Outrage?

[Kath]

Funny that I haven't encountered any Pullman-bashing web page yet, though, as his books definitely fill 'for children' bill in bookstores. Or are there some?

Actually there was some bother about the films as Bêthberry said. There is a newspaper article up in my school library (which I still haven't read but will do eventually) and it says something like 'God removed from Dark Materials Trilogy' because of Christian outrage over the portrayal of God in the film.

I wonder if part of the response to Rowlings was motivated in fact by the zealous fan behaviour of her initial readers. Hasn't Tolkien grown slowly in reputation so that the initial response to him lacked the kind of fan fervour we see today?

This backs up the idea that Lalwendë came up with but if that is the case then was there a 'knee-jerk' reaction when the films came out? Because at that time a lot of people suddenly became very interested in Tolkien. The popularity of the books skyrocketed so people could read them before they went to see the film, or indeed after.

So what basis would there have been for "discerning" parents to have treated them any differently at that time?

I'm sticking with the different society theory for that one Saucepan Man.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Kath

I'm sticking with the different society theory for that one Saucepan Man.

This may explain why the Harry Potter books are more heavily targeted than LotR was when it was first published, but it does not justify it. Not does it justify the differing present day reactions to the renewed interest in LotR as a result of the films (on the one hand) and the Harry Potter books/films (on the other).

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by lindil

Violent video games/tv [to take a more obvious and I think more researched example] do not make kids immediately want to go and kill someone/thing but they do slowly but surely change perception and reactive habits.

Interesting point this. In a recent study, it was found that playing "violent" games where there was a clear distinction between "goodies" and "baddies" (eg Doom) not only improved children's reactions, but also increased their empathetic qualities. On the other hand, I agree that the impressionable nature of children justifies a reasonable degree of censorship. I was shocked to discover (from the same source as the research mentioned above) that a worrying proportion (something like 1 in 3, if I recall) of primary school children (under 11s) in the UK regularly play "Gangsta" games which involve players committing crimes and even sleeping with prostitutes and then killing them.

Originally Posted by lindil

Ban it? No.
Ponder the ramifications of HP's 'worldview' w/ your kids, absolutely.

I don't disagree, but the same should apply to LotR.

[lindil]

SpM posted:I don't disagree, but the same should apply to LotR.

Absolutely!, but as I pointed out, JRRT in a masterful way consciously revised LotR towards Catholic origins. If you dig deep that is what you get, his cosmology is pointing to God. It is not in your face in LotR as in the Silm, but I doubt if many reading Silm are suprised or shocked by the opening chapters, even if they do not resonate with them initially.

Indeed I would not be suprised if at some point down the road, JKR does some sort of Silm like prequel[s] to HP, to put it in a religious context that it is so obviouly missing. Perhaps a revealing of why there is no religion in HP at all, what led to a silent 'seperation of magic and religion' and ultimately complete silence....

So I maintain, that as brilliant, captivating and downright instructive as HP is, it has built in 'flaws' that JRRT not only avoided, but encoded the essence of his religion in a seemingly a-religious work [LotR], and he began it with only purity of purpose, and a willingness to 'find the story', and what 'felt' right - well that and a near complete assimilation of the entirety of extant European [and beyond] Mythologies, and a serious and deep catholic religious life.

From a slightly different tack, i would say that JRRT wrote w/ a masterful blend of skill and inspired creativity in 3 worlds. The Physical, the moral/ethical and the spiritual.

JKR has done a brilliant job w/ the physical and moral/ethical [magic is clearly no shortcut to anything essential in these kids lives, is does not help him w/ Cho, or his relationship w/ the Durselys or even his God-father [ah, I'm suprised no one caught the one other reference to religion!].

It is truly a literary device, but as JRRT realised in his works [see the Letters] magic is a two-edged sword, giving the dunedain some abilities in this area was he realized a real problem.

In LotR human 'magic' is very much placed in a cosmological context. The 'why's' and 'who's' are rather clearly spelled out and their relationships clear, all the way up to the Valar [in LotR] and Eru in Silm.

In HP we have a who, w/ muggles/wizards, but absolutely no background as to how/why the division is there, where magical powers come from and what the realtionship is to God. IF harry has a Godfather, was he baptised?

I am not saying JKR was 'wrong' to not include all this, perhaps she will one day. But it leaves a big void in the 'spiritual' that JRRT did not leave. And that void is something that 'nature' [and many fundamentalists] abhor.

Persoanlly I thin kthe HP benefits in worlds 1 and 2 if you will, far outweigh the vaugeness of the spiritual. Indeed it gives me the opportunity to talk w/ my girls about the rampant de-personalization of God as 3 Persons--> God as Spirit [a very common way in Northern Cal. at least to refer to God in a totally non-'religious' way]. This trend is ubiquitous and I think ultimately insidious, but it is a fact, and one can reply in a variety of ways.

Now if HP had sly references to say, the Necronomicon or some other blatantly demonic system, well alot more of us would be singing a different tune, no matter how good the writing is. The Deryni books are a good example [again]. I would not let my kids read those, till I think they are really ready to have serious talks about the occult.

HP does 'trivialize' the occult in some ways. I find it a rather funny caricature of real magic and witchcraft [which I know exist].

Latin words + wizard blood + proper wand technique = HP 'magic'

Only in the spell used to repulse dementors, do we see anything approaching the real deal. And frankly I am very glad she was not more explicit.

[sorry for the several additions...]

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by lindil

Absolutely!, but as I pointed out, JRRT in a masterful way consciously revised LotR towards Catholic origins.

Ah, but you misunderstand. Not being overly religious myself, I do not find the lack of themes specific to any one religion to be a deficiency in JKR's works. My discussion with my children would focus more on the general moral messages to be derived from these works, and it seems to me that there is much common ground between the two in this regard.

While it's easy for me to say as I don't have any strong faith-based views, I would not seek to impose any specific system of belief (religious, political or otherwise) on my children. In this regard, they will have free choice. I am, however, concerned to encourage in them the same strong moral beliefs that I hold and I see both LotR and the Harry Potter books as being consistent with these.

[Encaitare]

Only in the spell used to repulse dementors, do we see anything approaching the real deal. And frankly I am very glad she was not more explicit.

I'm wondering what you mean by this, and what you mean by "the real deal," lindil. The only thing that sounds like something resembling the magic(k) you said you know exists is the high degree of concentration necessary for the spell to work.

In response to Kath's original question, I think LotR would have been much less likely to attract negative attention like HP has, since LR doesn't place magic at the forefront, and has none of HP's "swish and flick" business. And, as I believe someone stated before, Middle-earth is a different world where different rules apply. It's not some kind of secret magical state that exists side by side with the 'regular' world.

Maybe that's part of what causes outrage: when writers mess around with the present reality. The da Vinci code got a lot of negative attention because of the material it dealt with, and the suppositions made and theories raised about Christianity. Even so, what people fail to realize is that this and all fantasy/sci-fi/reality-warping books are works of fiction. There are always going to be aspects of the world from which parents want to shield their children. SpM mentioned violent video games (I assume you were talking about Grand Theft Auto?). Games like these are clearly not right for young children to be playing, since they glorify senseless violence and killing. Some people argue that HP glorifies magic, but it's not really the case. It is a part of the characters' lives, plain and simple, whether in everyday events or in battles. In the latter case, instead of shooting each other, they say a couple of choice words and exact their revenge that way. (Has anyone realized that this actually sounds more humane than riddling someone full of bullets? This thought just came to me.)

I'm not sure where I'm going with this, and I have to go take a math final, so I think I'll be quiet now.

[Larien Telemnar]

*Small Brain enters rather intelectual discussion*

I'm going to put my two cents in here, seeing as this is a pretty good subject.

First of all I just want to say a few things about the Harry Potter books. I'm sure that the books may be well written as far as books go, seeing as they're so popular. I haven't read them myself, or seen the movies, though. Growing up in a Christian Home in the middle of Nowhere, I have been taught a great many things about using discretion in reading different kinds of books. (I have a habbit of having a little bit of a too-active imagination, of which has made my father think I'm going to end up in a nice padded room. Go figure. ) I am tempted to read the Harry Potter books to find out why the controversy, but here are many of the reasons that many of my fellow Believers do not approve of the book.

1) Witchcraft
2) The undefined line of good and evil
3) The fact that many of the "good guys" lie to get what they want

Don't be offended by my writing, please. I'm only writing what many people have told me, who have indeed read the books.

Now about LOTR. I don't believe that it would ever cause any controversy, because even though it has Wizards in it, Magic is not the only factor in the Story. We have the power of love, the human spirit, friendship and friends who are willing to die for what is right. The Bible says: "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13) We see this so many times in LOTR, Gandalf in Moria, Boromir at Amon Hen (Amon Hen, right?), Eowyn almost died protecting Theoden. There are so many cases which reflect Professor Tolkien's Christianity.

Also, no matter what era you live in, there will always be opposition for any book, wether good or bad. I have several cousins who refuse to read Lord of the Rings because...... Weel I don't know. They're very legalistic and judgemental, and believe that any material you read other than the Bible must be dull and unimaginative. Anywoot, I agree with everyone who said that it was better accepted because of the Christian backdrop of the story. Even though Professor Tolkien did not write it as an alagory, his Christianity shows through in his works, shining with love for the story and for the reader.

[Gil-Galad]

Tolkien put some references to the life we have today in the book, in a way saying how Middle Earth was before Earth (Oliphaunts and elephants for example) though since it was widely fantasy, not a lot of out cries were made

[Mithalwen]

While JK Rowling may not share the committed faith of Tolkien, she has stated publically that she doesn't believe in magic and is rather bemused by the people who tell her that they have "tried all the spells" since she has made them up.....

However what strikes me as rather sad is that the fundamentalists who banned it have totally missed (because they haven't bothered to read it presumably) that the main messages of Harry Potter include:

The overwhelming love of a parent for a child
Doing the right thing even though it is harder than doing the wrong thing.
Sacrificing yourself for your friends/common good..
Protecting the weak
Past wrongdoing can be redeemed.....

Hmmm where have I heard some of these things before?

However from my point of view such intolerance and bigotry helps dissolves any residual feelings of sorrow that I have lost my faith....... I rather think that the fact that that chappie Mister Yulko (in the link mentioned by SpM) thinks that poor old Prof Tolkien is roasting in hell just for being Catholic speaks volumes. I mean, I have some issues with Catholicism myself but at least I am an oecumenical agnostic

As for Tolkien, partly I think that it was a different atmosphere - maybe the secularisation of society has not only made the churches more fundamental and evangelical but made them slightly paranoid. When most people at least paid lip service to Christianity an "irreligious" book (not that I think LOTR is such)is less threatening maybe?

Also it was before the expansion in university education and a time when an educated person would to some level have received a "classical education"; many clerics would have been classics scholars and all educated people would have some Latin if not any Greek. If you have grown up in an atmosphere that regarded an education based on the myths of Greece and Rome as no threat to the Christian Religion, a novel set in "another world" was unlikely to be a problem. And LOTR has such a straightforward Good v Evil message that it is hard to imagine anyone sane having a problem with it.

If I hold anything sacred these days it is probably books. To me book banning (whether Harry Potter, Lady Chatterley or Gideon Bibles) is on a par with book burning and equally abhorrent. Any religion or political who tries to ban a book because it disagrees or is perceived as disagreeing with it's world view is clearly insecure. If they are right people will come to that conclusion for themselves. The more widely you read the more likely you are to develop sound judgement and make good decisions for themselves. To limit a person's reading is a form of brainwashing. And bans are counterproductive - forbidden fruit is the most desired..... Children are not stupid either .... they will read what interests them and they can cope with. If I were a parent I would be much more concerned by what my child saw on TV or film than what it read.

Also it is far easier to monitor what children read than what they watch. And books that can be enjoyed by both adults and children provide much needed common ground with adolescents... Tolkien and Harry Potter can help to keep the communication channels open I have found with my young cousins. I gave them Pullman's Northern Lights becasue it is fantastically well written though I did warn them it was one of the darkest books I had ever read...


I will end my ten pennorth with two favourite quotes :

"There is no such thing as a moral or immoral book. Books are well-written or badly written. That is all." (Wilde).

"Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale? " Shakespeare.

[davem]

I think the essential difference between Tolkien's world & Rowling's is in their attitude as regards magic. The 'magic' we encounter in Middle earth is of two kinds - there is innate 'power' which is Eru given. This is what Gandalf, Galadriel, et al use - which is why Galadriel is at a loss to understand what Sam means by 'magic'. The other kind of magic is what we could call the study & practice of 'occultism'. It is power that is not Eru given, & the individual has to train to get it.

Innate 'abilities' (Galadriel's creating of her Mirror, Gandalf's use or 'chanelling of' the Secret Fire) are Good because the individual's were born with the ability to do those things. So, we're not dealing with 'magic' at all, just people behaving 'naturally'. Saruman's fall comes is shown - if not caused - by his desire to amass more power than Eru gave him - ie, his desire to be more than Eru made him to be. It is basically saying Eru made a mistake, He screwed up, & I have to put right what he got wrong. So 'Pride commeth before the fall.'

In Rowling's world magic is of this kind - people are not born with natural abilities that may appear to the Sams of this world as 'magic'. They study & practice to gain powers they would not have had otherwise.

Now it could be argued that the gaining of these powers is no different than excercising to make oneself physically stronger than one would have been, or reading books to increase one's knowledge. But the issue is the source of these enhanced abilities - with physical or mental 'training' we are developing & building on what we have from God, but Christians would say that magical powers are not the result of developing some innate, God given ability, but rather that these 'powers' are unnatural because they come from other 'powers', which are not God & therefore not 'good'.

So, Rowling's characters gain their magical powers in the way that beings like Saruman gains his extra powers, & their motivation is desire for such powers. This is wrong in itself - if you need anything more than you innately possess then God will give it to you - you won't have to train for years studying magic.

From this perspective Rowling's universe & the worldview it presents is essentially 'un-Christian' in that it says that the gaining of magical powers for their own sake is an admirable thing. Harry, Hermoine, Ron, et al, may use their powers to fight Voldemort, but they didn't go to Hogwarts in order[ to gain magical power for that reason. They just found a 'good' use for a bad thing - a thing they shouldn't have sought out in the first place.

All that simply to try & explain the difference from a Christian perspective - I'm not saying that its 'correct', but it does point up the essential difference between the two works.

Innate abilities, even if they seem like magic, are not magic. Magic of that kind is always seen as dangerous in Middle earth. The desire for such powers is a sign that the seeker is heading for the 'dark side'. Even objects like the Palantiri are dangerous because they promise the individual a power he or she was not meant to have. Aragorn has a right to use the Palantir - it is innate in him because of his heritage. Denethor's right is open to question, but his desire for the power to be gained from use of the Stone is what leads to his falling to Sauron.

Rowling's character's desire magical powers, to be more than they were made to be, & they are presented as good, & their desire & the powers it gains them, are not seen as wrong in & of themselves - only the way they use their magic is judged, not their desire to have it in the first place.

[lindil]

lots of great posts, I am going to throw 2 more cents in [by way of reply] and then disappear for a bit:

While JK Rowling may not share the committed faith of Tolkien, she has stated publically that she doesn't believe in magic and is rather bemused by the people who tell her that they have "tried all the spells" since she has made them up.....

Glad to hear that Mithalwen, I enjoy the books alot, but I am no seriuos potterphile, so unless something like that jumps at me...

Of course the above begs the question...what does she mean by 'believe'?
That it does or does not exist in her form as in the books?
That she doesn't believe anyone should mess with it?

If she does not believe that there is anything called magic that has been practiced down through the ages for healing, manipulation, contact w/ spirits, more manipulation, astral travel, influencing events [i.e. manipulation], then I just lot a load of respect for her, but can more easily see why she would treat it in such a cavalier way.

---------
btw,re: the Osacar Wilde quote: I would def say there are some really well written immoral books out there. Crowley's 'channelled' Book of the Law is certainly one. And it has through Rock and Roll had an enormous effect.

Does that mean all copies should be burned? Not to me, but I certainly would not let my kid near that or any other serious book on real witchcraft, pornography, black or 'white' magic, until they were able to deal with it in a very sober way [and porn does not make even the wait till your older list]. So sorry wilde, I don't go there.
--------------------
Encaitre posted in reply to me:

I'm wondering what you mean by this, and what you mean by "the real deal," lindil. The only thing that sounds like something resembling the magic(k) you said you know exists is the high degree of concentration necessary for the spell to work.

that is exactly what I meant. This is emphasized in no other place I recall in the HP books. Everything else is Latin+ wizard blood+ wand technique. No concentration or manipulation of the individuals mind, energy etc..., just a parody version of 'magic'.
----------------------------------------

Larien T. posted:I am tempted to read the Harry Potter books to find out why the controversy, but here are many of the reasons that many of my fellow Believers do not approve of the book.

1) Witchcraft
2) The undefined line of good and evil
3) The fact that many of the "good guys" lie to get what they want

starting at the top: I do not think the line between the moral actions of right or wrong is any less clear in HP than LotR, unless you of course object a priori to using magic/witchcraft as literary device, as many conservatives of various stripes do. I would be suprised if they did not get a bad wrap in conservative, jewish or muislim circles as well.

Harry faces moral choices even more complex than frodo in many cases. Hmm, about the lying, I am having to think about that, yeah Harry and friends and even Dumbledore lie, as does Abraham [re: his wife/'sister], and even God sort of tricking Abraham into nearly sacrificing his only son.

I don't have time to think of any more examples [not that I am saying as some here might] that the Bible or Christianity endorses lying as a matter of regular convienence, but the ban on killing certainly has exception clauses a mile long..., So other than Harry telling one lie to Dumbledore to avoid revealing, heck I forgot what, but I remember one lie, that had no justification. Usually it is to outwit the real bad dudes...Similar you might say to frodo and sam disguising [lying] themselves as Orcs to get to Mt. Doom... Or better yet, Gandalf lying to the Trolls.

as regards

even though it has Wizards in it, Magic is not the only factor in the Story. We have the power of love, the human spirit, friendship and friends who are willing to die for what is right. The Bible says: "Greater love...

I do not think HP loses any moral high ground on the self -sacrificing dept, if we figure that we have only seen 5/7ths of HP and what we see in 5/7ths of LotR. Harry and co. regularly risk their lives, reputations and even wands for each other.

Which I think underscores my earlier points about books [or any thing 'real' for that matter] having potentialy 3 levels: the physical, moral/ethical [or souls level] and the spiritual;. HP is for all practical purposes arguably neck and neck on the first 2 levels, but so far leaves one completely w/out direction as to any afterlife, revelation of purpose, destiny etc.

Right and wrong are not one thing to HP or LotR or Star Wars and another to us or the bible, it all comes down to revelation and what happens after we die, and if there are certain things other than ethics/morality, which pretty much all religions [major ones at least] agree on. HP leaves this stuff almost completely blank.
------------

SpM posted:Ah, but you misunderstand. Not being overly religious myself, I do not find the lack of themes specific to any one religion to be a deficiency in JKR's works. My discussion with my children would focus more on the general moral messages to be derived from these works, and it seems to me that there is much common ground between the two in this regard.

While it's easy for me to say as I don't have any strong faith-based views, I would not seek to impose any specific system of belief (religious, political or otherwise) on my children. In this regard, they will have free choice. I am, however, concerned to encourage in them the same strong moral beliefs that I hold and I see both LotR and the Harry Potter books as being consistent with these.

Of course, not 'imposing' sends it's own message, but that is obviously one you have decided on. Hopefully I have made it clear already that I do not see that LotR has a moral high ground that HP does not, it is all about revelation.

In a world [like HP] where somehow God and Christianity have disappeared [rather like the Matrix, only the matrix acknowledges the fact that they were believed in] leaving the familiar English London and countryside etc, and ethical dilemnas have the same place as in any 'good' Lit. the real difference is cosmology. And of course, by not teaching Kids anything one both leaves them free to choose, but also says implicitly, I have found nothing better than anything else, so maybe the 'spiritual' is a bit overated... But if one has not learned anything transcendenally spiritual oneself, or if one does not have a strong and pure intuition [backed by knowledge [read here gnosis] then there is a certain honesty in your approach....

This is a whole debate in itself, and one somewhat related to this, but if you don't want to pursue it hear SpM, I will completely understand... [and thanks for the more solid research quotes].

But make no mistake, much of JRRT's singular genius is in his seamless [or nearly] integration of story [physical], motive [ethical/moral] and divine purpose/revelation [spiritual]. The symbolism [take the thread on grey
currently kicking around. JRRT as no other writer in my experience interweaves all three into fiction w/ such harmony. Are their better writers in one or more of my '3 categories' sure, for me at least. But all 3? I am always willing to search such out.

This is why many LotR readers have become Christians - Tolkiens masterful and spiritually deep co-creation. Rowling leaves [probably wisely] the Siritual and cosmological revelations pretty strictly out of the picture. Thus there is no buried sub-text of 'witchcraft and wizardy' in the text. One is not being influenced subtly or otherwise on the 'spiritual plane', as is the case I believe, with LotR and Silm and co.
---------------------------

I missed DaveM's post as I was typing away, so I will add onto my original...
-------------------------
DaveM, I must disagree on a couple points.

In HP, wizards do have 'innate' magical abilities, recall Hagrids first Q's of Harry, 'have you ever done anything...' well we just saw harry do this moments before, sans wand and Hogwarts training.

Thus I have repeated a couple times that the essential ingredients in HP magic seem to be: wiz blood + latin [teachers and pre-students seem to skip this one some time] + wand technique [rarely skipped by prestudents]. So the only total constant is wizard blood, i.e. natural/innate ability.

-------

Dave Mposted: Now it could be argued that the gaining of these powers is no different than excercising to make oneself physically stronger than one would have been, or reading books to increase one's knowledge. But the issue is the source of these enhanced abilities - with physical or mental 'training' we are developing & building on what we have from God, but Christians would say that magical powers are not the result of developing some innate, God given ability, but rather that these 'powers' are unnatural because they come from other 'powers', which are not God & therefore not 'good'.

You must allow for the fact that HP magic is not the same as any magical powers the world has known, they are a complete and rather funny parody. Of course this is only my opinion and experience, i have read around and in the wild past practiced some of what is called 'magic'.

THe real stuff in my experience comes from 3 things: 1> other beings [angels - the fallen variety - I do not subscribe to the white magic from good angels theory as does the Golden Dawn for example], 2> training what are called psychic powers, this is for most people long boring repetitious work almost identical in it's own way to weight training, and just as one-sided. 3> Borrowed or 'stolen' from other things-beings [gems, plants, animals, their blood etc] and meshed w// one's own intent and/or energy.

One can argue that the training of psychic powers is not magic per se, and technically I would agree. Where they both, and HP 'magic' run afoul of traditional Christianity [or any traditional religion really] is whether the practice develops 'self' or puts one closer to God. These are rarely the same. And we tread on a whole complex other topic here... One can 'pray' in a completely materialistic and self-serving way that really is ego [or black] magic, of a sort. Much of the ritual involved in 'magic' is designed to create a certain state. Note the similarity of all traditional Christianity [by this I mean pre-Protestant Christianity, though Old -school Lutheranism and Anglicanism fall barely within my definition, due to the fact that they did not completely abandon traditional methods of worship or the traditional understanding of the Sacraments] anyway, note the similarity in ritual [not belief!] between the rituals in Temple Judaism, Taoism, Buddhism, Trad. Christianity and 'Magic'. Robes, incense, specific movements, preperatory fasting, etc

They are all understood not be efficacious in themselves [spiritually at least] but to be aids to a purpose. My long example being to show that it is the summing of all we are [Christ's 1st commandment] and placing that at God's feet, waiting on the Lord, that is true prayer.


How does that relate to HP and LotR, all of the enemies of Sauron and Voldemort are trying to do just this as the situation requires, as you pointed out.

Gandalf has more tricks than frodo, but to succeed both have to put all on the line to do what is right to fight the evil that is given them to fight.

One can ,make the same case for HP.

As for the school to train and create power in HP, it seems more a case of prudent management. In HP world the wizard born have rather sensibly decided better to have an [very elaborate] oversight commitee who trains/morally guides and restrains the wizard born, if need be, than let the natural talent run amok.

The parallels between that decsion, and what must of us see is approprate in regards ban books just occured to me.

Most everyone here agrees that knowledge/Lit [true or false, good or bad,right or wrong] is better understood for what it is in the right context at the right time, than burned or banned.

In the HP world the wizarding community made the same decision; better to reain and educate and guide, than not.

So again the big difference to me is a complete absence of cosmology, revelation of any kind.

JKR has implicitly endorsed the vague 'Spirit' concept, as opposed to a revelation from God [read Eru in M-E].

In HP their is no higher authority than the self of a human [Dumbledore or otherwise]. In M-E JRRT mirrors the revealed cosmology of Myth and Christianity.

[Lalwendë]

The Bible says: "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13)

This is interesting as this is exactly what does happen in the Harry Potter books, many times over; selflessness and friendship are great themes in the books. Mithalwen's list covers many other of those reasons why the Harry potter series is not quite so sinister as it may seem at face value to some.

Originally Posted by Encaitare

I'm wondering what you mean by this, and what you mean by "the real deal," lindil. The only thing that sounds like something resembling the magic(k) you said you know exists is the high degree of concentration necessary for the spell to work.

Real world Paganism is much more varied and complex than many would think. The spell casting portrayed in Harry Potter is almost comic in comparison. Instead it actually makes great use of techniques used in all other faiths such as meditation/prayer, the focussing nature of ritual and the power of thoughts and symbols. It is also broadly benevolent, just as other faiths are. Yes, there are some more damaging aspects, but then there are disturbing aspects to some sectors of other religions too! Yet you do not get many Pagans advising people not to read CS Lewis lest it make them become a suicide bomber or join a cult like that run by Rev Jim Jones!

I wish that many people with fundamental beliefs could see past the word 'witchcraft' as it is nothing to be feared in itself, it poses no more threat to the person strong in their faith than does any other faith. It is simply a different faith. The stirring up of suspicion about witchcraft (sadly a hugely emotive word) has been in the news lately with a child suffering torment at the hands of her fundamentalist family due to them thinking the child was a 'witch'; I think that this only serves to illustrate how vital it is that children are all educated about all faiths in an attempt to promote understanding and tolerance.

I think the danger in banning a book is at its most serious when it is banned by a state or public institution, as then it is in effect denied to people. When a family chooses not to allow a book to be read then this is their choice, and parents are indeed free to guide their children as they see fit. Indeed, they are free to make no such decisions and allow their children total free reign, including ignoring age restrictions on products or TV, which is a whole other ball game. It is how and why such decisions are made that concerns me. The best such decisions are made because the parent/school knows their child and can see that they are not yet mature enough to deal with the concepts in a book.

Nobody should exclusively read books endorsed by their faith. Aside from the fact that they will not learn other points of view, they are also denying themselves the chance of a lot of pleasure and enlightenmnent. Anyone who is afraid to read a book because it might 'turn' them against their faith might want to question whether their faith is strong enough. If a parent/school considers denying a child the opportunity to learn something because it may weaken their faith, then instead they might want to consider why the child ought to read that book and follow this up with learning about the issues involved.

[solarisa]

i doubt it. my opinion is lotr isn't...witchcraft...for example, sauron, he blackens nature, while galadriel tends it, and nature flourishes... i dunno, hp is about wands, and things against church. but our church doesn't ban it, on the contrary alot of my church friends are not fans, but avid readers. apart from the wands, etc. the story and morals inside is down to earth and a good read.

*i recommend hp!

**plus since churches havent banned lotr yet it's wasn't too big a problem, right??

[alatar]

Thinking about it some more, surely LOTR had to have generated some outrage - maybe we just didn't hear about it or just aren't aware of it. Led Zeppelin, the greatest rock band ever! included Tolkien within their songs, and so there had to have been some benefit from that, meaning that it was either counterculture to do so or the hype of the day (or maybe they just liked LOTR).

Also, back in the day it was Dungeons and Dragons that was going to lead all children to hell, then video games (don't think that Pong was included in this), then those card games - not sure what came next. Paralleling this was the usual suspects - cults, rock and roll, violent cartoons and anything foreign.

It would seem that there is a certain subset of the society (not always the same people) who feel the need to gripe about what the next generation is being exposed to.

And today, we can know about one protester on the other side of the planet, and the nuttier, the better, from the media's POV.