Outrage?

[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...

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

Harry Potter, on the other hand, is very clearly a wizard in the Biblical sense.

I guess it's not clear to me. Could you please describe this Biblical sense?

I couldn't even find the word "wizard" in my Bible.

Harry Potter does wizardry, which is a seemingly magical transforming power or influence, but so does Gandalf.

Harry Potter doesn't do sorcery, which is "the use of power gained from the assistance of evil spirits especially for divining" (Webster). There is the Witch of Endor, but that's not the same thing.

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.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, Hookbill, with the quotes from the Bible on moral standards, other than to show that Christian belief holds all of us alike to be unable to save ourselves by our own morality, which I agree with. But are you trying to say that J.K. Rowling consulted Hollywood before she started writing the series? Or are you saying that she was already under the influence of Hollywood? And if so, could you give an instance from the books that show this?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

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.

Well, just for the sake of clarification and hopefully not to get too far off topic, let me say that I am a bit surprised that a loyer of your disputational skills, Sauce, would assume only a "worst case scenario". I think this scare about White Supremacists or racism overlooks the more subtle kinds of influences which affect our sensibilties. One doesn't have to believe that races of colour should be wiped out to fall prey to feelings of racial superiority and patronage. Why, just this weekend I was reading for the Chapter by Chapter discussion and came upon this passage in "Minas Tirith":

There dwelt a hardy folk between the mountains and the sea. They were reckoned men of Gondor, yet their blood was mingled, and there were short and swarthy folk among them whose sires came more from the forgotten men who housed in the shadows of the hills in the Dark Years ere the coming of the kings . But beyond, in the great fief of Belfalas, dwelt Prince Imrahil in his castle of Dol Amroth by the sea, and he was of high blood, and his folk also, tall men and proud with sea-grey eyes.

Of course, this passage occurs just after Pippin has indignantly defended his size to the arrogant guards of Gondor, so we are left wondering just what the narrator is trying to do or how much the narrator understands of Pippin's perspective. This isn't cruel or malevolent, yet it carries with it the wiff of habitual, pejorative denigration of 'swarthy' short races. It's the kind of thing Nevil Shute wrote of in The chequer Board, published in 1947:

Because he was uncertain what to do, he put his arms round her and kissed her... For a moment she yielded... then fear came to her, irrational, stark fear. When she was a little child, somebody had given her a golliwog, a black doll with staring white eyes and black curly hair, dressed in a blue coat with red trousers. It had terrified her; whenever she saw it she had screamed with fright so that it had been given to a less sensitive child. Now at the age of seventeen the same stark fear came back to her. What she had been subconsciously afraid of all her life had happened. The golliwog had got her.

I remember reading a wonderful essay--which I cannot find now--by a Black American, really sardonically funny--about his first victim. It recounts his experience walking down a dark street at night, realising that he is a figure of fear to the white people who quickly move to get away from him. There's more to racism than overt hatred.

What does this have to do with this topic? Well, all and all it seems to me that at least some parts of this discussion are based upon the idea that Harry Potter can have a bad influence whereas LotR has only a good influence. Part of Enid Blyton's popularity among children was due, I think, to the way that her books gave children a sense of their own power. They encouraged children not to be passive, but to be thinking creatures. I haven't read all of the HP series, but my recollection of the first book is that Rowlings does this also. They give children a sense of empowerment. But I'm not sure that LotR does this. It's enchantment and influence lies elsewhere. But with its constant emphasis on enclosing good against evil influence--even at the end when Aragorn bans men from The Shire--I cannot help but wonder if all this really creates the very passive atttiude of (some) forms of traditional religion where people are encouraged, even taught, to fear discussion.

I'm running out of time and am being called away. I'm not happy with how I've expressed this last idea, but it will have to do for now.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by HTG

It’s more to do with the general layout of the books, being overtly thesis-antithesis-thesis, which is a Hollywood trend.

This is news to me. I thought thesis-antithesis-thesis was from Hegel. If this is what Hollywood's up to, it has a higher intellectual calliber (sp?) than I've been crediting them with in some time. Did someone tell you this about Hollywood and t-a-t? If so, what did they tell you about it? If not, I'm still not sure what you mean by it.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I never said Hollywood invented t-a-t, but they use it allot.
When I refer to Hollywood, I'm more talking about you’re general big american films, and indeed most films these days. Hollywood is ladled with the blame for it, though I daresay it’s not the origin. I'm not sure what 'Hegel' is, but still... it’s a rule that Hollywood likes to follow.

The t-a-t theory has been associated with Hollywood for a long time now. Look at most films these days, they do follow the pattern of; "Everything's cool, and nice and happy", followed by "Oh no! Something has gone wrong! Lets put it back to right" ending with "everything's back to normal now! They all drank lemonade! The End!" Do you catch my drift?

In a way, The Lord of the Rings follows this, but to a lesser extent, i.e. nothing is quite the same as it was. The shire is never the same again, and indeed, Frodo swans off to Valinor never to see his Friends again. Many people believed that this was why The Lord of the Rings could never work as a Film, in that it does not have the truly 'happy ending'. Most of my friends say that this is Tolkien being realistic... :|