Outrage?

[Anguirel]

Regarding Sam Gamgee and whether he would be in favour of banning Harry Potter: I appreciate it was a remark made tongue in cheek, but I really think it's quite an interesting point!

There is, it is true, something in Hobbit psychology-small-minded in every sense-that is deeply afraid and opposed to anything "outside", and it is a small step from that to hating it. But this sort of Hobbit, the Daily Smial-reading, Little Shireling type, is very much not the Hobbit we learn to admire. This is Lotho Sackvill-Baggins, or Ted Sandyman.

All the Hobbits who are likeable to us-not necessarily only the adventurous, gentrified Tooks and Brandybucks, but Sam as well-react essentially with wonder as well as fear to the outside world, and grow to accomodate it. They see the absurdity of the small Shire view of things, and are able to be more "Elvish"-even as the Elves are becoming more insular, ironically!

Certainly after his travails, then, Sam would think such a banning abhorrent. But I would argue that he would despise a banning heartily before his adventures as well. After all, why does he think Gandalf might turn him into davem's spotted toad? Because he's been told stories of Wizards doing similar things, just as he's heard, with glee, of the Elves and of Gil-Galad.

Sam, then, understands what fundamentalist Christians do not-that enchantment comes from stories, stories like the very Bible Christians venerate, and that if these stories have a power to give someone joy, then they should be banned no more than the Bible should. That those who block out attractions and food to the mind, whether in a humble form or a lofty one, stifle thought and commit an unspeakable crime.

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

Among the many fine points made against the argument by lindil in his long post above is the fact that wizards and witches in the Harry Potter series are born with this ability, as distinct from “muggles”, who are not. It is therefore a natural ability which they develop through training.

Only read the first four Potter books a long time ago, but isn't Hermoine a 'Mudblood' - a child of two muggle parents? If so, then the idea is present that any child can get magical powers by study & practice. The only characters in Middle earth who get such powers in that way are the bad guys.

Now, I've read 'occult' books, worked with Tarot, etc, etc, so I'm not puting forward this argument because I hold to it, but attempting to show why Christians may be able to happily embrace LotR but totally opposed to HP.

[Anguirel]

One of the main theses of Harry Potter is that blood counts for nothing. So Hermione is born with magical powers despite her non-magical parentage, and some children in Wizard families ("Squibs") are not born with magical powers despite their magical parentage.

The point that remains is that all the powers of Wizards in Rowling's work are indeed innate, no less so than Galadriel's or Gandalf's; but, like Galadriel or Gandalf, the children in Harry Potter require instruction to fulfill their magical potential. Galadriel studied under Melian, for example.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Anguirel

One of the main theses of Harry Potter is that blood counts for nothing. So Hermione is born with magical powers despite her non-magical parentage, and some children in Wizard families ("Squibs") are not born with magical powers despite their magical parentage.

The point that remains is that all the powers of Wizards in Rowling's work are indeed innate, no less so than Galadriel's or Gandalf's; but, like Galadriel or Gandalf, the children in Harry Potter require instruction to fulfill their magical potential. Galadriel studied under Melian, for example.

Perhaps the problem with HP is that there is no background theology to explain & account for Magic. There are no absolute dividing lines between good & evil, no philosophical basis for judging what is good & what is evil. Magic is a neutral power & only its use determines whether it is good or evil. In Tolkien's work there is 'magic' that comes out of the Good & 'magic' that comes out of the Bad/Evil, & they are different 'powers' & produce different results. In HP the heroes & villains both use the same power. This effectively puts the magicians in a superior position to 'morality' - they don't serve or reject a Higher Power by aligning themselves to it or setting themselves against it. HP is not a 'Servant of the Secret Fire', he is a 'Master' of it. There is no Higher Power in the HP universe to serve - merely 'good' & 'bad' users of 'magic'.

[Ainaserkewen]

Perhaps the problem with HP is that there is no background theology to explain & account for Magic.

That may still be revealed...they've still got another 2 books at least to go.

[Kath]

Magic is a neutral power & only its use determines whether it is good or evil.

Yes but this is also the case with Tolkien surely. From what I remember of the Silmarillion Morgoth was originally as 'good' as Manwe, it was his use of what he was given by Eru that he became evil no?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Kath

Yes but this is also the case with Tolkien surely. From what I remember of the Silmarillion Morgoth was originally as 'good' as Manwe, it was his use of what he was given by Eru that he became evil no?

Well, Morgoth perverted the Good 'powers' he received from Eru, but the Good pre-existed - it had its source in Eru Himself. What I was saying was that in HP, magic seems to be a kind of neutral power which can be used as the wizard wishes - there is no 'Good' magic which is qualitatively different from bad magic. A wizard is 'good' if he/she uses the morally neutral magic to help others, he/she is 'bad' if they use the morally neutral magic to hurt others. But the 'good' wizards are using the same power as the bad wizards.

Of course it could be argued that in LotR 'bad' magic is corrupted 'good' magic, so everyone is using the same magic there too - the good magic users are using it as Eru intended, the bad in a way He didn't intend, so I don't know how far the idea can be pushed of different kinds of magic. We do have Galadriel distinguishing clearly between what the Elves do & 'the deceits of the Enemy', so I think the real difference between good & bad magic in Middle earth is down to Eru's intent for its use. Gandalf uses magic as Eru intends him to use it, Saruman, et al, mis-use it. So, it is the existence & will/desire of Eru that is the yardstick.

Because 'God' (in some form - ie an absolute moral yardstick) is not present in the HP universe magic is simply a kind of 'natural' force, like electricity, to be used as its operators wish - but then, who decides what a 'good' or 'bad' use of magic is? Where/what is the yardstick? The wizards in HP are fumbling around in an amoral universe, trying to do the best they can - this makes the HP universe more interesting in some ways than Arda, but it also makes it more 'dangerous' for child readers - what moral criteria are they given by Rowling - how do they judge whether the action of a particular wizard is good or bad? Where is the absolute moral standard by which magical acts can be judged to be good or bad?