[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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.

Originally Posted by davem

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?

Originally Posted by davem

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

For someone who claims not be expressing his own views, you seem to be defending the distinction made by "some Christians" rather vigorously.

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Originally Posted by davem

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.

Originally Posted by Frodo Baggins

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.

Originally Posted by Frodo Baggins

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?

Originally Posted by Frodo Baggins

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.