The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Kalessin · 11-25-2002, 09:25 PM

Hello everyone [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Am I alone in seeing surreal similarities between this thread and the old Trilogy and Bible controversies? Then, it was "hey, Gandalf = Jesus!" ... now it's "hey, Dumbledore = Gandalf!". Plus ca change [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].

In fact, it's the clear and evident differences between Harry Potter and LotR that are a source of controversy, NOT the similarities (which are pretty superficial and could equally be inferred between countless works with shared narrative elements, or between all/any major works of fantasy and various ancient mythologies from across the world).

For example, whilst on these boards I have at various times seen the works of Tolkien sincerely praised for manifesting an essentially Christian moral sensibility, I have seen the Harry Potter books attacked for 'promoting' witchcraft and moral relativism. This has been such a hot topic I won't dwell upon it, the arguments are all well-rehearsed [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].

It's also clearly the case that Tolkien was consciously attempting to create a working mythos with cosmological integrity as the basis for epic narrative. This was a serious and detailed literary exercise encompassing geography, anthropology, language, history and so on in the grand academic tradition.

On the other hand, Rowling's universe is here, it is part of our world, no more than a jump of wizardly consciousness from a London train station to a whimsical and (compared to Tolkien) fairly contemporary environment. The broomsticks, cod-latin phrases and unusual confectionery are (to my mind) not at all part of some viable mythical reality - there is a far more modern (or post-modern) sensibility at work here. These elements are self-referential (I refuse to delve at length into postmodernism, just take my word for it [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]), certainly ironic and in many cases designed for humorous effect.

And there is an even more obvious difference. Harry Potter was written for children (ie. within the genre of Children's Books). Written well enough to appeal to more than just children, sure, but LotR and The Silmarillion, for example, were written for ... well, who? Everyone? The English, maybe? But certainly NOT as part of a popular accepted genre, apart from perhaps 'epic narrative', where in Tolkien's day you might have found Beowulf, La Morte d'Arthur etc.

The differences, therefore, in intent and content are what count, not the similarities. For what it's worth, my streetwise 11-year old son tells me he finds Harry Potter a little childish, and LotR a bit overbearing and serious! Apparently the most popular film in his school is 'The Matrix', so what does THAT tell you?

Don't tell me - "hey, Neo = Aragorn!" [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Peace

Kalessin

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

11-25-2002, 09:25 PM	#66
Kalessin Wight Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Earthsea, or London Posts: 175	Hello everyone [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] Am I alone in seeing surreal similarities between this thread and the old Trilogy and Bible controversies? Then, it was "hey, Gandalf = Jesus!" ... now it's "hey, Dumbledore = Gandalf!". Plus ca change [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. In fact, it's the clear and evident differences between Harry Potter and LotR that are a source of controversy, NOT the similarities (which are pretty superficial and could equally be inferred between countless works with shared narrative elements, or between all/any major works of fantasy and various ancient mythologies from across the world). For example, whilst on these boards I have at various times seen the works of Tolkien sincerely praised for manifesting an essentially Christian moral sensibility, I have seen the Harry Potter books attacked for 'promoting' witchcraft and moral relativism. This has been such a hot topic I won't dwell upon it, the arguments are all well-rehearsed [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. It's also clearly the case that Tolkien was consciously attempting to create a working mythos with cosmological integrity as the basis for epic narrative. This was a serious and detailed literary exercise encompassing geography, anthropology, language, history and so on in the grand academic tradition. On the other hand, Rowling's universe is here, it is part of our world, no more than a jump of wizardly consciousness from a London train station to a whimsical and (compared to Tolkien) fairly contemporary environment. The broomsticks, cod-latin phrases and unusual confectionery are (to my mind) not at all part of some viable mythical reality - there is a far more modern (or post-modern) sensibility at work here. These elements are self-referential (I refuse to delve at length into postmodernism, just take my word for it [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]), certainly ironic and in many cases designed for humorous effect. And there is an even more obvious difference. Harry Potter was written for children (ie. within the genre of Children's Books). Written well enough to appeal to more than just children, sure, but LotR and The Silmarillion, for example, were written for ... well, who? Everyone? The English, maybe? But certainly NOT as part of a popular accepted genre, apart from perhaps 'epic narrative', where in Tolkien's day you might have found Beowulf, La Morte d'Arthur etc. The differences, therefore, in intent and content are what count, not the similarities. For what it's worth, my streetwise 11-year old son tells me he finds Harry Potter a little childish, and LotR a bit overbearing and serious! Apparently the most popular film in his school is 'The Matrix', so what does THAT tell you? Don't tell me - "hey, Neo = Aragorn!" [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] Peace Kalessin [ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]