Outrage?

[lindil]

Excellent topic kath.

I have given the matter some thought [ I have young kids, who though not going to public school stil have friends that were into HP way before I or they were] as it touches near to home on a few issues.

First off, I am very fortunate, in that even though I belong to an extremely Traditionalist Orthodox Church, my Bishop and our Archbishop are not stuck in a Salem witchcraft level of intellectual analysis.

One of our Bishops rightly pointed out that it is fantasy and should be given the same liberties we have always given fiction and more importantly fairy tales for many hundreds of years.

I agree whole heartedly.

On the other hand, HP is very different from M-E in that the setting is not 'in a galaxy [ or time] far, far away. It is set in present day England.

Other than wordly references to Christmas there is so far a complete avoidance of religion.

Which seems odd as I would want a bit of prepping for dealing with Muggles in that regard if I went to a school dedicated to the stuff - but, realism issues aside, this avoidance of something so big and profound is not irrelevant. Magic is certainly the most important thing going on these kids lives [on one level at least]. Nobody prays, nobody even says so much as the word God, in the course of thousands of discussions JKR has recorded.

So harry lives in a very magical yet agnostic world, hmmm

that is the downside. I have dealt with that by simply pointing it and it;s ramifications out to my girls [6 and 9] and I will do it more than one more time I am sure!

As for how 'magic' is dealt with in the books, it is rather comical. It is so far from any real magic [ I used to study the Golden Dawn and Crowley so I know a little bit about at least one aspect of the 'real thing'] or witchcraft that I am tempted to beleieve JKR meant it as a joke of sorts. Note her [speaking through Hermione and Dumbledore] attitude towards divination, the only subject that they study that comes close to the real subject in theory and practice that we see in Potter world.

If you want to see books that blur the line between 'real magic' and religion and fiction, the Deryni series is it. Not Potter.


Is there danger in HP being so popular and influencing kids toward witchcraft and magic, I will say, at least indirectly yes.

But, the real problem lies in parents who can not or are afraid to teach their children discernment and how to sort wheat from chaff.

Traditional Christianity sets a very high bar for what is 'good' and 'true' and thus worthy of our study and bringing into the sphere of our minds and hearts, and I will flat out say that for a Christian to spend alot or even much time in Potterworld is dubious, and I am guilty hardly immune to it's considerable non-Christian charms.

But to remain ignorant of it and not be able to speak to my daughters about it from 'within' to me is far more dangerous.

I am sure many of the same parents who forbid Potter to their kids do not draw the line at violent video games or even hours of video games in general.

There is my 2 cents for the moment, again excellent topic.


I have to add this from Anguirel:

Today, sadly, though democracy is generally recognised as a Good Thing, religious extremism is our new bogey man, the new Ring, the new Dark Lord, if you like. Just as Sauron's imminence made Denethor into a hard and harsh man, the terrorism of Islamic extremism has brought into being disturbingly similar feelings in Christianity. Why, it's enough for a whole other thread. "You serve the Dark Tower or the White." "You're with us or against us."

Excellent, excellent insight A. I personally do see militant Isalm as a real threat to Christianity and much of civilization in a way, but I also can see why many in the Muslim world see America as 'the great Satan'. I do not by the whole analysis, but many of their critiques of our decaying 'Christian' but really Materialist/Corporate culture are spot on, Tolkein often expresses the same reservations of modern 'civilization' in his Letters.

Is harry potter dangerous? Yes! and so was Gandalf, by his own admission to gimili!!!, and so are we all, for we are surrounded by dangers. But the answer I think is in a good deep understanding of the whole issue from a higher intellectual vantage point than most reactionary 'ban it' mentality comes from.

edit:

I recall posting on one of the aforementioned 'LotR banned' threads that if I were the girl going to the prep school that banned LotR I would quit in as loud a huff as I could. I would not trust the intellectual 'forming' such a narrow institution is doing.

[Kath]

Thank you everyone for your fantastic responses!

Anguirel and lindil I hadn't really thought about the fact that the two were published in different time frames with completely different circumstances surrounding them. The society we have today is much less liberal than it was - even if that sounds odd it is in essence true as though we have more in the way of general freedom and women have gained the right to vote etc. we are incredibly controlled. Just look at the amount of CCTV and the fact that media covers every aspect of our lives. There is no real prvacy anymore. This kind of society breeds fear and distrust so anything that can be used a reason for the perceived terrors of that society (teenage violence for example) is condemned for no real reason.

I did know that Tolkien had written a lot of Christian and religious symbolism into his tales but I thought that might have actually contributed to any outcry surrounding the books as people may have thought he was trying to bastardise the Christian message in some way. That's not too clear, I mean that he was almost trying to create his own Bible - he was writing his own creation story, that we know, so I thought maybe this would cause problems.

The argument on different types of magic (from mormegil?) is a good one. In Harry Potter the magic is much more upfront and obvious as they are chanting spells, making things float etc, whereas in Lord of the Rings the magic is hidden almost. It is there in the world itself, the descriptions of landscapes and the land of the elves show magic. In the book itself Galadriel says she does not understand the word magic. The type of magic though is also less obvious, it is rooted in fairy tales, Eomer is surprised at the appearance of Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli and their tales of Lothlorien. The real magic here is in the reality of things that should be myth and legend.

Then this

In Potter, which I've never read but have seen, I assume that the use of magic is encouraged, and it's not always clear on which side the characters are.

This is not entirely true. Yes the use of magic is encouraged but it is always obvious which side the characters are on by the end of the book at least. And those who are Dark wizards use curses that hurt others, whereas Good wizards are taught to use their powers to help others and to protect themselves, never attack.

Hookbill your Pastor sounds great! And what he said makes perfect sense.

Oh and thank you to The Saucepan Man, Lalwende and alatar for those links. I've only had a chance to skim read them so far but I'll definitely be going back to them.

[Morsul the Dark]

as far as i know the church i am loosely affiliated with(I dont go a lot...ok at all but thats beside the point) doesnt consider harry potter evil secondly the pastor's son and he himself are avid LOTR readers and quote it in sermons sometimes( i stopped going because 900 on sunday is just too early...(please no religious hatemail )

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Kath

This is not entirely true. Yes the use of magic is encouraged but it is always obvious which side the characters are on by the end of the book at least. And those who are Dark wizards use curses that hurt others, whereas Good wizards are taught to use their powers to help others and to protect themselves, never attack.

I've only seen the first movie entire, and bits and pieces of the second, but doesn't someone add a pig's tail to Harry's half-brother (or whatever he is)? And what punishment does one receive for poor sportmanship/breaking the rule in Quidditch? And is the non-magic users' side of the argument fairly represented (i.e. why Harry might not want to dabble)?

But then again, they're childrens' movies and books, and as a parent, I would filter as needed.

[lindil]

alatar posted:

And is the non-magic users' side of the argument fairly represented (i.e. why Harry might not want to dabble)?

Good point.

Throughout HP the sometimes legit concerns of the Dursely clan are hardly treated as serious by the 'good guys'.

I can't help but wonder though whether the Dursely's will not play a crucial role for good in the end. Anyway back to the main thread...

[davem]

(Puts on tin hat before proceeding)

I think this anti-fantasy movement has come out of the US, particularly in the last 20 or so years. It is a product of fundamentalism. The more fundamentalist a religion becomes the more it reverts to a literalist worldview. There is less & less room for symbolism, for metaphor. So, if a novel has 'wizards' in it it must be 'Satanic'. Most serious Tolkien fans have read Tolkien's statement that Gandalf was a kind of 'incarnate angel' - or even if they haven't they will have got the general idea themselves. But because Tolkien didn't call Gandalf an 'incarnate angel' in the book, as far as the fundamentalists, with their literalist approach, are concerned he cannot be an incarnate angel by another name.

Tolkien was lucky, in that his first readers were mostly not fundamentalists, but rather educated, quite wealthy (given the cost of the books), or 'non-conformists'. When the 'Campus cult' took off it was mostly college students looking for something anti-establishment & escapist to read.

Nowadays, those who can accomodate Fantasy into their worldview will accept it, those who can't - the 'fundamentalist' Christians or 'fundamentalist' athiests - will reject it. The former will reject it because, if taken literally , it conflicts with their 'spiritual' worldview, the latter will reject it because it is 'escaping' from 'reality'. Both groups are equally intolerant of 'magic', because magic can't be explained. For the first group it is 'Satanism', for the second it is 'superstition'. For those who find they can accomodate it, it is a doorway to 'wonder' - something both the other groups are suspicious of.

In the Ballad of Thomas the Rhymer Thomas is brought by the Fairy Queen to a place where three Roads meet. One Road is 'Broad' & winds about the Lily'd leven - this is the Road to wickedness, though some say it is the Road to Heaven. It is the Road of worldliness, of materialism. The second Road, is 'all beset with thorns & briars'. It is 'The Road to 'Paradise', though after it but few enquires.' It could be seen as the road of 'religious' fundamentalism & moral absolutism. The Third Road is the Road to Fair Elfland. It is the Road that goes ever on & on.

[Formendacil]

Fascinating- and fast-growing- thread here...

An important thing to remember, which hasn't been mentioned yet on this thread that I can see, is Tolkien's own statement about the Lord of the Rings being a fundamentally Catholic (aka Christian) work, unconsciously so in the writing, consciously in the revision.

It's a minor point to add, but one which ought to be noted on this thread, methinks.

And although this is nowhere directly stated, in the Lord of the Rings itself, it is still there in the underlying structure. Note that the Harry Potter books have no such claim made- anywhere- by J.K. Rowling about them being "fundamentally Christian".

[HerenIstarion]

See also Acceptance of mythology? by Snowdog