Outrage?

[HerenIstarion]

See also Acceptance of mythology? by Snowdog

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

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".

Why should that make any difference to whether one or the other is banned?

I first read LotR at age 11. I had no inkling ( ) that it was "fundamentally Christian". Having read it, I soon moved onto other fantasy books and Dungeons & Dragons and also developed an interest in what might loosely be termed the "supernatural". Had the Harry Potter books been available back then and I had read them instead of LotR, I can imagine them having much the same effect.

In my view the books stand or fall together on this issue. I most certainly don't think that either should be banned. But I just don't get these distinctions based on one being "fundamentally Christian" and the other not being so, or on the portrayal of the nature of magic being different. Such distinctions would most certainly not have been apparent to me age 11.

[Kath]

Such distinctions would most certainly not have been apparent to me age 11.

No they probably wouldn't Saucepan Man, but then it is not the children that ban the books it is the adults. The distinctions are made by 'discerning' parents who want what they believe to be the best for their children and while it is all well and good to want to protect them it is still ridiculous to think that not reading a book will do this. Even if they don't read it at home if others at school do so they are likely to know about it or even to borrow it off a friend to read it.

On Formendacil's point

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".

This is true but if she had made some statement about them being fundamentally Christian then she would probably have been accused for that. We are now a multi-religious society and to those who take slight at anything it such a remark would likely have been seen as some kind of insult. To say the books were Christian might indicate a lack of respect toward other religions (this is not my view it is simply an example). In Tolkien's time England was Christian pretty much through and through so this was not a problem, indeed he was probably liked more for it. It is just another example of the fact that the changes in society over time mean you have to be more careful with what you say.

And thanks for the link H-I.

[Selmo]

All the arguments put forward in this thread are very interesting, but I believe, irrelevant. There are good reasons to be concerned about the effects some literature may have on vulnerable minds but the mainly American fundamentalist Christians who wanted the first HP book banned didn't reach a reasoned value judgement from the contents; they only looked at the cover.

The first thing they saw was the title, "The Sorcerer's Stone". That aroused their suspicions. Had the US publishers used the real title, it might have slipped through unnoticed.

Then they saw the words "Hogwort's School of Wizzardry and Witchcraft". They didn't need to look any further. The book banners have a knee-jerk reaction to words like "witch" and "witchcraft". Had J K Rowling used wizzard and wizzardry for both sexes there might have been less of an outcry.

The reason there wasn't the same outcry when LoTR was published in USA?: there's no mention of witches on the back of the book cover or in the advertising blurb. You have to look very hard to find the word "witch" in Tolkien's work.



By the way, I am a Christian myself. My previous Minister (he moved on last August) was a fan of both Tolkien and Rowling and often drew illustrations from their work in his sermons.

.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Kath

No they probably wouldn't Saucepan Man, but then it is not the children that ban the books it is the adults. The distinctions are made by 'discerning' parents who want what they believe to be the best for their children and while it is all well and good to want to protect them it is still ridiculous to think that not reading a book will do this.

Yes, but that's my point. 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?

Originally Posted by Selmo

There are good reasons to be concerned about the effects some literature may have on vulnerable minds but the mainly American fundamentalist Christians who wanted the first HP book banned didn't reach a reasoned value judgement from the contents; they only looked at the cover.

This "knee-jerk" reaction appears to have been applied by some to LotR too. But at least they are consistent. What I don't get is people who think LotR is OK because it was written by a Christian and contains elements drawn from the Christian faith (although no overt Christian symbolism, as has been discussed on another thread), but that Harry Potter books are evil because the same considerations do not apply. Both books essentially portray a struggle by "good" protagonists against an "evil" force.

[HerenIstarion]

Cover/back illustration/title argument is quite interesting and coherent, but some of the 'outrage' HP earned and LoTR shows the lack thereof has to do with specified audience of the HP - children (in addition to all listed, not solely, of course). It's a good excuse to make a cry (about anything) when you are fighting 'kiddies' war for them.

I'll have to throw in another sample for that - Terry Pratchatt's books are oft named like 'Sorcery' and 'Witches Abroad', are fantasy books (despite the satire) and the first one I've read (Lords and Ladies) had me hooked to the purchase by the cover painting of two excessively ugly warty angry-looking cronies and some bulky-nosy chap with horns and hooves on (as I've found later, King of Elves). Backcover annotation also read there are witches and elves to be found inside, and whilst elves are evil, witches are definitely the side to go along with. If there were some crusade against TP going on somewhere sometime, it eluded me completely or other there was none. Reason - you won't find TP books in 'Read for Children' section, as opposed to HP series.

Funny that I haven't encountered any Pullman-bashing web page yet, though, as his books definitely fill 'for children' bill in bookstores. Or are there some?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by HI

Cover/back illustration/title argument is quite interesting and coherent, but some of the 'outrage' HP earned and LoTR shows the lack thereof has to do with specified audience of the HP - children

When I first read LotR, the prevailing view was that it was a children's book, and I think that this probably remains the case with the majority (in the UK at least). Certainly, The Hobbit is regarded (rightfully) as such.

Originally Posted by HI

Funny that I haven't encountered any Pullman-bashing web page yet, though

Oh don't worry, Pullman has come in for his fair share of vilification for his portrayal of the Authority and the Church in his books. The Archbishop of Canterbury, however, welcomed the scenario presented by Pullman as offering a good basis for discussion on the nature of religion. He at least, I think, understands that children should be allowed to make up their own minds on such matters.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Why should that make any difference to whether one or the other is banned?

I first read LotR at age 11. I had no inkling ( ) that it was "fundamentally Christian". Having read it, I soon moved onto other fantasy books and Dungeons & Dragons and also developed an interest in what might loosely be termed the "supernatural". Had the Harry Potter books been available back then and I had read them instead of LotR, I can imagine them having much the same effect.

In my view the books stand or fall together on this issue. I most certainly don't think that either should be banned. But I just don't get these distinctions based on one being "fundamentally Christian" and the other not being so, or on the portrayal of the nature of magic being different. Such distinctions would most certainly not have been apparent to me age 11.

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

I'm not saying the censors who ban books are necessarily wise, discerning, or particularly thoughtful, but they are also not 11 years old. Which is perhaps an important point to remember.

And while it might be discriminatory to ban books based on only one faith system, the fact of the matter is that in the United States (more so than any other country today), fundamentalist Christians ARE perhaps the dominant force in the censoring of art and literature.

So perhaps it isn't fair or just. Whether it's fair or just isn't really the issue here...

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

See also Acceptance of mythology? by Snowdog

That thread at times tended to sound like an AA meeting, except instead of "My name is Joe and I'm an alchoholic" , the refrain ran, "I'm a Christian..."

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Funny that I haven't encountered any Pullman-bashing web page yet, though, as his books definitely fill 'for children' bill in bookstores. Or are there some?

Well, there was a news report that the movie script for Pullman's first book was being substantially watered down in its criticism of organised religion as the Authority and substituted political powers as the offending organisation of power.

I wonder if part of the response to Rowlings was motivated in fact by the zealous fan behaviour of her initial readers. Hasn't Tolkien grown slowly in reputation so that the initial response to him lacked the kind of fan fervour we see today? It always seems easier among a certain set to ban the cause of excess rather than discuss excess as a human propensity and give it its due place, although these days Tolkien certainly invokes a similar excess among some readers.

[Kath]

Funny that I haven't encountered any Pullman-bashing web page yet, though, as his books definitely fill 'for children' bill in bookstores. Or are there some?

Actually there was some bother about the films as Bêthberry said. There is a newspaper article up in my school library (which I still haven't read but will do eventually) and it says something like 'God removed from Dark Materials Trilogy' because of Christian outrage over the portrayal of God in the film.

I wonder if part of the response to Rowlings was motivated in fact by the zealous fan behaviour of her initial readers. Hasn't Tolkien grown slowly in reputation so that the initial response to him lacked the kind of fan fervour we see today?

This backs up the idea that Lalwendë came up with but if that is the case then was there a 'knee-jerk' reaction when the films came out? Because at that time a lot of people suddenly became very interested in Tolkien. The popularity of the books skyrocketed so people could read them before they went to see the film, or indeed after.

So what basis would there have been for "discerning" parents to have treated them any differently at that time?

I'm sticking with the different society theory for that one Saucepan Man.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Kath

I'm sticking with the different society theory for that one Saucepan Man.

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).

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by lindil

Violent video games/tv [to take a more obvious and I think more researched example] do not make kids immediately want to go and kill someone/thing but they do slowly but surely change perception and reactive habits.

Interesting point this. In a recent study, it was found that playing "violent" games where there was a clear distinction between "goodies" and "baddies" (eg Doom) not only improved children's reactions, but also increased their empathetic qualities. On the other hand, I agree that the impressionable nature of children justifies a reasonable degree of censorship. I was shocked to discover (from the same source as the research mentioned above) that a worrying proportion (something like 1 in 3, if I recall) of primary school children (under 11s) in the UK regularly play "Gangsta" games which involve players committing crimes and even sleeping with prostitutes and then killing them.

Originally Posted by lindil

Ban it? No.
Ponder the ramifications of HP's 'worldview' w/ your kids, absolutely.

I don't disagree, but the same should apply to LotR.

[lindil]

SpM posted:I don't disagree, but the same should apply to LotR.

Absolutely!, but as I pointed out, JRRT in a masterful way consciously revised LotR towards Catholic origins. If you dig deep that is what you get, his cosmology is pointing to God. It is not in your face in LotR as in the Silm, but I doubt if many reading Silm are suprised or shocked by the opening chapters, even if they do not resonate with them initially.

Indeed I would not be suprised if at some point down the road, JKR does some sort of Silm like prequel[s] to HP, to put it in a religious context that it is so obviouly missing. Perhaps a revealing of why there is no religion in HP at all, what led to a silent 'seperation of magic and religion' and ultimately complete silence....

So I maintain, that as brilliant, captivating and downright instructive as HP is, it has built in 'flaws' that JRRT not only avoided, but encoded the essence of his religion in a seemingly a-religious work [LotR], and he began it with only purity of purpose, and a willingness to 'find the story', and what 'felt' right - well that and a near complete assimilation of the entirety of extant European [and beyond] Mythologies, and a serious and deep catholic religious life.

From a slightly different tack, i would say that JRRT wrote w/ a masterful blend of skill and inspired creativity in 3 worlds. The Physical, the moral/ethical and the spiritual.

JKR has done a brilliant job w/ the physical and moral/ethical [magic is clearly no shortcut to anything essential in these kids lives, is does not help him w/ Cho, or his relationship w/ the Durselys or even his God-father [ah, I'm suprised no one caught the one other reference to religion!].

It is truly a literary device, but as JRRT realised in his works [see the Letters] magic is a two-edged sword, giving the dunedain some abilities in this area was he realized a real problem.

In LotR human 'magic' is very much placed in a cosmological context. The 'why's' and 'who's' are rather clearly spelled out and their relationships clear, all the way up to the Valar [in LotR] and Eru in Silm.

In HP we have a who, w/ muggles/wizards, but absolutely no background as to how/why the division is there, where magical powers come from and what the realtionship is to God. IF harry has a Godfather, was he baptised?

I am not saying JKR was 'wrong' to not include all this, perhaps she will one day. But it leaves a big void in the 'spiritual' that JRRT did not leave. And that void is something that 'nature' [and many fundamentalists] abhor.

Persoanlly I thin kthe HP benefits in worlds 1 and 2 if you will, far outweigh the vaugeness of the spiritual. Indeed it gives me the opportunity to talk w/ my girls about the rampant de-personalization of God as 3 Persons--> God as Spirit [a very common way in Northern Cal. at least to refer to God in a totally non-'religious' way]. This trend is ubiquitous and I think ultimately insidious, but it is a fact, and one can reply in a variety of ways.

Now if HP had sly references to say, the Necronomicon or some other blatantly demonic system, well alot more of us would be singing a different tune, no matter how good the writing is. The Deryni books are a good example [again]. I would not let my kids read those, till I think they are really ready to have serious talks about the occult.

HP does 'trivialize' the occult in some ways. I find it a rather funny caricature of real magic and witchcraft [which I know exist].

Latin words + wizard blood + proper wand technique = HP 'magic'

Only in the spell used to repulse dementors, do we see anything approaching the real deal. And frankly I am very glad she was not more explicit.

[sorry for the several additions...]

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by lindil

Absolutely!, but as I pointed out, JRRT in a masterful way consciously revised LotR towards Catholic origins.

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.

[Larien Telemnar]

*Small Brain enters rather intelectual discussion*

I'm going to put my two cents in here, seeing as this is a pretty good subject.

First of all I just want to say a few things about the Harry Potter books. I'm sure that the books may be well written as far as books go, seeing as they're so popular. I haven't read them myself, or seen the movies, though. Growing up in a Christian Home in the middle of Nowhere, I have been taught a great many things about using discretion in reading different kinds of books. (I have a habbit of having a little bit of a too-active imagination, of which has made my father think I'm going to end up in a nice padded room. Go figure. ) 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

Don't be offended by my writing, please. I'm only writing what many people have told me, who have indeed read the books.

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.

Also, no matter what era you live in, there will always be opposition for any book, wether good or bad. I have several cousins who refuse to read Lord of the Rings because...... Weel I don't know. They're very legalistic and judgemental, and believe that any material you read other than the Bible must be dull and unimaginative. Anywoot, I agree with everyone who said that it was better accepted because of the Christian backdrop of the story. Even though Professor Tolkien did not write it as an alagory, his Christianity shows through in his works, shining with love for the story and for the reader.

[alatar]

Thinking about it some more, surely LOTR had to have generated some outrage - maybe we just didn't hear about it or just aren't aware of it. Led Zeppelin, the greatest rock band ever! included Tolkien within their songs, and so there had to have been some benefit from that, meaning that it was either counterculture to do so or the hype of the day (or maybe they just liked LOTR).

Also, back in the day it was Dungeons and Dragons that was going to lead all children to hell, then video games (don't think that Pong was included in this), then those card games - not sure what came next. Paralleling this was the usual suspects - cults, rock and roll, violent cartoons and anything foreign.

It would seem that there is a certain subset of the society (not always the same people) who feel the need to gripe about what the next generation is being exposed to.

And today, we can know about one protester on the other side of the planet, and the nuttier, the better, from the media's POV.

[lindil]

Several people have brought up that as children we would/did not split these hairs: fundamentally christian worldview or not, differences in magic or not.

No of course these things are not in your face or in the forefront of your mind, this is why they are so potent, they slip in through a side door.

Violent video games/tv [to take a more obvious and I think more researched example] do not make kids immediately want to go and kill someone/thing but they do slowly but surely change perception and reactive habits. Many of our choices and perceptions, indeed our 'world view' are formed by impressions we take in when we are young. Spending one's childhood immersed in anything [I was seriously immersed in JRRT] def. shaped mine.
I got into Christianity as a direct result of JRRT, I got into magic [later] as a direct result of JRRT/StarWars, etc...

I had absolutley no parental guidance and oversight on this.

Harry Potter, like JRRT casts a potent spell for many, and to whitewash this and not take it seriously is imo, naive.

Ban it? No.
Ponder the ramifications of HP's 'worldview' w/ your kids, absolutely.

No 'entertainment' is w/out it's price. Beyond the $ tag.

----------

Anecdotal evidence from this board alone shows that JRRT was a spiritual turning point for many that led them to JRRT's ultimate source.

As much as I enjoyed HP [ I read 5 at least 5 times in the last 2 years] I recognize that it simply does not ultimately draw from the same depth of purity that JRRT did. It's complete absence of a cosmology [still 2 books to go I know, but I don't expect any radical changes in this regard] is a major weakness. It's immediacy, being told about kids today, is a big strength. JKR attempts and succeeds in showing [in #5] the very relevant situation of kids having to make major decisions for themselves, because the authority figures around them are on the run [Dumbledore], stupid and blind [umbridge], out of commision [mcgonagle] or otherwise incommunicado. The relevance of this to today is I hope something kids are absorbing on some level. This is HP's virtue. The means she uses to tell an important story are obviously a great lure, on the order of Star Wars, and JRRT, but the complete lack of a cosmology, leaving Witchcraft and Wizardry in a theological, though not a ethical/moral vacuum is unfortunate. How it will play out in each soul will be different.

But you can bet that just as JRRT informed an entire hippy/enviromental movement, HP has sown it's own seeds....

[Selmo]

I am the parent of two daughters who are now young adults.
When they were younger, I never tried to prevent them reading anything they wanted. Thankfully, I never had to; they showed no interest in anything that I thought unsuitable. They have both read the HP books and one of them is an avid Tolkien fan.
While I would not ban any literature, if one of my daughters had read exclusively just one author or genre, HP, LoTR or any other, I would have intervened, not to stop her reading but to encourage her to read more widely.

Children can be influenced by what they read, even though they can tell what is fiction and what is not from a very early age. Absorbing just one person's ideas about any area of life, real or fantasy, is not a good thing.

Those who are worried about what children read are right to be concerned but, instead of banning books and narrowing a child's imagination, they should be helping to widen it.