Thanks for interesting responses everyone [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Littlemanpoet, I tend to both agree and disagree with your side point about particular branches of fundamentalism - all the major world religions are to some degree affected by interpretations that lead to violent actions at various places around the world, which may be symptomatic of a struggle with 'modernity', or perhaps the cultural implications of a dominant and largely secular global economic system - I do not use these any of these terms pejoratively, just offering a view. At the same time extremists of any credo, whether we agree with one or other group or not, do not (by definition) represent the mainstream of a particular culture or faith.
Your point about the acceptance of Tolkien based the awareness of his own devout faith raises another interesting side issue - that the judgements in such cases are based on the author rather than the work. Would Harry Potter be treated differently if JK Rowling was a visibly practising Christian?
Comments about Ray Bradbury indicate some clarification may help - he is a prolific author and many of his works are acknowledged as classics of science fiction and short story writing, for example "The Illustrated Man", but Farenheit 451 in particular is a somewhat Orwellian fable about an intolerant society where books are burned, seen as a threat to an oppressive ideology.
Bill, I agree that I am not going to get a thousand people agreeing with a ban on Tolkien on these boards [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]. But I have always found the best way to defend a book, or idea, against its detractors is to acknowledge and understand their objections, whether one agrees or not, and to address them head on. Also, if you are willing to continue to challenge your own beliefs and assumptions, those that stay with you are arguably stronger as a result. Plenty of Cartesian demons here [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img].
Lush, in today's world books like Lolita and Lord of the Flies might appear almost sentimental set against the Columbines, Wonderland Club, and other recent atrocities. I'm not even convinced Mein Kampf or Das Kapital retain their once dreaded potential. Human nature may be relatively constant, but the thresholds of long-held taboos and the extent to which we have been forced to confront them do change over time (or are perhaps cyclical). For example, it's probably hard for a contemporary reader to contextualise Lady Chatterley's Lover in the morality of its time, and to see it as an (albeit flawed) earnest and passionate rebellion against a curtain-twitching, forelock-tugging psychological oppression.
The consensus in responses so far seems to be that the reasons for banning are all based on a reading of fantasy themes as inciting anti-Christian thoughts or ideas, and that Tolkien is sometimes/often exempt because of the (arguably mistaken) reading of his work as an allegory or similar popularising of cherished Christian tenets. Is this fair?
It is therefore somewhat ironic that in so many threads here countless posts argue quite persuasively that the rest of the genre (Harry Potter included) are nothing but derivative of Tolkien, and are in pretty much most cases pale imitations of 'the real thing'. Obviously they aren't trying hard enough [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
In a psychological sense it is a common assumption that suppression or repression (of self, or the external) stem from fear. And fear itself is a necessary and inevitable element of any punishment/reward system, including a moral or divine worldview. Is there an element of fear or insecurity in the act of book-banning - or, can one indeed see it as a responsible act based solely on an empirically acceptable expectation of consequences? Is the fact that Tolkien was an avowed Catholic or that it is possible to infer a deeply Christian subtext into his work enough protection from the seductive power of demons and magic, whilst in other works with equally unambiguous moral undertones the danger is too great?
My search for validity is an attempt to empathise, not with statements of literary criticism, but with acts of censorship taken in good faith, however much I disagree with them. I don't feel the actual reasoning behind the banning of Tolkien (or not of Tolkien but others) is straightforward enough as yet to allow that empathy. I could empathise, at least, with fear and insecurity, if that is the real cause.
My compliments for such eloquent and readable contributions [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Peace
Kalessin
|