[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

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.)

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

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.

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

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.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

… 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. 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.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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.

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 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.