to bits. There was nothing more in Middle-earth for them, but weariness. So Elrond and Galadriel depart."
Isn't it also in a way, that we have two traditions present at the same time, at least in the west. The one would say, that the mankind has fallen from paradise and continues to fall. Everything that is, is less than what was. The second would say, that we, as a mankind, are climbing the ladders of enlightenment and evolution, to the future, that will be all the better for everyone?I would agree with the first tradition; concerning the second one, Men could only truly advance in matters of wisdom, since their hroar are continuously erroded - unless there is a special divine intervention to help them.
I must say, I'm at odds with this "raising men to a higher level of their potential". Isn't Tolkien more like a romantic, who kind of lays before our eyes, what we could have been, but which we never were?Tolkien does reffer to Numenoreans as "Man rehabilitated", although that was true only for a short while.

But that is exactly what makes the difference - the motives, because, as Tolkien states in Letter #155, both the good side and the evil one use the same means of magic. I can't agree. Gandalf refuses the Ring when Frodo offers it because he knows that it would corrupt him, though he would begin his tyranny with good motives. Well, that is a bit of a strawman, since I wasn't reffering to the One ring, but to the elven use of magic, concerning which (letter #155):

"Magia could be, was, held good (per se), and goeteia bad. Neither is, in this tale, good or bad (per se), but only by motive or purpose or use. Both sides use both, but with different motives"

Those myths are about Elves who without fail affected Men, most often for the worse, as has been discussed elsewhere on the Downs, but not as their God-(or Eru)-given purpose!From the letter #131:

"The doom of the Elves is to be immortal, to love the beauty of the world, to bring it to full flower with their gifts of delicacy and perfection, to last while it lasts, never leaving it even when 'slain', but returning - and yet, when the Followers come, to teach them, and make way for them, to 'fade' as the Followers grow and absorb the life from which both proceed"

Moreover, Tolkien states that, prior to the One Ring, Sauron ruled over _all_ Men who didn't have contact with the elves.
It should be noted, also, that in the mythos Tolkien created, blood-lines were of utmost importance, and in Faramir the Numenorean ran true, and Tolkien "plays this up"While I agree that blood is given a good deal of importance, Tolkien also makes the following remarks in the letters:
Here we meet, among other things, the first example of the motive (to become dominant in Hobbits) that the great policies of world history, 'the wheels of the world', are often turned not by the Lords and Governors, even gods, but by the seemingly unknown and weak - owing to the secret life in creation, and the pan unknowable to all wisdom but One, that resides in the intrusions of the Children of God into the Drama. It is Beren the outlawed monal who succeeds (with the help of Luthien, a mere maiden even if an elf of royalty) where all the armies and warriors have failed: he penetrates the stronghold of the Enemy and wrests one of the Silmarilli from the Iron Crown.
...
[the] structure [of the story]is planned to be 'hobbito-centric', that is, primarily a study of the ennoblement (or sanctification) of the humble

davem

02-05-2006, 09:49 AM

"The 'Three Rings' were 'unsullied', because this object was in a limited way good, it included the healing of the real damages of malice, as well as the mere arrest of change; and the Elves did not desire to dominate other wills, nor to usurp all the world to their particular pleasure.But with the downfall of 'Power' their little efforts at preserving the past fell to bits. There was nothing more in Middle-earth for them, but weariness. So Elrond and Galadriel depart."

Yet we have Tolkien's own assessment of the Elves' motives (can't say which letter, as I've just found the quote on a search) :

But the Elves are not wholly good or in the right. Not so much because they had flirted with Sauron; as because with or without his assistance they were 'embalmers'. They wanted to have their cake and eat it: to live in the mortal historical Middle-earth because they had become fond of it (and perhaps because they there had the advantages of a superior caste), and so tried to stop its change and history, stop its growth, keep it as a pleasaunce, even largely a desert, where they could be 'artists' – and they were overburdened with sadness and nostalgic regret.

Lalwendë

02-05-2006, 10:40 AM

Yet we have Tolkien's own assessment of the Elves' motives (can't say which letter, as I've just found the quote on a search) :

Quote:
But the Elves are not wholly good or in the right. Not so much because they had flirted with Sauron; as because with or without his assistance they were 'embalmers'. They wanted to have their cake and eat it: to live in the mortal historical Middle-earth because they had become fond of it (and perhaps because they there had the advantages of a superior caste), and so tried to stop its change and history, stop its growth, keep it as a pleasaunce, even largely a desert, where they could be 'artists' – and they were overburdened with sadness and nostalgic regret.

This to me bears out some of my suspicions about Galadriel. In Middle-earth she is able to have her own realm and to exercise power, something she desires. That she desires it is borne out in both the wooing gifts of Celebrimbor which will bestow greater power, and her comment about the One Ring that she has 'desired' it at some point, whether to see if she can be the one to destroy it or use it I'm not commenting on here. When she says she will 'diminish' and go West, it is literally that - she will give up notions of power and independence as in the Undying Lands there are undoubtedly many Elves greater than she is and she will once more be but one of many.

Nogrod

02-05-2006, 06:17 PM

This to me bears out some of my suspicions about Galadriel. In Middle-earth she is able to have her own realm and to exercise power, something she desires. That she desires it is borne out in both the wooing gifts of Celebrimbor which will bestow greater power, and her comment about the One Ring that she has 'desired' it at some point, whether to see if she can be the one to destroy it or use it I'm not commenting on here. When she says she will 'diminish' and go West, it is literally that - she will give up notions of power and independence as in the Undying Lands there are undoubtedly many Elves greater than she is and she will once more be but one of many.

And just to remind the point made earlier by davem, she is making the Lorien stand with the help of a craft, or technology (ie. the ring she has), and even having doubts', whether she should continue doing so, maybe taking the One Ring to settle things for the time being...

And if we interpret Tolkien being against all technological views' of the world, then also Galadriel is "damned". She also represents the age of the fallen, those who try to yield powers that make themselves slaves at the same time.

Holding Lorien blossoming, is against the turn of the tide. To try to reserve it, is a "blasbhemy", not yielding to the "natural" shape of events' unfolding. So she must wane. (She might have fought back, with her ring - or even with the One Ring - but in the end, she would have lost the battle). And there is heroism in her decline! She is the last to willfully deny technological might and freely wane herself out of power. So one of the elders', true kin to generations' that have passed before her. (Well, we could discuss Boromir or Faramir in here, but I think, they haven't the symbolical value of Galadriels' denial)

These "people" entangled themselves with the fortunes' of the ring. They beated the One Ring, just to build up their own society, based on principles' that the ring could vote for...?

davem

02-06-2006, 03:41 AM

Of course, we have to be careful not to lay all the 'sin' at Galadriel's door. Tolkien states that this is an Elvish failing, not simply a 'Galadrien' one. Her ambition was higher than her compatriots, so she became greater, but consequently her 'sin' was greater. Its interesting that she 'passes' the test & is allowed to return into the West not because of her efforts in the battle against Sauron, not because of her struggles & sacrifices in the war, but because in the end she repents & chooses humility. It is only when she is prepared to 'diminish' (ie to let go of her dreams of power & become simply herself once more) that she is allowed to go home.

This is in sharp contrast to Frodo for whom there is 'no real going back'. The Shire will not be the same for him because he is not the same Hobbit he was. Galadriel can let go of everything she had been & return to her original state - Frodo cannot. Why?

Perhaps because the persona Galadriel had created for herself was, in the end, a false one, while for Frodo the changes that happened to him were not self imposed falsehoods but were a true transformation. The Galadriel we meet in LotR is not the true Galadriel - only after the offer & rejection of the Ring do we see the real Elf-Woman :

She lifted up her hand and from the ring that she wore there issued a great light that illumined her alone and left all else dark. She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful. Then she let her hand fall, and the light faded, and suddenly she laughed again, and lo! she was shrunken: a slender elf-woman, clad in simple white, whose gentle voice was soft and sad.

I wonder what this tells us about Tolkien's philosophy, about the 'laws' of Middle-earth?
In this passage we see first of all the false persona: 'She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful.' Then we see the real woman:'a slender elf-woman, clad in simple white, whose gentle voice was soft and sad..

Galadriel changes herself, effectivly makes herself into a work of Art (yet can we call it 'Art' in the Tolkienien sense when it is achieved through magic, the powers of Elessar & Elven Ring? Frodo, on the other hand, is transformed through his experiences. Galadriel can go home merely by letting go of the false persona she has built up, Frodo cannot go home because he has actually become a different person. Galadriel has been playing a game with power, she is like a child playing at grown-ups (this is true for all the good she achieves). In the end she 'merely' has to put away her toys (much though she may have loved those toys, much though she may have achieved with them). Frodo hasn't been playing at all. In the end, though, it is Frodo who achieves the great victory, not Galadriel. So, it is Frodo who loses all not Galadriel.

Yet both have learned a lesson & 'grown' (ironically, the consequence of Galadriel's 'growth is to become 'shrunken' - though actually she only 'shrinks' to her true 'size'. Frodo actually 'grows' morally & spiritually). Galadriel comes to the realisation that she is too 'small' for her fantasy, Frodo that he is too 'big' for his old reality. Galadriel goes home, Frodo goes into exile. I don't know who gets the better of the deal: We can't say that in her return to the Undying Lands Galadriel is being rewarded - she's only going back to what she had before. Frodo, on the other hand, is said to be being 'rewarded' by being allowed to pass into the West. Yet we have to ask whether the 'reward' is worth the suffering he had to go through - we're never actually told whether he felt it was all worth it: he merely tells Sam that sometimes it must be so - that someone has to lose the things they love so that others may keep them. He cannot just let his hand fall, laugh, & become a simple Hobbit again.

Of course, she, at the test, was able to reject the Ring. He was not.

Bêthberry

02-06-2006, 08:32 AM

They do revere their past (as opposed to their history, which is an entirely different thing, but that is fodder for a different thread), but that's not the same thing as nostalgia.

Tolkien, however, did indeed write a nostalgic revisionary feigned history for "The Mark". (For those of you who might feel as if you're a little 'outside' this particular aspect of the conversation, Bethberry and I are referring to the West Midlands, that part of England with which Tolkien so closely identified himself; this land was known historically as Anglo-Saxon Mercia, which just happens to be the Latinate form of "The Mark".) I know he says so himself ... somewhere. But what does this say to us, beyond the fact that Tolkien wrote about what he loved?

Well, Mr. Mead Hall Keeper, I look forward to this different thread--when, of course, you have time to develope and post it.

Funnily enough I've just been reading the passage in The Road to Middle-earth which refers to the Rohirrim. Here Shippey says that Tolkien aimed to recreate not the real Anglo-Saxons but the version of them as seen in poetry and legend. I think he is correct - the real Saxons revered the horse but were not known as great riders in battle, and much Anglo-Saxon culture was in fact concerned with trade and land. They did not ride around with spears looking for battles, much as the Rohirrim sometimes seem to do! Tolkien's 'version' of this culture does seem to be his own vision, rather than what 'actually happened'.

I think as well that there is another difference between the Rohirrim and the 'real' Anglo-Saxons. The Rohirrim are on the cusp of developing a written literature of their own, but they are still in the oral stage; the Anglo-Saxons had a period of relative stability in which to develop a rich culture in England - this was then cut off as it was flowering.

There is that other important aspect of Old English literature -- riddles. You might say Old English literature is riddled with them.

The earliest known collection is in The Exeter Book, some of which are in Latin. The Latin ones are different from the Old English ones, which some scholars have called "literary games". W. P. Ker called them "imaginative thought." Here's an online paper describing Old English riddles (http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~cpercy/courses/1001Brewer.htm) and here are some online translations (http://faculty.uca.edu/~jona/texts/oeriddles.htm).

Interesting that Tolkien gives central importance to riddling not to the Rohirrim, but to the hobbits--or at least Gollem and Bilbo. Also interesting that riddles are absent from Beowulf. I can't recall that The Battle of Maldon has any, but it's been some time since I read it. Maybe our resident Old English scholars--Squatter and Fordim-- can suggest why-- if indeed it is the case--riddles are absent from the heroic literature.

As for Tolkien's love of the culture which, as Lal says, "was cut off in its flowering"--and to relate this to the question of nostalgia--I know of at least one Old English scholar who used to hand out a chronology which ended with this:

1066 Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

EDIT: Actually, I don't like those five translations. Here's another site with both the OE and Modern English transations: Old English riddle translation (http://www.swarthmore.edu/Humanities/english/oldenglish/)

drigel

02-06-2006, 08:41 AM

wonder what this tells us about Tolkien's philosophy, about the 'laws' of Middle-earth?
Its a wonderfull personification of the elvish story by that time (actually starting at the conclusion of the Last Alliance). The transition age where legend slips away, and the harsh reality of the fact that the age of mankind is being ushered in, like it or not. To me, the rings use for her (could she have done the same thing with Vilya?) was all about the attitude of a High Elf that remembered paradise, but also remembered ME in its vigorous youth, and how close it was to paradise, before so much marring. And the realization by LOTR that the ravages of time can sweep away both the ideal of ME and the ideal of her people.

The Galadriel we meet in LotR is not the true Galadriel - only after the offer & rejection of the Ring do we see the real Elf-Woman
She was both because she HAD to be both, IMO. It may have been regional by that time, but her kingdom was necessary and vital to the ultimate mission. Plenty of chances to sail west for her, although I think pre-Frodo, in her mind, she didnt think she had Pardon. Which to me sets up the idea that the idea of being unforgiven motivated a lot of her decision making, to her credit. Not that she had something to prove, but that she didnt let that change her soul, ultimately.

Holding Lorien blossoming, is against the turn of the tide. To try to reserve it, is a "blasbhemy", not yielding to the "natural" shape of events' unfolding.
It is, and the use of technology augments it. But then again, so is any civilized existense, no? We all blaspheme as soon as we left the tree. It reminds me of a conservation project that is trying to save a certain species from extinction, regardless of the impact, or even whether or not it was our fault. Plenty of extinctions occur, most have happened long before we came on the scene to have an impact. Some would call that a sin, others would call it benevolent, most wouldnt decry blasphemer, would they?

Raynor

02-06-2006, 11:51 AM

Yet we have Tolkien's own assessment of the Elves' motives (can't say which letter, as I've just found the quote on a search) :
But the Elves are not wholly good or in the right. Yet not even the valar are entirely good in a corrupted world, esspecially everyone (but the Men) is dependent to a 'tainted' music; moreover, the motivation for this particular actions stems also from Eru:
But the Quendi shall be the fairest of all earthly creatures, and they shall have and shall conceive and bring forth more beauty than all my ChildrenThey just did their creator's will and followed their own nature - not much blasphemy to me there.
When she says she will 'diminish' and go West, it is literally that - she will give up notions of power and independence as in the Undying Lands there are undoubtedly many Elves greater than she is and she will once more be but one of many.I think she merely appears weary due to her challenge - she must have put forth a great deal of will power. In the greater sense, all elves of the west are better 'preserverd' phisically:
That I can well believe, said Finrod: that your bodies suffer in some measure the malice of Melkor. For you live in Arda Marred, as do we, and all the matter of Arda was tainted by him, before ye or we came forth and drew our hroar and their sustenance therefrom: all save only maybe Aman before he came there. For know, it is not otherwise with the Quendi themselves: their health and stature is diminished. Already those of us who dwell in Middle-earth, and even we who have returned to it, find that the change of their bodies is swifter than in the beginning. And that, I judge, must forebode that they will prove less strong to last than they were designed to be, though this may not be clearly revealed for many long years. And likewise with the hroar of Men, they are weaker than they should be. Thus it comes to pass that here in the West, to which of old his power scarcely extended, they have more health, as you say.yet the elves of ME are enriched wisdom - I would say it is worth the trade :). I don't think Galadriel would be a 'common' elf - she did after all get Gimli's admission into Valinor, the people she ruled would still follow her, and her lore is above most elves'.

The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

02-06-2006, 12:26 PM

Interesting that Tolkien gives central importance to riddling not to the Rohirrim, but to the hobbits--or at least Gollem and Bilbo. Also interesting that riddles are absent from Beowulf. I can't recall that The Battle of Maldon has any, but it's been some time since I read it. Maybe our resident Old English scholars--Squatter and Fordim-- can suggest why-- if indeed it is the case--riddles are absent from the heroic literature.

To be quite honest, a lot of the belief in the Anglo-Saxon love of riddles is based on conjecture, mainly raised to explain why a bishop would donate a collection of them, some of which are extremely suggestive, to a group of Benedictine monks. Clearly wisdom and knowledge were important to Anglo-Saxons, just as to their cousins in the Norse world, but their own maxims could well have been influenced by biblical models, and much ink has been spent on debating the point. What we might term (and I will because I'm not being marked) the 'greatest hits' of Anglo-Saxon England, apart from the Exeter Book riddles themselves, contain little of the character of Bilbo and Gollum's encounter in The Hobbit. That looks more like the sort of wisdom contest that one encounters in Vafþrúðnismál (http://www.heimskringla.no/original/edda/vafthrudnesmal.php) (translated here (http://www.stavacademy.co.uk/mimir/layvaf.htm) and here (http://jackowitch.com/vofthruonismal.html)), although in the Icelandic poem there are no riddles, only a direct testing of knowledge with a suitably high stake. An Old-English treatment of the same form of contest is Solomon and Saturn (http://www.georgetown.edu/labyrinth/library/oe/texts/a13.html), in which the pagan deity, made human in line with early-medieval thinking, contends with the legendarily wise king of Israel. In this latter contest, the stake is not a head but faith: Saturn is eventually convinced of the truth of Christianity and laughs with joy at the realisation.

Perhaps the closest episode to the contest in The Hobbit that I've seen is Alcuin's Disputatio Pippini cum Albino scholastico. This is a Latin work, written at the court of Charlemagne, but its author was a Northumbrian with close ties to the northern English church. Then again, in this third piece, there is no stake. The contest is a light-hearted game between two learned men, scholar and patron, and lacks the confrontational aspects of the two examples above.

What Tolkien did in Riddles in the Dark and throughout The Hobbit was to combine disparate Germanic ideas in a new context (yes, I know there's a word for that, but I don't like it). Bilbo stands in the role of Oðinn, and his head is also at stake. However, instead of the rather disappointing oral examination to which the Norse god and the frost-giant subject one another, Tolkien substitutes actual riddles with the same enthusiasm as did Alcuin. He reconstructs a game in which the Exeter Book riddles might have been used, following the pattern of medieval exemplars.

Heroic poetry has little space for formalised riddle-contests, although it does abound with maxims and contests of wit and intelligence. Indeed, the opening lines of The Finnsburh fragment may be the conclusion of a pseudo-riddle, in which a mysterious phenomenon is described in riddling terms, only to be explained by the hero of the piece. The most obvious point is that heroic literature lives chiefly on the battlefield, whereas riddles are definitely an occupation for an idle hour. There seems little sense in warriors hurling crossword clues at one another when they ought to be throwing spears, and the main use of conundra is therefore to demonstrate the intellectual superiority of the protagonists. In The Hobbit, Bilbo's winning riddle only demonstrates his own confusion, which is probably a subtle joke on Tolkien's part: many hours have been spent in debate over the meaning of Old English riddles.

The Rohirrim, although Anglo-Saxon in many respects, are based on the characters of Old English poetry, which as it survives is not laden with formal riddles. The closest that heroic Anglo-Saxon verse comes to genuine riddles is its extensive use of metaphor and variation, which is used by some to suggest a love of enigmatic speech. Being more rooted in the heroic episodes, the Rohirrim are less likely to show the more playful aspects of surviving Anglo-Saxon culture that Tolkien gives to the Hobbits, although it is unlikely that the Rohirrim were without riddles; I am sure that The Lord of the Rings contains a passing reference by Merry to Théoden's knowledge of them, although I must rely on another member's better memory to confirm or deny this. [EDIT: Actually it doesn't. I looked last night and could find no such reference. Since it doesn't seem to appear in the Letters or Unfinished Tales either, it must have been a figment of my imagination.]

On the subject of Mercia, we should be very circumspect. The Old English form of this name, Mierce means 'border people', which is a good description of both the Rohirrim and the Mercians. The Old English word mearc, mearce means, among other things, a boundary, and Tolkien's use of it in The Lord of the Rings is probably descriptive rather than related to the Anglo-Saxon kingdom. It should also be borne in mind that Mercia does not equal the West Midlands, as Tolkien would have been the first to point out. At its height under Offa, Mercia formed the whole of central England, from the northern borders of Kent and Wessex to the Humber, from parts of modern Wales to East Anglia. Tolkien sometimes described himself as a Mercian, but his fiction in that direction need not have influenced his portrayal of Rohan.

Sorry to continue down what looks to be a cul-de-sac, but in my defence I was asked.

As for Tolkien's love of the culture which, as Lal says, "was cut off in its flowering"--and to relate this to the question of nostalgia--I know of at least one Old English scholar who used to hand out a chronology which ended with this:

"1066 Sic Transit Gloria Mundi"

Indeed it does, and, indeed, did: sic semper barbari vincent. This is the main pillar of my proof that in the end every civilisation is destroyed by pretentious nouveaux riches.