Quote:
|
Many think it's purely a matter of what's going to hurt their spiritual walk and if God would mind them reading it. It has nothing to do with narrow-mindedness or the religion of the author (at least not with the Christians I know). Please respect those who choose not to read them. I consider it a courageous decision to follow what you believe in, despite pressure from peers and society.
|
Ah, I meant no offence, Mushroom, and I apologise if I caused any. I have no problem with anyone who takes a personal decision not to read a particular book – for whatever reason. My problem is with those who seek to ban others from reading books on religious or political grounds.
Surely, most (if not all) here would agree that it makes little sense to ban LotR on religious grounds. And yet many find it acceptable for HP to be banned on the basis of its portrayal of witchcraft. My point is that any distinction between LotR and HP, in terms of the manner in which each portrays the concept of magic, is, in my view, artificial and can only be explicable by reference to the fact that one was written by a devout Catholic and is set in a monotheistic world (although one very different from our own), while the other was written by an Agnostic (I presume) and set in a world in which religion does not feature (at least prominently). I am with Lush in saying that there is, in substance, little difference in the concept of magic in the two books.
I take your point, Sharku, that there is a distinction to be made in Tolkien’s works between the sorcery practised by Morgoth and his followers and the higher wisdom and skill exhibited by the Elves and Ainur. I agree that the latter can be explained as “sufficiently advanced technology”. But can that not apply to “Mogul sorcery” too? After all, both forms of “magic” are ultimately derived from the same source, namely Eru. So, to my mind, the distinction arises from the way it is used, rather than its source. The “magic” of the Elves is (generally) used to good purpose, whereas the sorcery of Morgoth’s followers is used to further their evil ends.
To my mind, exactly the same points could be made to explain the concept of magic in HP. Magic in HP’s world might also simply be the application of a higher technology that “muggles” are not sufficiently advanced to apply themselves. And, like magic in Middle-earth, it too can be used either for good or for evil. The only difference of real substance is that (as far as I am aware), there is no Supreme Being in the HP books from whom all this power is ultimately derived. Is this the reason for it finding greater disfavour amongst Christian groups than LotR? Perhaps, but surely the same reasoning would apply even if there were no witchcraft in the book. The characters have physical power, and yet such physical power is not said to derive from any Supreme Being. Indeed, any book which did not attribute the qualities shown by its characters to a Christian-like God would be “Un-Christian” on that basis. But that is clearly not the reality.
And so, getting back to the original question posed by Snowdog, I can see the justification given for LotR having greater acceptance amongst Christians than the HP books. I just have a hard time accepting the logic of that justification.
I hope that explains my position more clearly.
