Outrage?

[Lalwendë]

It's interesting how many people have described Gandalf as being an 'angelic' figure. Of course, it's easy for us to say that, as we have access to a discussion board such as this, but casting my mind back to when I first encountered Gandalf, I saw him as nothing remotely like an angelic figure. Instead, he followed on from all the fairy tales I had been brought up on, and in my youthful mind, he was simply The Coolest Wizard Of All Time. He still retains something of that aura for me today, despite being able to intellectualise his role in Middle Earth and relate it to a greater cosmological idea.

So while we might argue, as rational adults (both old and young) that Gandalf's magic is theologically acceptable because he relates to an angelic figure, I wonder how many young readers 'get' this concept? His role is not so clear to a first time young reader, and neither is that of many other characters, which is why re-reading bears such fruit in terms of new understanding gained. In contrast I would argue that in HP the terms of the world in which he lives are made very clear.

In HP there are Wizards and Witches and there are Muggles, and Rowling makes it clear that the possibility of any ordinary child being other than a Muggle is remote. Children cannot become Wizards without going to Hogwarts or one of the other schools (and Hagrid is given as an example of one who was banned from practising), and they cannot go there unless they are invited. Nothing they do otherwise will make any difference. Under these kinds of rules I would say that the worst most children could do with the influence of the books would be to daydream that they would get a Hogwarts letter, much as I used to daydream that the fireside rug was really a magic carpet or that if I climbed the tree in the garden I would meet Moonface and the Saucepan Man.

What I am getting at here is to wonder why some should find LotR acceptable for a child while HP is not? Do children themselves really pick up on anything we might see as 'deep'?

I don't really see that LotR is any less 'sinister' than HP or any other series of fantasy type fiction, certainly not in the eyes of the casual or young reader. So why is it more acceptable? I think it is that it is more established, while HP is a relatively new phenomenon, and this inevitably instills fear in grown-ups, possibly annoyed that their children keep clamouring for more HP products (not the sauce...). At the time LotR came out it was a more innocent world in many respects, with parents happy to leave their children alone with tales of goblins, elves, witches and pixies, and such tales have been told to children from the beginning of time. It seems that today many more people are seeking to protect children from such things when history does not really bear out their fears. If people are growing up and rejecting religion then it is down to other things than the sorts of tales that have always been told to children.

[Lathriel]

I think it is a thing of today to make a big deal out of certain things.
Harry Potter is just a kid's book. That is why it doesn't have as much depth as LOTR. I don't think Rowling expected her books to become so popular nor to be taken so seriously.
I am certain that children can decide what is fact and what isn't. I remember that when I was a kid ( and that wasn't very long ago)I was able to see what was true and what wasn't. Of course there were times when I wished this world I had just read about in a book was true but I still knew it wasn't.
I never understood why there were adult versions of HP. It is such a kids book and it was definitly not meant for adults(Of course they can still read them) or meant for deep study.

[littlemanpoet]

davem, you are directly contradicting things you said on three different threads I can think of: "What breaks the enchantment", "And Eru Smiled", and "Emblems of Religion don't belong in fantasy - or do they".

Do you hold with your most recent post, or with what you said earlier?

While she has presented her Witches & Wizards in a positive light, she is not actually presenting true Witches at all.

As you said, it's a work of fantasy.

Her greatest 'sin' in this regard has been in not placing her 'magic-users' within a philosophical/religious tradition.

Does religion now belong in fantasy?

Christians seek to ban the HP books. They are not trying to ban Witchcraft, because they have no real idea what Witchcraft actually is - they confuse/conflate it (often deliberately) with Satanism, & are seeking to 'ban' that. Basically, what drives them is a desire for control.

No, this is to supply a psychological understanding to a basically theological issue. Christians of the Fundamentalist variety that you are lumping with the rest of us (ahem) see only Christianity versus Evil. Luke says that Jesus said "if you're not with me, you're against me." Therefore, since the CF's are convinced there is a spiritual war going on for the hearts and souls of humanity far and wide across the globe, they are called to do battle. Since they see all non-Christian faith as falsehood, they do not (and do not see the need to) distinguish between Wicca and Satanism. And all the defenses claimed by both groups as to what they are, or are not, means nothing to CFs. What you must understand about CFs is that they are convinced that they are the good guys, no matter how obvious it might be to you that they are evil.

The above is why they attack Harry Potter. They see only Christianity (as interpreted by themselves) versus the evil world. Harry Potter is an especially dark part of that world. Yes, it is a rather negative view, but it is logical within its own confines, as any closed system is (Islamic Fundamentalism has the same qualities).

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Her greatest 'sin' in this regard has been in not placing her 'magic-users' within a philosophical/religious tradition.

If that is a 'sin', then it is one which Rowling shares with countless others. From Hans Christian Anderson and the Brothers Grimm down to L Frank Baum, Enid Blyton, Roald Dahl and whoever created Chorlton and the Wheelies. Children's tales throughout the ages have included 'magic-users' without feeling the need to place them within any philosophical or religious tradition. I fail to see why Rowling should be singled out by Christian fundamentalists, Wiccans or anyone else for writing the same sort of tales that have been fascinating children throughout the ages.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I fail to see why Rowling should be singled out by Christian fundamentalists, Wiccans or anyone else for writing the same sort of tales that have been fascinating children throughout the ages.

It may be just a matter of timing, from a historical perspective. You see, the strongly eschatological (end times) bent in Fundamentalist theology led them into a "separate from the world" kind of stance. Therefore they stayed out of that especially muddy thing called politics ... that is, until things got worse than they could stand, and people like Falwell spoke up and said "America is a great Christian Nation! We can't let the heathens take it over!" Thus was born the Moral Majority (which some assert was neither of the two words) and the Christian Fundamentalist jump into politics AND the culture wars, as they are called. Star Wars was one of their first media targets. They don't trust C.S. Lewis or Tolkien, but probably note that their fellow Christians who are NOT fundamentalist, hold those two in high esteem. Harry Potter, by contrast, is authored by a modern and a woman (perhaps I'm exaggerrating the CF viewpoint with that ), and contains no Aslan or Eru. Prime target material for the culture wars. So, timing, I think, SPM.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

davem, you are directly contradicting things you said on three different threads I can think of: "What breaks the enchantment", "And Eru Smiled", and "Emblems of Religion don't belong in fantasy - or do they".

Do you hold with your most recent post, or with what you said earlier?

As you said, it's a work of fantasy.

Does religion now belong in fantasy?

Probably am. But I think there's a difference between what Tolkien was doing & what Rowling is doing. Tolkien set his story in what is effectively another world - for all he suggested that it was this world in the ancient past. Rowling has deliberately tied the HP world to this one. HP lives in this world. No-one can go to Middle earth & become a Wizard - that world is gone forever. That is why we are so moved by the story.

Its because Rowling has linked the HP world so closely to this one that it is valid to make connections between the Witches in her book & the Witches in our own world. Rowling does not even seperate the 'magical' from the mundane worlds - as does Lewis. The worlds 'bleed' into one another - probably the reason for a lack of a spiritual/philosophical background, now I think about it. There is only this single 'reality', this one world. The HP universe exists totally 'within the circles of the world'. As such it is closer to a 'realistic novel' than the kind of fantasies produced by Tolkien & Lewis. Therefore, one can criticise the way the contemporary world is presented in HP, & the extent to which it is presented correctly. If a writer wishes to set his/her story in the contemporary world they should get their account of that world correct, just as a SF writer is expected to have a working knowledge of science & not get the basics wrong.

[littlemanpoet]

Although the worlds bleed into one another, they are two different worlds. Rowling has created a transitional fantasy.

When magic affects our world, such as a massive quantity of letters from Hogwarts invading the home on Privet street, Rowling creates excitement and wonder.

When Harry steps into a house, a bus, or into a magical car, he has transitioned into the Hogwarts world. All the rules have changed. Magic no longer is affecting our world, magic is the way things are done. Even greater excitement and wonder, with the addition of mystery.

What most strikes me is that Rowling actually pulls this off so well.

To the point. If one insists on the right to criticize the contemporary world as presented in HP, then this can only be done when the story takes place in our world, when magic affects our world. When the story is set in Hogwarts, the Ministry of Magic, the Weasley home, in a magical bus or car, or the village just outside of Hogwarts, it is the Hogwarts world. There, as often as not, our world is spoofed. But the rules are Rowlings' creation, and should be critiqued with that taken into consideration.

As to the philosophical/theological underpinnings, whereas I may sympathize with what you are suggesting, I think you're asking something of the work that it is not meant to give. What are the phil/theo underpinnings of Grimm's fairy tales? Of the Snergs stories? of Alice in Wonderland? et cetera.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Although the worlds bleed into one another, they are two different worlds. Rowling has created a transitional fantasy.

When magic affects our world, such as a massive quantity of letters from Hogwarts invading the home on Privet street, Rowling creates excitement and wonder.

When Harry steps into a house, a bus, or into a magical car, he has transitioned into the Hogwarts world. All the rules have changed. Magic no longer is affecting our world, magic is the way things are done. Even greater excitement and wonder, with the addition of mystery.

I can see this, but Harry can do magic in this world, so he is a wizard in both worlds. Hermoine is a called a Witch in this world. If she was called a 'scientist' in this world we would expect her abilities to conform to what we know of scientific theory & practice. I don't think that what Rowling has created is a classic 'transitional fantasy' - which, like the Narnia stories, involves the movement from one self contained world to another. The Thomas Covenant stories of Stephen Donaldson likewise have a movement from one world to another, but while Covenant can perform magic in The Land he cannot do so in this world. Yes, there is an element of the breaking in of the otherworld into this one, but that is a result of a 'doorway' opening for the central character to pass through. This is an interesting subject, & kind of echoes what happens to the Hobbits of the Shire when 'magical' events/beings - like Gandalf - enter into the Hobbits' world & draw them into the 'otherworld' of Middle earth. There is then a passage over a river to enter that world. The point of the story could be seen as an attempt to preserve the seperation of the worlds. The Ring is an otherworldly object, brought into 'our' world to prevent Sauron, the Dark Lord of the otherworld, getting his hands on it. When he discovers where it is he sends his forces through to regain it. The Ring has then to be taken back to its world - principally to destroy it, but also to keep the two worlds seperate. In HP the two worlds are basically one - the magic exsts in this world, but is hidden or covered up by the Ministry of Magic. So, not exactly a 'transitional fantasy'. Its not a case of two seperate, self contained,worlds co-existing

As to the philosophical/theological underpinnings, whereas I may sympathize with what you are suggesting, I think you're asking something of the work that it is not meant to give. What are the phil/theo underpinnings of Grimm's fairy tales? Of the Snergs stories? of Alice in Wonderland? et cetera.

I think my points actually cover this - the otherworld may have its own 'phil/theo underpinnings or it may not, but it is seperate from this one - which has its own rules. The stories you mention take place in the otherworld - humans visit them but they don't belong there - I'm reminded of the incident in Smith with the Birch tree. In HP there is, as I said, no 'transition' from one world to another, there is simply one world. The magic is of this world - its just that most people - muggles - can't do it.

[littlemanpoet]

Another fantasy novel occurs to me in this connection: Neil Gaiman's American Gods; also his London subway novel, the name of which I forget. Those two novels also function the way Harry Potter does. Do they also abuse the way you suggest?

Anticipating the application of The Saucepan Man's question about "why Harry Potter, now", and not Neil Gaiman's, I'd say that it's an issue of popularity as well as timing.

It strikes me that more fantasy novels are going to be this "non-traditional" kind of "transitional fantasy", and I think this is because there has been a paradigm shift in the consciousness of modern readers as opposed to just 30 years ago, when Thomas Covenant was written, namely: Tolkien's thesis and wish for escape, consolation, and recovery, seems to have occurred to our society as a whole, in that many readers have recovered a sense of, and desire for, the fantastic; for wonder. One result of this is that magic (for lack of a better word) is understood and accepted as possible in our world, rather than having to go outside, or into space, or underground, to find it. The frame of mind seems to accept that the fantastic can happen here, and now, instead of beyond our borders. Far from being a problem or 'sin', I think that this is a fascinating development which allows for all kinds of new stories to be written, and I congratulate Rowling on her ability to tap into the desire that had been woken by Tolkien and others. Expect more stories like it. As I said before, each of these stories needs to be judged on its own merit as story. As soon as you have started critiquing it in terms of spiritual/philosophical underpinnings, or whatever this world standards, you have broken the enchantment, which is something many of us have a far better understanding of than we did a few short months ago.