Outrage?

[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.

[Kath]

I'm slightly lost in this thread now thanks to that enormous post from lindil!

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).

Thats true SpM but there is no way we can truly justify anything on this thread because we (so far as I know) do not wish to ban these things and so cannot explain and justify that point of view. In order to do that we would need someone who could remember back to when LotR was released for real proof as to whether there was a negative reaction to it, another person who had been behind a ban on Harry Potter but not LotR and yet another who had wanted to ban both. Unfortunately we are unlikely to get all three on this site and in this thread so we have to stick with conjecture.

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.

Yes Larien this is true but as lindil and Lalwende said there are many examples of this in Harry Potter as well. There is intense friendship that is deep enough that they will risk their own lives for each other. The power of love is an incredibly strong theme, with the love of Harry's mother protecting him from beyond the grave. There is a huge discussion on the types if magic that seems to have sprung from this thread but though the magic in HP is often much more obvious there are these instances where it is hidden but all the more powerful for it, just as it is in LotR.

Maybe that's part of what causes outrage: when writers mess around with the present reality.

Thats a good point Enca but didn't Tolkien do this slightly as well? In the Prologue when he talks about Hobbits he claims that they still live among us today, but that we can't see them because of our own lack of belief and because they run and hide from us as the world has changed. But this is one small example compared to the large version in HP.

[davem]

Originally Posted by lindil

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.

What can I say - except been there, done that. I was just attempting - probably not very successfully, to draw a distinction in terms of the way magic is seen in the different stories.

As an aside, I find Sam's understanding of wizards & their powers quite interesting. He clearly has a belief that Gandalf could 'turn him into something 'unnatural' - like a spotted toad, & then fill the garden with grass snakes. I wonder if he (at least at the beginning of the story) would have been on favour of banning HP type books from the Shire

[Larien Telemnar]

I wasn't saying that the Harry Potter characters don't risk their lives for each other, I've not read the books, but in many books friends do risk their lives for each other. A book wouldn't be good without at least one good friend dying. Wait, that sounded really morbid..............

The only thing that I've disagreed with in this whole thread (So many people have a lot of good points) is what lindil said about lying. Abraham did lie, he was human. All of us have a sin nature and lie, and Abraham was no exception. God however, does not lie. Lying is a sin, and God cannot be around sin, therefor He cannot, will not lie. He doesn't have a sin nature. With Abraham and Issac, God was telling Abraham to sacrifice his son because He was testing Abraham. He did not tell Abraham anything other than telling him to obey him. Abraham knew that God had a plan for him, and Issac. He knew that God's glory would be shown to him, even if He did not understand it at the time. God provided for them, as He always does, by sending the sacrificial Ram, and stopping Abraham from killing his son.

Temptation is a big factor, of which I've noticed in Lord of the rings. Temptation is a part of life, and struggles, like the temptations Frodo and Sam face.

Sorry, that was a "little" off topic, but I had to throw that in.

[Encaitare]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

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

I adore that quote. I adore it so much that I've made a LiveJournal icon out of it (see attachment if you care to do so). But I think maybe it would be better to say "novel," perhaps, in place of "book" since I do believe that then it would in every case be a true statement. I think it's safe to say that Mein Kampf is not a moral book, for example. Then again, we must remember that morals are relative to each person -- I can think of several contemporary issues which definitely reflect this, ie: abortion.

Lalwende, I thank you for your defense of paganism. Another thing to remember -- the term comes from the Latin word for "country-dweller," and the negativity associated with it today is all in the connotation! Also, cheers for this:

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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.

A person's religious views cannot be shaped 'properly' if he is not exposed to all manner of belief systems (IMO). Banning books seems to be an act done out of fear more than anything else: the fear that people will actually start getting ideas that might cause a threat.

Originally Posted by Kath

Thats a good point Enca but didn't Tolkien do this slightly as well? In the Prologue when he talks about Hobbits he claims that they still live among us today, but that we can't see them because of our own lack of belief and because they run and hide from us as the world has changed. But this is one small example compared to the large version in HP.

A good point on your part as well. But, as you say, it is very small in comparison. I think that to suggest that there were wizards and elves and such roaming the earth many years ago is one thing; to suggest that we're all Muggles and there are wizards all around us and we don't know it is another.

[lindil]

I'm slightly lost in this thread now thanks to that enormous post from lindil!

too true, sorry...won't do it again for, well, until the next really interesting thread w/ lots to reply too comes along ...

Seriously, I can think of few issues more relevant on the scene than this, and I had a few opinions.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Yes, but you, as an 11-year old, were hardly the one in charge of banning the books, now were you?

Sorry, I didn’t express my point sufficiently clearly. The point that I am trying to make is that, when I first read LotR, much of what has since been published concerning Tolkien’s works and life was not available. So, there was much less material available for those who might be inclined to ban the book on “irreligious” grounds to distinguish it from books like Harry Potter.

As I said in reply to Kath:

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

When I first read LotR, there was (putting aside the obvious stylistic etc differences) little in essence to distinguish its treatment of wizards, magic and the like from the treatment of these subjects by the Harry Potter books today. So what basis would there have been for "discerning" parents to have treated them any differently at that time?

But the point is moot as it is true to say that society has changed quite considerably since I was 11 (crusty old thing that I am). It is worth noting too that, on issues such as this, approaches will vary from one country to another. The Harry Potter books are much more likely to be banned by schools in the US than in the UK because Christian fundamentalism is a stronger force there. Although it has grown in strength in the UK in recent times, as witnessed by the extreme reaction from some quarters to the televising of Jerry Springer - the Opera.

Originally Posted by davem

I think the essential difference between Tolkien's world & Rowling's is in their attitude as regards magic …

I understand the argument that seeks to distinguish LotR from Harry Potter on the basis of their treatment of magic, but I don’t go along with it. 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.

Moreover, in LoR, there are references to Gandalf using spells which it appears that he has had to learn.

From The Hobbit, Out of the Frying-Pan into the Fire:

But, of course, Gandalf had made a special study of bewitchments with fire and lights (even the hobbit had never forgotten the magic fireworks at Old Took's midsummer-eve parties, as you remember).

From LotR, The Bridge of Khazad-Dum (Gandalf speaking):

I could think of nothing to do but to try and put a shutting-spell on the door. I know many; but to do things of that kind rightly requires time, and even then the door can be broken by strength.

Originally Posted by lindil

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

... 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....

Agreed, and I of course respect that your approach is tempered by your beliefs. But, as you say, I am hardly qualified to counsel my children in the finer points of spiritual belief. Although I will be open to discussion, and will be happy to express my views to them, it will largely be a matter for them to decide whether and how they wish to pursue this spiritual matters. All I can therefore hope to do is make sure that they have a good moral grounding, as my parents did for me. I suspect, however, that they will end up, like me, non-practising CofE.

[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.

[Mithalwen]

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


OK well I would not be so arrogant as to claim to know what JK Rowling believes but my understanding of her comment was that she does not believe you can point a stick at broken glass, utter a Latin imperative and fix it.

Personally while I am aware of the history of the practice of magic I certainly don't believe that it worked, and anyone being more than academically interested today in what frankly seem to me quite ludicrous practices when science is so much more "magical" I find bizarre . Riddikulus as they might say in a certain series of books. Of course people can believe what they want as long as they don't hurt any living thing but really ... I mean I don't believe magic works but if it did it would be immoral to use it.

I used to think differently and it is an episode I regret since I firmly believe that ignorance is so much more dangerous than knowledge. The more you know the less likely you are to be duped and the more widely you read the more aware you are likely to be of manipulative language. The more you can judge what is normal and what is warped.

http://www.zippynet.com/pages/bandhmo.htm

As a literature graduate I have read many books that depict views or behaviour that don't fit my moral code, Sade, Burroughs, Mailer, (not Crowley as it happens despite him being a local author ), and (I hope)needless to say it hasn't turned me into a sado-masochistic, junkie murderer any more than reading Macbeth turned me into regicide. As a child the most disturbing thing I read were a description of how to lay out a corpse a nursing handbook of my grandmother's .... I just think people sometimes need to get a grip and a sense of proportion ... and a realisation of how illogical they are .... to me if there is anything immoral in LOTR it is the the slaughter of the battlefields, the "game" between Legolas and Frodo which is only vaguely acceptable because it involves orcs not humans. Watching violence has been proved to damage children and if I ever become a parent, I will let them read what they like (though I will try to be aware of it and discuss it with them if I think it gives cause for concern) but I will be very careful what they watch.....

[Ainaserkewen]

Off topic with recent discussion, but relevant to original post:

I just wanted to put in that it's interesting to question the majority faith of LOTR readers. I also know that some people, examples on this board, are very devout Christians (whatever denomination) and absolutely treasure LOTR, find no fault in it, and fight our little hearts out if anyone tries to tell us otherwise. However, from the same or very similar Christian faiths, the oposite opinions are taken with just as much flame. It just goes to show that what's going on in terms of contraversy has nothing to do with religion, just people's perceptions and their own personal tastes.

[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?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Here is my view on the 'good magic' argument. I may be wrong, but this is what I have gathered...

'Magic' comes from evil. That is why there is no such thing as a good Wizard. For, witchcraft and such comes from satanic powers, and therefore cannot be good, and no magic can be used for good because evil won't let it's own power go against it. There is a story in the Bible that explains this nicely.

22 Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23 All the people were astonished and said, "Could this be the Son of David?"
24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons."
25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28 But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

[Mathew 12: 22-28]

So, by the same token, Gandalf comes against evil, not with magic and witchcraft, but with the power of the Valar. Harry Potter, on the other hand, comes against evil, with evil. So who wins? Evil, of course. "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined", so it makes sense that, rather than witchcraft, Gandalf uses the power given to him by Eru as an Ainour, and the power bestowed on him by the Valar.

That's what I think anyway. And may have been Tolkien’s bases for Gandalf... then again, it may not be...

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

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?

But this is effectively saying that those who do not have faith are incapable of making moral distinctions, which I simply cannot accept. In my view (and in my world) the perception of good and evil exists irrespective of the existence of, or any firm belief in, a God. Provided that the protagonists are using their powers in a way which is I consider to be good (as is the case in both LotR and Harry Potter's world), then it matters not to me whether its source is portrayed as divine or simply an innate ability or aptitude. I would have no problem with my children reading either.

Rowling is not (and should not be expected to be) setting out to teach children morality from scratch. Her books assume that her readers are capable of perceiving the difference between right and wrong (a reasonable assumption, in my view). But what she is doing is presenting them with characters - 'role models' if you like - who behave morally, exhibit virtuous characteristics (loyalty, bravery etc) and act for the good and against evil, thus reinforcing the lessons which they will have already begun to learn (from their parents, one would hope). To the extent that her readers "judge" the actions of her characters, it is against criteria with which they are already familiar.

I would also note that Rowling hails from a primarily secular society, and so the "absence" of God from her works is to be expected. I would no more expect Rowling to to portray her characters' magical powers as having their source in God than I would expect the abilities (such as intelligence and ingenuity) used by the Famous Five or the Borrowers or Doctor Who as having a divine origin (oops - showing my age again ). If one has a strong faith, then there is no reason why one cannot simply assume that the magical powers of Harry Potter and his friends are God given, just as one would assume the same of the (generally more mundane) abilities any other characters from children's novels where no specific mention is made of God. And if one does not have a strong faith, then the issue is, as I have said, largely irrelevant.

[Ainaserkewen]

Saucy, (not sure of the ages) Do you read HP to your kids/do they read it themselves? Do you have any worries that their age would affect their absorption of the "magic"? I mean, did it ever cross your mind?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Aina

Saucy, (not sure of the ages) Do you read HP to your kids/do they read it themselves? Do you have any worries that their age would affect their absorption of the "magic"? I mean, did it ever cross your mind?

My children are 7 (girl) and 5 (boy). I have not read the Harry Potter books myself and don't have them, and they are rather too young to be reading such books themselves yet, although we have seen the films. I would, however, have no concerns over the references to wizards, magic etc and I am perfectly happy for them to read the books. For the reasons that I have stated, it is just not an issue for me.

I have read The Hobbit to my daughter, and The Faraway Tree stories to both of them. The latter books, of course, have Elves, Goblins, Wizards, Witches and magic, but no religious context. Again, this doesn't concern me, because they set a good moral tone. The children and their friends in the Faraway Tree behave in a morally correct way (they do their chores, are concerned for the welfare of their parents and others and look out for each other) and "naughty" behaviour (for example, Ricks' greediness and Connie's spoilt behaviour) is shown to have appropriate consequences.

That is not to say that I am not alive to the possibility of the books influencing them in some way that I would consider wrong. For example, the children on occasion slip out in the middle of the night to visit the Faraway Tree in the Enchanted Forest. This was probably not an issue at the time Blyton wrote the books but I have no wish to encourage my children to be wandering around woods on their own at night, and so made sure that they understood that this was not something which they should ever consider doing.

[lindil]

SpM posted:But this is effectively saying that those who do not have faith are incapable of making moral distinctions

I would draw the distinction between the ethical/moral realm of the soul, which needs and presupposes no theology or revelation [ as in HP] and the realm of the human spirit, which can receive revelations, have insights into theology and trnascend space and time and come back to try and relate what it has experienced.

A simpler way to put is that faith is a spiritual relationship [or lack thereof ] with God, not an intellectual concept and moral distinctions are [prinmarily] a relationship with other people or things, and on the soul level.

This is the immense difference between HP and LotR/Silm:

HP has no theology, no background from whence the ethics and morality spring, everyone does the best [or most self-serving] they can.

Dumbledore is as high as the heirarchy of Authority goes.

Gandalf on the other hand, is - as was just pointed out, vested w/ authority from Manwe and thus Eru/God.

LotR effectively has a deeper dimension beyond the ethical/moral that so far at least in HP simply is not there.

Again I am not saying that JKR was necessarily wrong to leave all this out, but it makes in my opinion a 2 fold work, as opposed to JRRT's 3 fold.

[Selmo]

Ainaserkewen,

I read The Hobbit to my children before they could read it for themselves. I encouraged them to read LoTR as soon as their reading skills were up to it. They were older teenagers before Harry Potter was published.

I never once thought that reading and telling stories that included magic could harm them in any way. The dimmest of my daughters is of at least average intelegence. When reading The Hobbit, I didn't have to explain that Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits and dragons don't exist and that no one can realy make a ring that can turn you invisible. They could distinguise between fact and fantasy at an early age and knew without being told that LoTR and HP were only make-believe.

Interesting, exciting and a little disturbing, but not real.

For normal children, it would need a much bigger push than JRRT or JKR can give to turn them to evil.

One way to endanger children would be to tell them that reading any work that tells of witches and magic should be avoided because they are dangerous, that the super-normal powers in them are real and can be used in the real world. That would be putting a great temptation in their way.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by SpM

But this is effectively saying that those who do not have faith are incapable of making moral distinctions, which I simply cannot accept. In my view (and in my world) the perception of good and evil exists irrespective of the existence of, or any firm belief in, a God. Provided that the protagonists are using their powers in a way which is I consider to be good (as is the case in both LotR and Harry Potter's world), then it matters not to me whether its source is portrayed as divine or simply an innate ability or aptitude.

Indeed. People can be good without God and can be evil with God - that we believe or not does not make us good or evil. It is our actions which make us good or bad, and I find that reflected in the Harry Potter books. We simply cannot expect all books to have any supporting cosmology behind them as does LotR, and I don't think JK Rowling will supply one for the Harry Potter books. That one does not exist does not make the books wrong in any way, shape or form. The only potentially wrong thing (and this would not necessarily be wrong, depending on the maturity of the child) would be for a parent to use the books as babysitters, much as they do with TV, and not discuss them.

I also do not hold that evil comes from Satan. I do not believe in any such figure. In my opinion Evil comes from people, it is us who do wrong, and we have to accept that before we can deal with those evils. When someone mugs someone else it is not Satan who does it, but their need for drugs or kicks. Yes, we can say that maybe Satan caused someone to choose crime as an option, but that ignores many other concrete things such as deprivation, poor parenting, peer pressure etc etc.

If we start to think that all works which include witches, wizards, elves and suchlike must have a theological structure then where does it stop? Do we ban all fairy tales and nursery rhymes? The world would be so boring and colourless without them.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I have read The Hobbit to my daughter, and The Faraway Tree stories to both of them. The latter books, of course, have Elves, Goblins, Wizards, Witches and magic, but no religious context. Again, this doesn't concern me, because they set a good moral tone. The children and their friends in the Faraway Tree behave in a morally correct way (they do their chores, are concerned for the welfare of their parents and others and look out for each other) and "naughty" behaviour (for example, Ricks' greediness and Connie's spoilt behaviour) is shown to have appropriate consequences.

That is not to say that I am not alive to the possibility of the books influencing them in some way that I would consider wrong. For example, the children on occasion slip out in the middle of the night to visit the Faraway Tree in the Enchanted Forest. This was probably not an issue at the time Blyton wrote the books but I have no wish to encourage my children to be wandering around woods on their own at night, and so made sure that they understood that this was not something which they should ever consider doing.

I suppose this is an appropriate time to bring up a point I have always wondered about in your interest in Blyton, Spm. I never knew Blyton as a child and never had the books for my kids. In fact, I cannot recall seeing them in any of our children's bookstores. (But, having never heard of her, how could I look for her?)

To make a long story short (and it is somewhat related here), relatives who had spent some time in England donated a huge set of Blyton books to my daughter. We turned avidly to them only to be made very uncomfortable with the depiction of Blacks. (Can't recall which story now, but the pictures were part of what formed our negative opinion.)

Anyhow, as we were cleaning out things we decided to donate the set to our local school. The school wouldn't take them! Because of race issues.

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.)

And I suppose I have to relate this to Tolkien. The discussion on this thread relates to banning/censorship based upon theological values. Are there other issues/topics which do justify banning? I know that when I read T.S. Eliot's The Book of Practical Cats, I am embarassed for Eliot in his depiction of oriental races. Or does only the theological issue raise horrifying possibilities?

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

But this is effectively saying that those who do not have faith are incapable of making moral distinctions, which I simply cannot accept. In my view (and in my world) the perception of good and evil exists irrespective of the existence of, or any firm belief in, a God. Provided that the protagonists are using their powers in a way which is I consider to be good (as is the case in both LotR and Harry Potter's world), then it matters not to me whether its source is portrayed as divine or simply an innate ability or aptitude. I would have no problem with my children reading either.

But we're not discussing what matters to you, but what matters to certain fundamentalist Christians. 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

Rowling is not (and should not be expected to be) setting out to teach children morality from scratch. Her books assume that her readers are capable of perceiving the difference between right and wrong (a reasonable assumption, in my view). But what she is doing is presenting them with characters - 'role models' if you like - who behave morally, exhibit virtuous characteristics (loyalty, bravery etc) and act for the good and against evil, thus reinforcing the lessons which they will have already begun to learn (from their parents, one would hope). To the extent that her readers "judge" the actions of her characters, it is against criteria with which they are already familiar.

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? Who says 'loyalty & bravery' are 'moral' or 'virtuous'? Certainly they cannot be said to be 'moral & virtuous' in & of themselves - that would depend on exactly what the character is being loyal to, wouldn't it? And as to 'bravery' - that isn't necessarily morally good - a Death camp guard who risked his life to force children into a gas oven would have been seen by his superiors as behaving 'bravely', even heroically.

So, again, there has to be some objective moral yardstick by which even loyalty & bravery are judged as good or evil.

I would also note that Rowling hails from a primarily secular society, and so the "absence" of God from her works is to be expected. I would no more expect Rowling to to portray her characters' magical powers as having their source in God than I would expect the abilities (such as intelligence and ingenuity) used by the Famous Five or the Borrowers or Doctor Who as having a divine origin (oops - showing my age again ). If one has a strong faith, then there is no reason why one cannot simply assume that the magical powers of Harry Potter and his friends are God given, just as one would assume the same of the (generally more mundane) abilities any other characters from children's novels where no specific mention is made of God. And if one does not have a strong faith, then the issue is, as I have said, largely irrelevant.

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. If you wish there to be a 'God' in the HP universe you have to bring in your own, if you want morality, you have to supply it. As I said, a reader may decide Voldemort is the hero & Harry the villain if they wish. In Middle earth this is not logically possible, because Eru is the ultimate moral yardstick ('I think we'll get tired of that word soon!') by which characters are judged. A reader may be free to prefer Sauron to Aragorn or Frodo, but they are not free to decide he is 'Good' because Eru has set standards by which Good & evil are to be judged & by those objective standards Sauron is not good.

[Selmo]

Where can I find Eru's yardstick in LoTR? There are no Ten Commandments, Book of Deuteronomy or Sermon on the Mount to stand as such. Is Eru even named?
Are the Valar or Maiar ever refered to directly?

All we get are vague hints like Gandalf's words to Frodo that he was meant to have the Ring by the will of someone/something other than Sauron or Gandalf being sent back after his encounter in Moria by some unnamed and undefined higher power.

I know there is more information in the Appendices but few people bother to read through them all and even fewer go on to The Silmarillion.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Selmo

Where can I find Eru's yardstick in LoTR? There are no Ten Commandments, Book of Deuteronomy or Sermon on the Mount to stand as such. Is Eru even named?
Are the Valar or Maiar ever refered to directly?

All we get are vague hints like Gandalf's words to Frodo that he was meant to have the Ring by the will of someone/something other than Sauron or Gandalf being sent back after his encounter in Moria by some unnamed and undefined higher power.

I know there is more information in the Appendices but few people bother to read through them all and even fewer go on to The Silmarillion.

I think there are enough clear, or veiled, statements in LotR about higher powers, wills, the 'Rules' for the attentive reader to be aware of an objective moral value system being operative - even if that is some form of 'natural law' - what we don't get from the work is any sense that morality is subjective, without any relation to eternal values - indeed, Aragorn's words to Eomer are an appeal to an objective moral code/value system - because of things like this we are made aware of this 'code' & if we then look carefully we will see it cropping up in many places in the story. In HP there is no such appeal to a system of higher objective values because no such values exist.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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 would prefer a dose of rationality and skepticism myself. Being able to intelligently evaluate any faith or claim would serve a child better than to provide a buffet of faith systems as surely you'd leave a few off of the table.

Originally Posted by TheSaucepanMan

My children are 7 (girl) and 5 (boy). I have not read the Harry Potter books myself and don't have them, and they are rather too young to be reading such books themselves yet, although we have seen the films. I would, however, have no concerns over the references to wizards, magic etc and I am perfectly happy for them to read the books. For the reasons that I have stated, it is just not an issue for me.

My oldest is 5, and he and his younger sisters ask to watch FOTR DVD EE disc 2 from Rivendell to the Khazad-dûm bridge scene. Surely this is screwing them up, but as they always have the option of (1) turning their heads, (2) having it turned off, I have no problem with them watching it. Also, I'm on the scene to explain what is going on along with what is really going on (Gandalf is actually telling a tennis ball that it cannot cross a bridge), to highlight the good moral issues (friendship, bravery, etc) and to sit with them as a family. So far, no nightmares, and the only negatives have been that my daughter feels bad for the cave troll and thinks that its name should be Susan.

Batman, the cartoon character (The Batman, Justice League Unlimited) is also permitted as it is watched under the supervision as above. I make a point of showing that Batman uses deduction to fight crime - no magic, no superpowers - just a regular human with a good brain.

Some people use Aesop. I'm using LOTR and DC comics. You can find your gold (keep!) or boogeyman (ban!) wherever you choose.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

To make a long story short (and it is somewhat related here), relatives who had spent some time in England donated a huge set of Blyton books to my daughter. We turned avidly to them only to be made very uncomfortable with the depiction of Blacks. (Can't recall which story now, but the pictures were part of what formed our negative opinion.)

Anyhow, as we were cleaning out things we decided to donate the set to our local school. The school wouldn't take them! Because of race issues.

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.)

Bethberry - many of Blyton's books were re-edited to deal with this several years ago to a degree of controversy. I have a very battered toycar which is improbably valuable because as well as featuring "Noddy and Big Ears" it also featured Golly who was made a "non-person" after a short production run. I think your appraoch is wise - books and people are products of their time and times have changed relatively recently in this regard. It is hard to believe that "The Black and White Minstrel Show" was a mainstay of family entertainment in the seventies ...

A while ago I reread the John Buchan "Hannay" stories and on occasions was shocked by comments referring to black and oriental people. But in itself it was an indication of how much progress has been made. I don't agree with the attitude but I can't condemn someone who essentially lived in a different world - if such things were written by a contemporary writer ......

Blyton is usually quite positive about gypsies though.... if I remember rightly, although I feel here to be unsound on feminist grounds ... seem to remember Anne waiting on her brothers hand and foot (personally would have drowned them in a vat of ginger beer ).

But while these issues can be discussed, I agree that the main danger is in the he "sneaking out", and that is a more real danger than the "magic" - especially when the children go to visit some strange old man , Tamsomthing, who lives in the woods. That really sets the alarm bells ringing ...

[Ainaserkewen]

Thanks to the parents who answered my questions. I just wondered if indeed the "risk" of fairy tale and fantasy was present in the minds of responsible parents, or just media hype.

[Rumil]

Interesting discussion!

Luckily ?! I don't have children therefore the 'banning' issue does not personally resonate. However, on a more general platform, I still have to say that I'm amazed that in the USA, which, I'm led to believe, still has laws preserving freedom of speech, this subject still rears its ugly head.

First of all much appreciation of Saucie, Lindil, and many others, don't blame them if you dislike what I have to say!

A few points which I'm drawn to discuss -

Banning books will merely increase interest amongst potential readers - somehow I find this enormously comforting.

As a committed bibliophile, I can't abide book burning or censorship, at least amongst consenting adults. Mein Kampf was mentioned in this thread, I think that if Hitler's writings had been utterly suppressed then we would not be able to a) understand that period of history, b) be on our guard against similar nutters in future.

As for the Bible, Harry Potter, Medieval 'magic', the Koran and The Lord of the Rings, my opinion is that they're all works of fiction. I hope you will not torture and burn me as your co-religionists may well have done a mere few centuries (weeks?) ago if you feel offended by my opinion. I am quite happy if your opinion differs from mine, please extend me the same courtesy.

I think the real difference is that neither the Lord of the Rings nor Harry Potter has (yet!) been hijacked by a political or religious establishment in order to bend others to their will. I guess that there may be an element of the Green movement attempting to bend LoTR to their political agenda but this does not seem overly significant to me (though I would support many of their aims so may not be completely unbiased here).

Some have implied that Tolkien's work can only be fully appreciated by those who have some spiritual 'belief' (or irrationality, maybe?) and therefore JK Rowling is inferior (in this respect) as she does not conform to this belief framework. I absolutely disagree with this analysis. It appears to me that JK Rowling's books are more 'moral' than most. I also denigrate those who claim that morality can only stem from religion. As an atheist / agnostic (haven't quite decided as I'm not dead yet) this sort of attitude would surely condemn me to a life of thievery and murder, while I can assure you that I have committed no such acts! I imagine that the Spanish Inquisition would not have looked favourably upon the possessor of a book which claimed that demi-gods such as the Valar, in all contravention of christian teachings, ruled the world, even if they had the wit to see that it was a work of fantasy. In fact possession of books of any type generally seems suspicious to those of totalitarian bent (unless it is the book of the authorised Great Leader, Prophet or Disciple of course!)

I think that in the USA and the UK we have been so used to the idea of liberty that we are beginning to lose the appreciation of the freedoms that were so intensely prized by our forefathers and indeed foremothers. Beware of anyone trying to control what you read, listen to or view, soon enough they will claim to know what's 'best for you', then it gets really scary!

[Frodo Baggins]

I was going to refrain but I just HAVE to wedge in my thoughts.

Yes as you know I am a Christian and tend more toward the fundamental side, thought not as extremely so as many of those I know. However, fundamental, outside religious circles at least, is defined as that which is basic, original, or primary. Many people these days confuse Fundamentalism with legalism. Legalism is what makes some Christians (I'm not sure all legalists are Christians) have a "holier than thou" attitude of "since I act this way or dress this way or wear my hair this way or don't read this I'm better than you." Many liegalsitst are little more than Pharisees.

Now, I don't recall Tolkien or any of his cohorts ever labelling his fiction as "Fundamentally Christian" or even allegorical. In his own preface to LOTR Tolkien notes how he hates allegory and never intended to write it. I do see where he is coming from about Christian themes, however. Many Christians, even when not writing Christian works, cannot refrain from burying Christian themes in them. My own love of God Himself makes me write Christian themes into everything whether it is religious or not. Take Lewis' Space Trilogy as another example. It's not a story thick with allegory, if there's any in it its hard to see, but there is no doubt just who Maleledil is.

I know a good deal many Christians who LOVE LoTR. Heck, my dad, who is even more narow-minded than me, (it that's possible) was the one that introduced me to LOTR. I also know some who hate it and call it "pagan". And they are ones I would shove under the legalist class.

You are all right, magic is more subtle in LOTR and it is not used for everything as in HP. There are also no schools of magic. As Galadriel says "For this is what your folk would call Magic, I believe; though I do not understand clearly what they mean; and they seem also to use the same word for the deciets of the Enemy."
Magic in LOTR, if it can be called that, is used sparingly and only at great need, kind of like lembas. Many of those that use "magic" Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond, other Elves are kind toward those who are weak and do not look down their noses at those who are inept in the magical arts. Saruman aside of course, who is in the end just a grumpy old man. Dumbledore is a magician and little else. Gandalf is angelic in every way, looks aside. When he's at the doors of m Moria it remids me of the Heavenly Messenger of the Divine Comedy who opens the gates of Dis the city of hell for Virgil and Dante.

I think why the Christans are so up in arms over HP is this: In LOTR you know from the beginning who is on the good guy side and who is on the bad guy side(exceptions: Saruman and Wormtongue, but Tolkien makes them suspect from the start). In HP people seem to arbitrarily switch sides. Also Children have easily influenced minds, I know I did, still do. HP makes magic seem so easy and discribes it is such a details that the incantations and other tools of it can be easily repeated and learned. 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. And it is well documented in the Bible that God finds witchcraft among the most deadly abominations. The "magic" in LOTR is not like this. It is hardly used and when it is, it's secreats are not revealed. And the power of those like Gandalf seem more like the power of the angels themselves not magicians.

Oh and as for the comment that "At least Harry Potter celebrates Christmas" events in LOTR were supposed to have happened BEFORE Christmas was invented.

Last note. I have read the book of Revelation many times and there is only one dragon in it "behold a great, firey red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads." (Revelation 12:3) This is understood to be Satan. There is no "magic" in revelation. The only thing that comes remotely close is the power of God, His angels and His wrath, and the power of Satan and his demons.

[Kath]

Frodo Baggins since you seem pretty well educated in the history and opinions of Christians in general can I ask what you feel the difference is between witchcraft and wizardry? Because it seems that is one of the major sticking points when cataloguing the differences between HP and LotR and why one is more suitable or acceptable than the other.

[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. Trees that talk, swords that glow, and rings with strange powers are never addressed as "magic" in LOTR except by the Hobbits. Hobbits, who often come across as rather small-minded and are quite ignorant of whatever goes on outside the Shire, seem to use the word "magic" for anything they do not understand or cannot explain. What is called magical by them is really "Elf-work"(glowing swords and rings of power(Power not magic)) or the oldest things in the world (Ents). Elves, Ents, and other creatures like them are very very mysterious. No one knows just why they are able to do the things they do. Elves perhaps are very powerful simply by being the Elder Childern of Eru. They are excellent at nearly everything they do because they are old and they are very strong and wise. All the power of the elves seems natural to them, a sort of "kindly inclining" "as it should be" thing. Whatever they do, no matter how fantastic it seems to men, Dwarves, or Hobbits, seems old, powerful, and natural, as natural as breathing. It is as if they still carry all the strength of the young universe. They don't have to learn munch about how, they just do.

I digress. Simply put, the "magic", if you even want to call it that, in LoTR is much more subtle and mysterious. In HP the magic is very open and if you say this or hold your hands this way and your feet another way you can do unordinary things. The power expressed in LOTR, as I have before said is more like supernatural power, more angelic than magical. The magic of LOTR is more mysterious and subtle, it's never know exactly how it happens or why. "This was forged (not telling how) and so it will do special things (not knowing what)". It seems that the "Magic" of LOTR is not practised by anyone who wants to learn how but comes naturally to some, mostly to those that are very old and very wise.

Take, for instance, what just came upon me as I was writing the preceeding paragraph. In Lewis' The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe there is the Deep Magic from the Dawn of Time and then the Deeper Magic from Before the Dawn of Time. But when Aslan describes what those two magics are, they seem more like laws than random magic. That is more near what the "magic" of LOTR seems to be, old ancient laws, "kindly enclining" "as it should be" ways that things just run naturallly.

I think what the difference is that Christians see in LOTR is that its "magic" is (as I have said before) not displayed as magic but more as powers held and used bythe evil one and those who are very old and wise or messengers and representatives of the Valar and Eru himself. Of course Eru and the Valar have to have power themselves becasue they made it all to begin with.

Originally, the word "Wizard" meant an old wise man, a sage, or an especally celver person. While one who practiced magic , especaily black magic, was labelled a witch. While witch is usually reserved for the female types who practise magic, a more proper name for the male variety is warlock, not wizard.

Much thanks to my dear friend Puddleglum who helped me with this.

[Imladris]

Just a thought that occured to me as I read this very thought provoking thread:

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? Who says 'loyalty & bravery' are 'moral' or 'virtuous'? Certainly they cannot be said to be 'moral & virtuous' in & of themselves - that would depend on exactly what the character is being loyal to, wouldn't it? And as to 'bravery' - that isn't necessarily morally good - a Death camp guard who risked his life to force children into a gas oven would have been seen by his superiors as behaving 'bravely', even heroically.

So, again, there has to be some objective moral yardstick by which even loyalty & bravery are judged as good or evil.

I disagree. I believe that she her standard, her yardstick or whatever, is the Law of Nature (or the Law of Right and Wrong). To define what I mean:

This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that everyone knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it...but taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behaviour was obvious to everyone." -- Lewis

In LOTR you know from the beginning who is on the good guy side and who is on the bad guy side(exceptions: Saruman and Wormtongue, but Tolkien makes them suspect from the start). In HP people seem to arbitrarily switch sides. Also Children have easily influenced minds, I know I did, still do. HP makes magic seem so easy and discribes it is such a details that the incantations and other tools of it can be easily repeated and learned. 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. And it is well documented in the Bible that God finds witchcraft among the most deadly abominations. The "magic" in LOTR is not like this. It is hardly used and when it is, it's secreats are not revealed. And the power of those like Gandalf seem more like the power of the angels themselves not magicians.

I've read the HP books many times, but didn't really catch any "switching of sides" but I digress...

Almost everyone who posts here compares the magic of LotR to the magic of HP without realizing that we shouldn't be comparing them at all. LotR and HP are totally different in the type of books they are. LotR is Mythical, HP is not. They are two different kind of stories, but instead Christians hold LotR (and Lewis) as a standard without considering that that is not the only type of fantasy there is. I think that scares them and hence, the cries for banning etc.

Again, these are just half formed thoughts that came to me as I tried to work out all the opinions and views of this thread in my poor tired brain, and I apologize if I missed the point entirely.

[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.

[littlemanpoet]

I hope you will pardon my late arrival...

I too am a Christian. The group of Christians with whom I practice my faith shy away from Fundamentalism while embracing the Fundamentals of my faith. Lewis and Tolkien are honored, while Rowling seems to be an issue for continued discussion.

1. The original question.

Fifteen years ago, when I was still far too impressionable, and lived in the south (for a couple years) where Christian Fundamentalism is strongest, I felt compelled to disassociate myself Tolkien, and all of Lewis's fantasy, because it contained sorcery. Soon after I had made this decision, I was in a local Christian bookstore, perusing the racks, and noticed a book about the bad influence of Tolkien, Lewis, and all the rest. I checked it out and saw that the book was commenting on Galadriel as a well disquised witch who performs magic. The book admitted that Tolkien was popular with many Christians, but that they were being snowed by this author. Well, I knew better, and this extreme denunciation of something I knew to be very good, sort of helped remove the blinders in general.

2. Fantasy and Religion.

lindil is critical of Harry Potter because of an avoidance of religion. I find this interesting in terms of a recent discussion called
The Emblems of Religion don't belong ... or do they? . In this thread, some of the same readers that are posting to this thread, asserted that religion has no place in any fantasy work, and they further asserted that there was no religion to be found in LotR. Meanwhile, others were posting various evidences of religion sprinkled throughout LotR. What I hope is not being done on the Downs, is that an absence of religion is being praised in LotR while being denigrated in Harry Potter. That would be a double standard.

That there is a Christmas in each Harry Potter book seems to have more to do with culture than religion, it seems to me.

There is one thing that is consistent throughout Harry Potter, though. There is a consistent moral compass. I don't know where the poster got it from who said that characters changed sides at a whim. I, like Imladris, never saw that in Harry Potter. If there was changing of sides, it was consistent with the story.

3. Feigned reality, feigned magic.

Tolkien wrote about his Legendarium that it was feigned history, feigned reality. Nevertheless, there have been many readers who have refused to view it as feigned. Likewise, Rowling has said that the magic in Harry Potter is feigned magic; yet there are readers who have attempted to use the so-called magic as if it was not feigned. The point is, it's feigned. It's not the real thing.

Being a Christian who believes the fundamentals of my faith, I wish believers and non-believers alike would not get their knickers all in a twist over magic in a story. It's a story, by gum! It's feigned magic. Just as everything in any story is feigned reality (including Eru ).

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I think what sets The Lord of the Rings apart from Harry Potter, is the fact that Harry Potter depicts witchcraft as something even a child could do, and so it would encourage them to try it out. Yes, it is unlikely that everyone who ready Harry Potter will immediately want to learn witchcraft and Satanism... But The Lord of the Rings depicts Gandalf and the Istari as something that mortals cannot be a part of. Still, you will always get some people who refuse to believe this.

I have never seen Gandalf as a Wizard in the Biblical sense. That is why I do not think that Lord of the Rings is evil. Harry Potter, on the other hand, is very clearly a wizard in the Biblical sense. Thus, I do not approve of it.

Regarding the 'moral yardstick' this is an interesting topic. Anyone who knows the Bible will know that God's Moral standards are much higher than ours. God sees the sins of yester-year as if they were today, and knows every idle word. Many people say "I’ll get into heaven if I live a good life". This is not biblical; in fact, it’s regarded as one of Satan's teachings. Look at some of Jesus' laws;
"You have heard it said of old, 'you shall not commit adultery", well, I say onto you, whoever looks upon a woman, to lust after her, has committed adultery in his heart"
Also,
"He who is angry with his brother is in danger of judgement"
So, Lust is adultery, and hatred is Murder. NO ONE could possibly live up to those moral standards. Jesus, as we all know, died on the cross so that people didn't have to live up to those standards, instead we just needed to be forgiven and accept his payment. Christians should not claim to be good people, just forgiven.

The thing about Harry Potter is, that it dose not have any moral standards, its more a sequence of events that conforms to Hollywood's ideological views of how to be a good person. Despite the fact that there is no such thing as a good person. The Lord of the Rings, or more precisely, Middle Earth, is much more complex in its view of heroes and villains. There are countless times when we see that the 'good' people aren’t all good. Look at Feanor!!! Frodo is corrupted by the ring and tempted by it. Even Sam is! We could look at this as Tolkien giving the Christian message throughout his work, or just looking at human nature… probably both.

I'll stop rambling now...