Outrage?

[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...