Outrage?

[littlemanpoet]

The "thesis-antithesis-thesis" plot outline you describe is that of the classic fairy-tale. At least Hollywood has fallen out of love with its former dalliance with "absurdist" film. You can thank George Lucas and Stephen Spielberg for that. It's no bad thing in itself.

As for "not suffering a witch to live", I thought that Someone's grace had fulfilled and rendered needless all that stuff.

Still, it's all feigned anyway.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by 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.

It seems to me that this is a fair argument and probably the most credible basis for distinguishing the Harry Potter books from LotR. Nevertheless, I think that most young readers (those of an age likely to read the Harry Potter books) are perfectly capable of distinguishing fact from fantasy. And, if they are the sort of person who is likely to be interested in trying “witchcraft” out, then I would argue that they are likely to do so anyway, regardless of whether they read Rowling’s works or not. (As I have said, reading LotR provoked an interest in such matters in me, although most certainly not an inclination to put them into practice.)

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

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 don’t think that Rowling was particularly influenced by Hollywood, any more than any other modern day writer of children’s books. I suspect rather that the moral standards that feature in her books are her own. And, although I am no expert on her works, they seem to be pretty good ones to me.

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

A wizard in the biblical sense, in my mind, would be someone who uses witchcraft and "hocus-pocus-size-of-a-chafige". The use of natural things, and perverting them by use of said witchcraft. Harry Potter is human, and mortal, as a 'real' wizard would be, unlike Gandalf who is a higher being.

Two points on that. First, there is no obvious indication in LotR (and much less in The Hobbit) that Gandalf is a “higher being”, and certainly little for the young reader to pick up on in this regard. And secondly, it is not just Gandalf who uses “magic” (in its widest sense) in LotR. The mortal characters do too - even the Hobbits (the One Ring, Sting, the Mirror of Galadriel etc), the characters with whom young readers are most likely to identify.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

… 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 sensibilities … There's more to racism than overt hatred.

My dear Bb, my posts are generally verbose enough without me adopting wholesale the style of argumentation that I employ in my professional life. Truth is, I was exaggerating to make the point. But you are right, not all racism is overt. I most certainly do not consider myself racist in any shape or form, but I will freely admit that I am a product of my upbringing and position in society (white and “middle class”), and so I will inevitably have a different perspective on some issues than someone of, for example, Afro-Caribbean descent. I do not think, however, that reading the Famous Five books as a child had much of an effect on me in this regard, one way or another.

As I have said, I do not regard Enid Blyton as racist, but as a product of her times, just as I am. In this regard, my children are growing up in a much more multi-racial and tolerant society than I did, which is something that I welcome. As Mithalwen has pointed out, the Famous Five books have been edited to excise material which might today be regarded as “offensive”, so this is unlikely to be an issue, should my children ever wish to read them. But I am sure that they will come up againts racist views as they are growing up. I am confident that they will be sufficiently intelligent and tolerant to reject these, but I will always be willing to talk through such issues with them.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

They give children a sense of empowerment. But I'm not sure that LotR does this. It's enchantment and influence lies elsewhere.

I wonder whether the sense of empowerment is in the fact that readers (particularly young readers) will tend to identify with the Hobbit characters - those who undergo the most “empowerment” as the story progresses. One of Tolkien’s favourite themes was the ennoblement of the humble and I suspect that this is somthing which appeals to children and adults alike.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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 am not entirely sure what you mean by this, Bb, but it seems to me that there are sufficient “ambiguous” characters - those who acts are both “right” and “wrong” at various times (such as Boromir, Denethor, Gollum and even Eowyn) - to engender intelligent thought in the minds of those who are sufficiently receptive. Similarly, I remember thinking on reading The Hobbit recently that Tolkien presents quite a sophisticated moral dilemma with Bilbo’s predicament (stuck between two mutually antagonistic forces of “good”) on the eve of the Battle of Five Armies.

Perhaps that might be a basis on which to distinguish, and even criticise, the Harry Potter books - that the characters are too clear cut, either good or evil with no shades of grey. I do not know the books well enough to say for certain that this is the case but, if it is, there might be a basis for arguing that they present less material to stimulate intelligent thought on moral issues in the minds of young readers.

[Mithalwen]

I heard this this morning and thought of this topic. I think it is spot on as to where the real danger of "magic" lies.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/progra...20050621.shtml

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

In an odd way, my beef with HP is probably the same as these ultra-orthodox-Christian fundamentalists' beef. I object to the HP books because their depiction of the world is utterly materialist. There is no real 'magic' in the books insofar as the spells and potions all have purely rationalist explanations. They are merely extensions of the scientific-technological view of the world that is now the primary mode of understanding. The way to get something done -- to have power -- is to figure out the technique whereby that can be accomplished.

In the HP books the individual magician/scientist is entirely capable to the task of conquering evil without the aid of any larger beneficent force in the universe guiding him along. This stance is essentially anti-religious.

LotR's depiction of magic shares nothing with this. Magic in Middle-earth is not a science but an art (or an Art). There is a mystery to it that defies mortal understanding (but which does not fool it or deceive). The place in M-E where we find a Harry Potter view of magic is in Isengard, where Saruman is trying to develop technologies with which to control the power of nature.

The primary difference between the two, however, is that Tolkien does not have faith in the ability of the individual to conquer evil without help from the 'outside' (Eru or God). That is why those who object to HP do not object to LotR, I suspect.

The only difference between the ultra-orthodox fundamentalists and myself in our approbation of Tolkien's work is that while they think that the Bible or God is entirely sufficient to redress the inability of the individual to battle evil, I believe that the communal effort of 'good thinkers' is sufficient to that larger task.

[the guy who be short]

I object to the HP books because their depiction of the world is utterly materialist. There is no real 'magic' in the books insofar as the spells and potions all have purely rationalist explanations.

The magic in HP can only be described as magic, not an extension of scientific knowledge. Waving a wand and muttering a few words generally doesn't cause much effect, other than to attract a few odd looks. There is no real rationale behind the magic that I can see.

The place in M-E where we find a Harry Potter view of magic is in Isengard, where Saruman is trying to develop technologies with which to control the power of nature.

Saruman's pursuit of technology cannot really be seen as a pursuit of magical knowledge, unless we class technology as magic. The way in which Saruman industrialises with no care for the environment demonstrates Tolkien's anti-industrialisation stance rather than a dislike of magicks.

[alatar]

Thanks, Mithalwen, for the link.

My question would be, in regards to the thread, is this way of 'magical' thinking or mindset enhanced by reading books such as LOTR or Potter or not?

I assume that many adults would see the books obviously as harmless fantasy ("magic isn't real, silly...") yet don't see that they practice their own types of magic on a daily basis, whether that would be reading a horoscrope, consulting a psychic, seeking out a faith-healer or wearing magnets on one's wrists. Did this way of thinking come from books read as a child, or was it from the culture or education system?

Members of my own family want me to bury a statue of a Saint in our yard in order to sell our house more quickly. I politely told them that I will not entertain such silliness nor promote such superstitious thinking (even though our house hasn't sold yet, and we may start getting desperate ).

One can believe whatever one chooses, and some beliefs are harmless, but as seen some have deadly consequences. What really torques me is when it involves children who don't have the wherewithal to make decisions for themselves and so have to rely on their parents, who may or may not be clueless.

Surely many parents of young children have considered 'demonic possession' (one of mine must have been giving Satan too hard of a time and so he sent her above ground ) as the reason for a child's poor behavior, but just as bad are parents who are ready to place their hyperactive children on the Ritalin bus not due to evidence but because of poor parenting skills ("it keeps little Jimmy quiet while I'm watching TV...").

Sorry for the rant.

Read a book to a child - even Harry Potter - and I think that some good will come of it.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Fordim

There is no real 'magic' in the books insofar as the spells and potions all have purely rationalist explanations. They are merely extensions of the scientific-technological view of the world that is now the primary mode of understanding. The way to get something done -- to have power -- is to figure out the technique whereby that can be accomplished.

In the HP books the individual magician/scientist is entirely capable to the task of conquering evil without the aid of any larger beneficent force in the universe guiding him along. This stance is essentially anti-religious.

Whoa, Fordim, have you been reading A.S. Byatt's attitude about HP? She objects to what she calls a lack of truly perilous stuff in HP. I must send your comments to Lush. She will be so not amused.

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I am not entirely sure what you mean by this, Bb, but it seems to me that there are sufficient “ambiguous” characters - those who acts are both “right” and “wrong” at various times (such as Boromir, Denethor, Gollum and even Eowyn) - to engender intelligent thought in the minds of those who are sufficiently receptive. Similarly, I remember thinking on reading The Hobbit recently that Tolkien presents quite a sophisticated moral dilemma with Bilbo’s predicament (stuck between two mutually antagonistic forces of “good”) on the eve of the Battle of Five Armies.

Perhaps that might be a basis on which to distinguish, and even criticise, the Harry Potter books - that the characters are too clear cut, either good or evil with no shades of grey. I do not know the books well enough to say for certain that this is the case but, if it is, there might be a basis for arguing that they present less material to stimulate intelligent thought on moral issues in the minds of young readers.

I do think you are right that LotR acknowledges a complexity in moral choices. Complexity of moral dilemma is not, however, completely at odds with the sense that some things are too evil to be contemplated and that goodness must often shut itself off from potentially evil influences in Arda. I suppose what I was getting at was the existence of a continuum of this perspective, that rather than allow discussion, debate, intermingling, there is a tendency in LotR to close off good, to restrict the borders. This happens with Melian's Girdle, with the Shire at the beginning of LotR under the unacknowledged protection of the Rangers and with Aragorn's decree at the end. I'm not saying that LotR is as close-minded as those who see banning or censorship as the only viable option, but I think there are some similarities of attitude.

[Kath]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry
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 don't really have the energy to look at all the points raised here recently and many have already been discussed to death anyway, but this one caught my eye.
I'm still not entirely sure as to what you meant but I just thought I'd mention that this is similar in HP. The young witches and wizards are all taken off to a school that is hidden from the Muggle world to protect both sides. Muggles are banned from Hogwarts as Men are banned from the Shire, but in neither case are the opposing sides forbidden to communicate. I don't think that they fear discussion, just change.

[littlemanpoet]

My guess would be that the wizards and witches in HP fear both chaos and a new batch of witch hunts.

The magic in HP, as Fordim says, follows the general perameters of "if you say this and do this, THAT will happen". That's scientific. However, I don't think Rowling's story telling limits ALL the magic to quite that. Well, perhaps it does, but still she is able to pull off WONDER, which rates pretty high with me.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

In the HP books the individual magician/scientist is entirely capable to the task of conquering evil without the aid of any larger beneficent force in the universe guiding him along. This stance is essentially anti-religious.

I wouldn't say anti-religious (a word that might more appropriately be applied to Pullman's books) but areligious.

I hate to keep labouring the point, but Rowling lives and works in a society that is (unlike the US) largely areligious, by which I mean that the majority of people do not have strong religious convictions. In the UK today, Islam probably has a stronger following than Christianity. But most people are quite happy getting on with their lives without feeling the need for any strong belief in some omniscient deity guiding them. I am assuming that Rowling, like me, is just such a person and so her work is bound to reflect her approach in this regard (in the sense of not feeling the need to explain the existence of magic in her world by reference to such a deity).

Given that this is the case, why is it not possible for people who have strong religious convictions to (willingly) suspend their belief and accept a fictional fantasy world (which is what Harry Potter's world is, despite its apparent setting in modern day Britain) in which God does not take centre stage, just as I willingly suspend my belief when I read LotR and accept the existence of Eru in Middle-earth? Really, it is not going to bring the world crumbling down around them and turn all their children to Satan. Take it from me as someone who has led a largely areligious (although most certainly not amoral) life.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Given that this is the case, why is it not possible for people who have strong religious convictions to (willingly) suspend their belief and accept a fictional fantasy world (which is what Harry Potter's world is, despite its apparent setting in modern day Britain) in which God does not take centre stage, just as I willingly suspend my belief when I read LotR and accept the existence of Eru in Middle-earth? Really, it is not going to bring the world crumbling down around them and turn all their children to Satan. Take it from me as someone who has led a largely areligious (although most certainly not amoral) life.

Note tongue in cheek -->

Coming from that "religious" place across the pond, I would say that one argument for the ban regarding the Potter series is that the fight against evil must be fought not only on the big battlegrounds but also in the back alleys, in the nurseries, the schools - pretty much everywhere - as the eternal destiny of the children is at stake, and what parent would like to see their child go to hell? That Devil is sneaky, and he does not sleep, and it's books today about witchcraft and tomorrow it's gonna be public demon worship...

Rowling, obviously an agent of Satan, has used the gifts given to her by the Dark One to create a book series that is popular with children. Satan, knowing that younger children are more impressionable and, being rather impatient, did not want to wait until these kids were seduced by rock and roll (an old staple of the going to hell crowd) later in their teenaged years. These books glorify occultism and witchcraft, for gosh sakes! And the fact that Hollywood has gotten behind the books is prima facie evidence of satanic involvement.

Here is one sad tale of what can happen.

Note that I believe none of the above, and also mean to insult no one's beliefs.

Is it that Potter is the latest boogeyman for (primarily) Christians who (1) have little better to do, (2) require an enemy for something *to* do, (3) see the Devil in lots of things (like a evil being Rorschach's test?), (4) know little to nothing about what their religion actually says, and (5) are more energized and exciting about fighting the Devil in the pages of Rowling than fighting the 'demons' that exist in their souls?

For those of you old enough to remember, there was even a similar outrage regarding the movie "E.T." (which I will never watch). One prominent (at that time) Christian stated that Hollywood was trying to make us 'like' and accept ugly little ET-like toady thingies as this would allow for an easier acceptance of demons (who, as we all know, are also ugly as all evil things are...). And he was serious!

Sometimes I'm not sure whether to laugh or to cry.