Outrage?

[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.

[Gil-Galad]

Tolkien put some references to the life we have today in the book, in a way saying how Middle Earth was before Earth (Oliphaunts and elephants for example) though since it was widely fantasy, not a lot of out cries were made

[Mithalwen]

While JK Rowling may not share the committed faith of Tolkien, she has stated publically that she doesn't believe in magic and is rather bemused by the people who tell her that they have "tried all the spells" since she has made them up.....

However what strikes me as rather sad is that the fundamentalists who banned it have totally missed (because they haven't bothered to read it presumably) that the main messages of Harry Potter include:

The overwhelming love of a parent for a child
Doing the right thing even though it is harder than doing the wrong thing.
Sacrificing yourself for your friends/common good..
Protecting the weak
Past wrongdoing can be redeemed.....

Hmmm where have I heard some of these things before?

However from my point of view such intolerance and bigotry helps dissolves any residual feelings of sorrow that I have lost my faith....... I rather think that the fact that that chappie Mister Yulko (in the link mentioned by SpM) thinks that poor old Prof Tolkien is roasting in hell just for being Catholic speaks volumes. I mean, I have some issues with Catholicism myself but at least I am an oecumenical agnostic

As for Tolkien, partly I think that it was a different atmosphere - maybe the secularisation of society has not only made the churches more fundamental and evangelical but made them slightly paranoid. When most people at least paid lip service to Christianity an "irreligious" book (not that I think LOTR is such)is less threatening maybe?

Also it was before the expansion in university education and a time when an educated person would to some level have received a "classical education"; many clerics would have been classics scholars and all educated people would have some Latin if not any Greek. If you have grown up in an atmosphere that regarded an education based on the myths of Greece and Rome as no threat to the Christian Religion, a novel set in "another world" was unlikely to be a problem. And LOTR has such a straightforward Good v Evil message that it is hard to imagine anyone sane having a problem with it.

If I hold anything sacred these days it is probably books. To me book banning (whether Harry Potter, Lady Chatterley or Gideon Bibles) is on a par with book burning and equally abhorrent. Any religion or political who tries to ban a book because it disagrees or is perceived as disagreeing with it's world view is clearly insecure. If they are right people will come to that conclusion for themselves. The more widely you read the more likely you are to develop sound judgement and make good decisions for themselves. To limit a person's reading is a form of brainwashing. And bans are counterproductive - forbidden fruit is the most desired..... Children are not stupid either .... they will read what interests them and they can cope with. If I were a parent I would be much more concerned by what my child saw on TV or film than what it read.

Also it is far easier to monitor what children read than what they watch. And books that can be enjoyed by both adults and children provide much needed common ground with adolescents... Tolkien and Harry Potter can help to keep the communication channels open I have found with my young cousins. I gave them Pullman's Northern Lights becasue it is fantastically well written though I did warn them it was one of the darkest books I had ever read...


I will end my ten pennorth with two favourite quotes :

"There is no such thing as a moral or immoral book. Books are well-written or badly written. That is all." (Wilde).

"Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale? " Shakespeare.

[davem]

I think the essential difference between Tolkien's world & Rowling's is in their attitude as regards magic. The 'magic' we encounter in Middle earth is of two kinds - there is innate 'power' which is Eru given. This is what Gandalf, Galadriel, et al use - which is why Galadriel is at a loss to understand what Sam means by 'magic'. The other kind of magic is what we could call the study & practice of 'occultism'. It is power that is not Eru given, & the individual has to train to get it.

Innate 'abilities' (Galadriel's creating of her Mirror, Gandalf's use or 'chanelling of' the Secret Fire) are Good because the individual's were born with the ability to do those things. So, we're not dealing with 'magic' at all, just people behaving 'naturally'. Saruman's fall comes is shown - if not caused - by his desire to amass more power than Eru gave him - ie, his desire to be more than Eru made him to be. It is basically saying Eru made a mistake, He screwed up, & I have to put right what he got wrong. So 'Pride commeth before the fall.'

In Rowling's world magic is of this kind - people are not born with natural abilities that may appear to the Sams of this world as 'magic'. They study & practice to gain powers they would not have had otherwise.

Now it could be argued that the gaining of these powers is no different than excercising to make oneself physically stronger than one would have been, or reading books to increase one's knowledge. But the issue is the source of these enhanced abilities - with physical or mental 'training' we are developing & building on what we have from God, but Christians would say that magical powers are not the result of developing some innate, God given ability, but rather that these 'powers' are unnatural because they come from other 'powers', which are not God & therefore not 'good'.

So, Rowling's characters gain their magical powers in the way that beings like Saruman gains his extra powers, & their motivation is desire for such powers. This is wrong in itself - if you need anything more than you innately possess then God will give it to you - you won't have to train for years studying magic.

From this perspective Rowling's universe & the worldview it presents is essentially 'un-Christian' in that it says that the gaining of magical powers for their own sake is an admirable thing. Harry, Hermoine, Ron, et al, may use their powers to fight Voldemort, but they didn't go to Hogwarts in order[ to gain magical power for that reason. They just found a 'good' use for a bad thing - a thing they shouldn't have sought out in the first place.

All that simply to try & explain the difference from a Christian perspective - I'm not saying that its 'correct', but it does point up the essential difference between the two works.

Innate abilities, even if they seem like magic, are not magic. Magic of that kind is always seen as dangerous in Middle earth. The desire for such powers is a sign that the seeker is heading for the 'dark side'. Even objects like the Palantiri are dangerous because they promise the individual a power he or she was not meant to have. Aragorn has a right to use the Palantir - it is innate in him because of his heritage. Denethor's right is open to question, but his desire for the power to be gained from use of the Stone is what leads to his falling to Sauron.

Rowling's character's desire magical powers, to be more than they were made to be, & they are presented as good, & their desire & the powers it gains them, are not seen as wrong in & of themselves - only the way they use their magic is judged, not their desire to have it in the first place.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Since it's taken me this long to discover this fascinating thread, I've got a long post addressing many comments. Here goes:

In Rowling's world magic is of this kind - people are not born with natural abilities that may appear to the Sams of this world as 'magic'. They study & practice to gain powers they would not have had otherwise

Not exactly, davem. Just like in Tam Pierce's land of Tortall, where some people are born with the Gift, Rowling's wizards are either born with or without magic (remember Squibs and Muggle-borns). The point of the school is not to teach them evil magic and that sort of thing, it's to teach them to develop the powers they were born with. A safe haven for them, much like Xavier's school for gifted youngsters in X-Men.

No concentration or manipulation of the individuals mind, energy etc..., just a parody version of 'magic'.

Actually, lindil, you're wrong. Upon the introduction of Professor Snape, he says "There will be no foolish wand-waving", among other things, saying that Potions class is far more subtle. Also, the study of Occlumency, which is shielding your mind against attack (Leglimency). Harry refers to Leglimency as "mind-reading" and once again, Snape brings the point of subtlety and how the mind is many-layered and cannot be read as a book, but can still be observed and prodded.

HP is for all practical purposes arguably neck and neck on the first 2 levels, but so far leaves one completely w/out direction as to any afterlife, revelation of purpose, destiny etc.

Hey, hey! What about those ghosts floating around? Nearly Headless Nick tells Harry in Book 5 that the reason Sirius won't come back in ghost form is because his life was complete and he was not afraid to continue on to what came next. Nick was still hanging out because he was afraid to face the unknown and so chose a poor imitation of life. Harry seeing his parents in Book 4 was a fluke, but they came back sort of in angel form to give guidance and love to their kid who was about to die. Also, Dumbledore's words on Flamel: "To the well organized mind, death is but the next great adventure." There is mention everywhere of life not being the end. Just no mention of what the end actually is. Which mirrors LotR and the Silm in that Men die, but nobody knows what happens after.

I mean I don't believe magic works but if it did it would be immoral to use it.

Quite frankly, Mith, I have to disagree with you. I don't believe in magic (a lot of superstitious hocus-pocus, as far as I'm concerned, much like ghosts) in the way of chanting a spell and getting results, or that sort of thing. But if it did exist... is it not worse to ignore a gift, than to use it for a good purpose? Although, really, I just sounded like Boromir in regards to the Ring.

The only magic I see is what lies before me on a regular basis. The love between parent and child. Budding flowers and newly opened leaves. A fresh layer of snow glimmering in the early morning light. What's more magical than the beauty of existence? Onward...

Magic is a neutral power & only its use determines whether it is good or evil.

You got it, dave. Magic is not good or evil in and of itself, it is a tool to be used. Unlike the Ring which was made for evil uses and so became evil by default, magic is an ability, like physical strength, or skills with debate. It is entirely up to the individual to make the choice whether to use it for good or evil.

but then, who decides what a 'good' or 'bad' use of magic is? Where/what is the yardstick?

It's pretty easy. Bad magic hurts people (like Voldemort trying to purify the world by killing off half-bloods and Muggles, or like Umbridge's quill). Good magic helps people (like Lily dying to save Harry, or Hagrid helping his veggies grow).

If we start to think that all works which include witches, wizards, elves and suchlike must have a theological structure then where does it stop? Do we ban all fairy tales and nursery rhymes? The world would be so boring and colourless without them.

*shudder* A world with no art? What would be the point of living? Although I suppose some truly *insert words* people could say that since art is only imitation of what God has already made, then art is evil in and of itself and should also be banned. I'll admit that I've heard such ideas of modern art, but since the idea was tied to the Nazi party...

I'm using LOTR and DC comics.

Hey alatar, do you come in clones? One about 18, not nearly ready for kids yet, but maybe eventually, and available at a location near me?

Dumbledore is a magician and little else. Gandalf is angelic in every way, looks aside.

Dumbledore is a good man, and a good role model. I'll even venture to say that he's a heck of a lot more accessable to children than a grouchy old angel. He's the grandpa we all wish we had; there to teach us the difference between good and evil, to protect us as much as he can, and to smile a lot and enjoy the fun things in life (like ten-pin bowling and chamber music). Gandalf, though a good role model if you're interested in subtle leadership, religious connotations, explosives, and short tempers, is harder for kids to understand than the benevolant head of the school.

There is no "magic" in revelation. The only thing that comes remotely close is the power of God, His angels and His wrath, and the power of Satan and his demons.

Which, to many, is magic in and of itself.

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.

Sure it is. But that doesn't make it wrong. It just makes it entirely unreligious. See, the trouble with religious folks is that they automatically assume that if their religion is "right", then every other way of thinking is "wrong". Why not stick with plain old faith (personal relationship with God, as it's been defined) and spirituality and go with a nice moral lifestyle, trying to help others, trying to make the world a better place; without condemning people, or books?

I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with holding a few traditions, when those traditions divert from scripture and start to take centre stage, then I tend to get a little nervous and sometimes objective because of what the Bible says.

What scares me more is that people take books written by men as supreme truth. Men are fallible, with the possible exception of the Pope, who, of course, never makes mistakes.

Another thing about Harry Potter... any kid who sits down with a book that's got a brightly coloured dust jacket depicting a cartoon kid with a wooden stick and actually believes that this book is "real" has some seriously negligent parents.

And boy do I have a crazy feeling some of you lot would hate Lamb: the Gospel According to Biff. That book is just plain hilarious but if you're easily offended, avoid it like the plague. It spends a few hundred pages making fun of Jesus in a well-written sort of way, and yet a story that involves flying broomsticks and house-elves with a penchant for socks and knit hats is more of a threat to Christianity and the eternal salvation of the soul.

[Legolas]

Please leave out your personal opinions and social commentary on religions, countries, etc. out of this forum and focus on the original topic, else this thread will not be open much longer.

I had also just been reading Harry Potter and remembered that when it came out, and now, it had been banned in many churches and church schools because it was condoning witchcraft and other things that went against church teachings.

I was just wondering whether The Lord of the Rings received this type of response when it was published, as it contains many of the same elements (think Dementors/Nazgul and so on, you can do it for most of the book).

[alatar]

Along with the release of the new Potter book there is this, which of course would be as expected.

"We just have to generate some news somehow...hmmm, maybe still up and old controversy or two?"

[littlemanpoet]

Based on the article, which doesn't exactly say enough, it would seem that Ratzinger's concerns about Harry Potter would obtain equally to LotR. Given that, I disagree with him about both.

Blur good and evil? How? I haven't seen that in any of the novels. Fantasy tends to accentuate the differences between good and evil .... that is, unless you have a skewed sense of evil because your beliefs are tinged somehow with fundamentalism, which means you're sure that you're right. At least the pope prefers to fight with a pen instead of bombs.

[lindil]

lots of great posts, I am going to throw 2 more cents in [by way of reply] and then disappear for a bit:

While JK Rowling may not share the committed faith of Tolkien, she has stated publically that she doesn't believe in magic and is rather bemused by the people who tell her that they have "tried all the spells" since she has made them up.....

Glad to hear that Mithalwen, I enjoy the books alot, but I am no seriuos potterphile, so unless something like that jumps at me...

Of course the above begs the question...what does she mean by 'believe'?
That it does or does not exist in her form as in the books?
That she doesn't believe anyone should mess with it?

If she does not believe that there is anything called magic that has been practiced down through the ages for healing, manipulation, contact w/ spirits, more manipulation, astral travel, influencing events [i.e. manipulation], then I just lot a load of respect for her, but can more easily see why she would treat it in such a cavalier way.

---------
btw,re: the Osacar Wilde quote: I would def say there are some really well written immoral books out there. Crowley's 'channelled' Book of the Law is certainly one. And it has through Rock and Roll had an enormous effect.

Does that mean all copies should be burned? Not to me, but I certainly would not let my kid near that or any other serious book on real witchcraft, pornography, black or 'white' magic, until they were able to deal with it in a very sober way [and porn does not make even the wait till your older list]. So sorry wilde, I don't go there.
--------------------
Encaitre posted in reply to me:

I'm wondering what you mean by this, and what you mean by "the real deal," lindil. The only thing that sounds like something resembling the magic(k) you said you know exists is the high degree of concentration necessary for the spell to work.

that is exactly what I meant. This is emphasized in no other place I recall in the HP books. Everything else is Latin+ wizard blood+ wand technique. No concentration or manipulation of the individuals mind, energy etc..., just a parody version of 'magic'.
----------------------------------------

Larien T. posted: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

starting at the top: I do not think the line between the moral actions of right or wrong is any less clear in HP than LotR, unless you of course object a priori to using magic/witchcraft as literary device, as many conservatives of various stripes do. I would be suprised if they did not get a bad wrap in conservative, jewish or muislim circles as well.

Harry faces moral choices even more complex than frodo in many cases. Hmm, about the lying, I am having to think about that, yeah Harry and friends and even Dumbledore lie, as does Abraham [re: his wife/'sister], and even God sort of tricking Abraham into nearly sacrificing his only son.

I don't have time to think of any more examples [not that I am saying as some here might] that the Bible or Christianity endorses lying as a matter of regular convienence, but the ban on killing certainly has exception clauses a mile long..., So other than Harry telling one lie to Dumbledore to avoid revealing, heck I forgot what, but I remember one lie, that had no justification. Usually it is to outwit the real bad dudes...Similar you might say to frodo and sam disguising [lying] themselves as Orcs to get to Mt. Doom... Or better yet, Gandalf lying to the Trolls.

as regards

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...

I do not think HP loses any moral high ground on the self -sacrificing dept, if we figure that we have only seen 5/7ths of HP and what we see in 5/7ths of LotR. Harry and co. regularly risk their lives, reputations and even wands for each other.

Which I think underscores my earlier points about books [or any thing 'real' for that matter] having potentialy 3 levels: the physical, moral/ethical [or souls level] and the spiritual;. HP is for all practical purposes arguably neck and neck on the first 2 levels, but so far leaves one completely w/out direction as to any afterlife, revelation of purpose, destiny etc.

Right and wrong are not one thing to HP or LotR or Star Wars and another to us or the bible, it all comes down to revelation and what happens after we die, and if there are certain things other than ethics/morality, which pretty much all religions [major ones at least] agree on. HP leaves this stuff almost completely blank.
------------

SpM posted: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.

Of course, not 'imposing' sends it's own message, but that is obviously one you have decided on. Hopefully I have made it clear already that I do not see that LotR has a moral high ground that HP does not, it is all about revelation.

In a world [like HP] where somehow God and Christianity have disappeared [rather like the Matrix, only the matrix acknowledges the fact that they were believed in] leaving the familiar English London and countryside etc, and ethical dilemnas have the same place as in any 'good' Lit. the real difference is cosmology. And of course, by not teaching Kids anything one both leaves them free to choose, but also says implicitly, I have found nothing better than anything else, so maybe the 'spiritual' is a bit overated... But if one has not learned anything transcendenally spiritual oneself, or if one does not have a strong and pure intuition [backed by knowledge [read here gnosis] then there is a certain honesty in your approach....

This is a whole debate in itself, and one somewhat related to this, but if you don't want to pursue it hear SpM, I will completely understand... [and thanks for the more solid research quotes].

But make no mistake, much of JRRT's singular genius is in his seamless [or nearly] integration of story [physical], motive [ethical/moral] and divine purpose/revelation [spiritual]. The symbolism [take the thread on grey
currently kicking around. JRRT as no other writer in my experience interweaves all three into fiction w/ such harmony. Are their better writers in one or more of my '3 categories' sure, for me at least. But all 3? I am always willing to search such out.

This is why many LotR readers have become Christians - Tolkiens masterful and spiritually deep co-creation. Rowling leaves [probably wisely] the Siritual and cosmological revelations pretty strictly out of the picture. Thus there is no buried sub-text of 'witchcraft and wizardy' in the text. One is not being influenced subtly or otherwise on the 'spiritual plane', as is the case I believe, with LotR and Silm and co.
---------------------------

I missed DaveM's post as I was typing away, so I will add onto my original...
-------------------------
DaveM, I must disagree on a couple points.

In HP, wizards do have 'innate' magical abilities, recall Hagrids first Q's of Harry, 'have you ever done anything...' well we just saw harry do this moments before, sans wand and Hogwarts training.

Thus I have repeated a couple times that the essential ingredients in HP magic seem to be: wiz blood + latin [teachers and pre-students seem to skip this one some time] + wand technique [rarely skipped by prestudents]. So the only total constant is wizard blood, i.e. natural/innate ability.

-------

Dave Mposted: Now it could be argued that the gaining of these powers is no different than excercising to make oneself physically stronger than one would have been, or reading books to increase one's knowledge. But the issue is the source of these enhanced abilities - with physical or mental 'training' we are developing & building on what we have from God, but Christians would say that magical powers are not the result of developing some innate, God given ability, but rather that these 'powers' are unnatural because they come from other 'powers', which are not God & therefore not 'good'.

You must allow for the fact that HP magic is not the same as any magical powers the world has known, they are a complete and rather funny parody. Of course this is only my opinion and experience, i have read around and in the wild past practiced some of what is called 'magic'.

THe real stuff in my experience comes from 3 things: 1> other beings [angels - the fallen variety - I do not subscribe to the white magic from good angels theory as does the Golden Dawn for example], 2> training what are called psychic powers, this is for most people long boring repetitious work almost identical in it's own way to weight training, and just as one-sided. 3> Borrowed or 'stolen' from other things-beings [gems, plants, animals, their blood etc] and meshed w// one's own intent and/or energy.

One can argue that the training of psychic powers is not magic per se, and technically I would agree. Where they both, and HP 'magic' run afoul of traditional Christianity [or any traditional religion really] is whether the practice develops 'self' or puts one closer to God. These are rarely the same. And we tread on a whole complex other topic here... One can 'pray' in a completely materialistic and self-serving way that really is ego [or black] magic, of a sort. Much of the ritual involved in 'magic' is designed to create a certain state. Note the similarity of all traditional Christianity [by this I mean pre-Protestant Christianity, though Old -school Lutheranism and Anglicanism fall barely within my definition, due to the fact that they did not completely abandon traditional methods of worship or the traditional understanding of the Sacraments] anyway, note the similarity in ritual [not belief!] between the rituals in Temple Judaism, Taoism, Buddhism, Trad. Christianity and 'Magic'. Robes, incense, specific movements, preperatory fasting, etc

They are all understood not be efficacious in themselves [spiritually at least] but to be aids to a purpose. My long example being to show that it is the summing of all we are [Christ's 1st commandment] and placing that at God's feet, waiting on the Lord, that is true prayer.


How does that relate to HP and LotR, all of the enemies of Sauron and Voldemort are trying to do just this as the situation requires, as you pointed out.

Gandalf has more tricks than frodo, but to succeed both have to put all on the line to do what is right to fight the evil that is given them to fight.

One can ,make the same case for HP.

As for the school to train and create power in HP, it seems more a case of prudent management. In HP world the wizard born have rather sensibly decided better to have an [very elaborate] oversight commitee who trains/morally guides and restrains the wizard born, if need be, than let the natural talent run amok.

The parallels between that decsion, and what must of us see is approprate in regards ban books just occured to me.

Most everyone here agrees that knowledge/Lit [true or false, good or bad,right or wrong] is better understood for what it is in the right context at the right time, than burned or banned.

In the HP world the wizarding community made the same decision; better to reain and educate and guide, than not.

So again the big difference to me is a complete absence of cosmology, revelation of any kind.

JKR has implicitly endorsed the vague 'Spirit' concept, as opposed to a revelation from God [read Eru in M-E].

In HP their is no higher authority than the self of a human [Dumbledore or otherwise]. In M-E JRRT mirrors the revealed cosmology of Myth and Christianity.

[davem]

Originally Posted by lindil

THe real stuff in my experience comes from 3 things: 1> other beings [angels - the fallen variety - I do not subscribe to the white magic from good angels theory as does the Golden Dawn for example], 2> training what are called psychic powers, this is for most people long boring repetitious work almost identical in it's own way to weight training, and just as one-sided. 3> Borrowed or 'stolen' from other things-beings [gems, plants, animals, their blood etc] and meshed w// one's own intent and/or energy.

What can I say - except been there, done that. I was just attempting - probably not very successfully, to draw a distinction in terms of the way magic is seen in the different stories.

As an aside, I find Sam's understanding of wizards & their powers quite interesting. He clearly has a belief that Gandalf could 'turn him into something 'unnatural' - like a spotted toad, & then fill the garden with grass snakes. I wonder if he (at least at the beginning of the story) would have been on favour of banning HP type books from the Shire

[Larien Telemnar]

I wasn't saying that the Harry Potter characters don't risk their lives for each other, I've not read the books, but in many books friends do risk their lives for each other. A book wouldn't be good without at least one good friend dying. Wait, that sounded really morbid..............

The only thing that I've disagreed with in this whole thread (So many people have a lot of good points) is what lindil said about lying. Abraham did lie, he was human. All of us have a sin nature and lie, and Abraham was no exception. God however, does not lie. Lying is a sin, and God cannot be around sin, therefor He cannot, will not lie. He doesn't have a sin nature. With Abraham and Issac, God was telling Abraham to sacrifice his son because He was testing Abraham. He did not tell Abraham anything other than telling him to obey him. Abraham knew that God had a plan for him, and Issac. He knew that God's glory would be shown to him, even if He did not understand it at the time. God provided for them, as He always does, by sending the sacrificial Ram, and stopping Abraham from killing his son.

Temptation is a big factor, of which I've noticed in Lord of the rings. Temptation is a part of life, and struggles, like the temptations Frodo and Sam face.

Sorry, that was a "little" off topic, but I had to throw that in.

[Encaitare]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

"There is no such thing as a moral or immoral book. Books are well-written or badly written. That is all." (Wilde).

I adore that quote. I adore it so much that I've made a LiveJournal icon out of it (see attachment if you care to do so). But I think maybe it would be better to say "novel," perhaps, in place of "book" since I do believe that then it would in every case be a true statement. I think it's safe to say that Mein Kampf is not a moral book, for example. Then again, we must remember that morals are relative to each person -- I can think of several contemporary issues which definitely reflect this, ie: abortion.

Lalwende, I thank you for your defense of paganism. Another thing to remember -- the term comes from the Latin word for "country-dweller," and the negativity associated with it today is all in the connotation! Also, cheers for this:

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Nobody should exclusively read books endorsed by their faith. Aside from the fact that they will not learn other points of view, they are also denying themselves the chance of a lot of pleasure and enlightenmnent. Anyone who is afraid to read a book because it might 'turn' them against their faith might want to question whether their faith is strong enough.

A person's religious views cannot be shaped 'properly' if he is not exposed to all manner of belief systems (IMO). Banning books seems to be an act done out of fear more than anything else: the fear that people will actually start getting ideas that might cause a threat.

Originally Posted by Kath

Thats a good point Enca but didn't Tolkien do this slightly as well? In the Prologue when he talks about Hobbits he claims that they still live among us today, but that we can't see them because of our own lack of belief and because they run and hide from us as the world has changed. But this is one small example compared to the large version in HP.

A good point on your part as well. But, as you say, it is very small in comparison. I think that to suggest that there were wizards and elves and such roaming the earth many years ago is one thing; to suggest that we're all Muggles and there are wizards all around us and we don't know it is another.

[lindil]

I'm slightly lost in this thread now thanks to that enormous post from lindil!

too true, sorry...won't do it again for, well, until the next really interesting thread w/ lots to reply too comes along ...

Seriously, I can think of few issues more relevant on the scene than this, and I had a few opinions.

[Mithalwen]

[QUOTE=lindil]lots of great posts, I am going to throw 2 more cents in [by way of reply] and then disappear for a bit:
Glad to hear that Mithalwen, I enjoy the books alot, but I am no seriuos potterphile, so unless something like that jumps at me...

Of course the above begs the question...what does she mean by 'believe'?
That it does or does not exist in her form as in the books?
That she doesn't believe anyone should mess with it?

If she does not believe that there is anything called magic that has been practiced down through the ages for healing, manipulation, contact w/ spirits, more manipulation, astral travel, influencing events [i.e. manipulation], then I just lot a load of respect for her, but can more easily see why she would treat it in such a cavalier way.

---------
btw,re: the Osacar Wilde quote: I would def say there are some really well written immoral books out there. Crowley's 'channelled' Book of the Law is certainly one. And it has through Rock and Roll had an enormous effect.

Does that mean all copies should be burned? Not to me, but I certainly would not let my kid near that or any other serious book on real witchcraft, pornography, black or 'white' magic, until they were able to deal with it in a very sober way [and porn does not make even the wait till your older list]. So sorry wilde, I don't go there.
--------------------
QUOTE]


OK well I would not be so arrogant as to claim to know what JK Rowling believes but my understanding of her comment was that she does not believe you can point a stick at broken glass, utter a Latin imperative and fix it.

Personally while I am aware of the history of the practice of magic I certainly don't believe that it worked, and anyone being more than academically interested today in what frankly seem to me quite ludicrous practices when science is so much more "magical" I find bizarre . Riddikulus as they might say in a certain series of books. Of course people can believe what they want as long as they don't hurt any living thing but really ... I mean I don't believe magic works but if it did it would be immoral to use it.

I used to think differently and it is an episode I regret since I firmly believe that ignorance is so much more dangerous than knowledge. The more you know the less likely you are to be duped and the more widely you read the more aware you are likely to be of manipulative language. The more you can judge what is normal and what is warped.

http://www.zippynet.com/pages/bandhmo.htm

As a literature graduate I have read many books that depict views or behaviour that don't fit my moral code, Sade, Burroughs, Mailer, (not Crowley as it happens despite him being a local author ), and (I hope)needless to say it hasn't turned me into a sado-masochistic, junkie murderer any more than reading Macbeth turned me into regicide. As a child the most disturbing thing I read were a description of how to lay out a corpse a nursing handbook of my grandmother's .... I just think people sometimes need to get a grip and a sense of proportion ... and a realisation of how illogical they are .... to me if there is anything immoral in LOTR it is the the slaughter of the battlefields, the "game" between Legolas and Frodo which is only vaguely acceptable because it involves orcs not humans. Watching violence has been proved to damage children and if I ever become a parent, I will let them read what they like (though I will try to be aware of it and discuss it with them if I think it gives cause for concern) but I will be very careful what they watch.....

[Ainaserkewen]

Off topic with recent discussion, but relevant to original post:

I just wanted to put in that it's interesting to question the majority faith of LOTR readers. I also know that some people, examples on this board, are very devout Christians (whatever denomination) and absolutely treasure LOTR, find no fault in it, and fight our little hearts out if anyone tries to tell us otherwise. However, from the same or very similar Christian faiths, the oposite opinions are taken with just as much flame. It just goes to show that what's going on in terms of contraversy has nothing to do with religion, just people's perceptions and their own personal tastes.

[Lalwendë]

The Bible says: "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13)

This is interesting as this is exactly what does happen in the Harry Potter books, many times over; selflessness and friendship are great themes in the books. Mithalwen's list covers many other of those reasons why the Harry potter series is not quite so sinister as it may seem at face value to some.

Originally Posted by Encaitare

I'm wondering what you mean by this, and what you mean by "the real deal," lindil. The only thing that sounds like something resembling the magic(k) you said you know exists is the high degree of concentration necessary for the spell to work.

Real world Paganism is much more varied and complex than many would think. The spell casting portrayed in Harry Potter is almost comic in comparison. Instead it actually makes great use of techniques used in all other faiths such as meditation/prayer, the focussing nature of ritual and the power of thoughts and symbols. It is also broadly benevolent, just as other faiths are. Yes, there are some more damaging aspects, but then there are disturbing aspects to some sectors of other religions too! Yet you do not get many Pagans advising people not to read CS Lewis lest it make them become a suicide bomber or join a cult like that run by Rev Jim Jones!

I wish that many people with fundamental beliefs could see past the word 'witchcraft' as it is nothing to be feared in itself, it poses no more threat to the person strong in their faith than does any other faith. It is simply a different faith. The stirring up of suspicion about witchcraft (sadly a hugely emotive word) has been in the news lately with a child suffering torment at the hands of her fundamentalist family due to them thinking the child was a 'witch'; I think that this only serves to illustrate how vital it is that children are all educated about all faiths in an attempt to promote understanding and tolerance.

I think the danger in banning a book is at its most serious when it is banned by a state or public institution, as then it is in effect denied to people. When a family chooses not to allow a book to be read then this is their choice, and parents are indeed free to guide their children as they see fit. Indeed, they are free to make no such decisions and allow their children total free reign, including ignoring age restrictions on products or TV, which is a whole other ball game. It is how and why such decisions are made that concerns me. The best such decisions are made because the parent/school knows their child and can see that they are not yet mature enough to deal with the concepts in a book.

Nobody should exclusively read books endorsed by their faith. Aside from the fact that they will not learn other points of view, they are also denying themselves the chance of a lot of pleasure and enlightenmnent. Anyone who is afraid to read a book because it might 'turn' them against their faith might want to question whether their faith is strong enough. If a parent/school considers denying a child the opportunity to learn something because it may weaken their faith, then instead they might want to consider why the child ought to read that book and follow this up with learning about the issues involved.

[Kath]

I'm slightly lost in this thread now thanks to that enormous post from lindil!

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).

Thats true SpM but there is no way we can truly justify anything on this thread because we (so far as I know) do not wish to ban these things and so cannot explain and justify that point of view. In order to do that we would need someone who could remember back to when LotR was released for real proof as to whether there was a negative reaction to it, another person who had been behind a ban on Harry Potter but not LotR and yet another who had wanted to ban both. Unfortunately we are unlikely to get all three on this site and in this thread so we have to stick with conjecture.

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.

Yes Larien this is true but as lindil and Lalwende said there are many examples of this in Harry Potter as well. There is intense friendship that is deep enough that they will risk their own lives for each other. The power of love is an incredibly strong theme, with the love of Harry's mother protecting him from beyond the grave. There is a huge discussion on the types if magic that seems to have sprung from this thread but though the magic in HP is often much more obvious there are these instances where it is hidden but all the more powerful for it, just as it is in LotR.

Maybe that's part of what causes outrage: when writers mess around with the present reality.

Thats a good point Enca but didn't Tolkien do this slightly as well? In the Prologue when he talks about Hobbits he claims that they still live among us today, but that we can't see them because of our own lack of belief and because they run and hide from us as the world has changed. But this is one small example compared to the large version in HP.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I think that this only serves to illustrate how vital it is that children are all educated about all faiths in an attempt to promote understanding and tolerance.

I would prefer a dose of rationality and skepticism myself. Being able to intelligently evaluate any faith or claim would serve a child better than to provide a buffet of faith systems as surely you'd leave a few off of the table.

Originally Posted by TheSaucepanMan

My children are 7 (girl) and 5 (boy). I have not read the Harry Potter books myself and don't have them, and they are rather too young to be reading such books themselves yet, although we have seen the films. I would, however, have no concerns over the references to wizards, magic etc and I am perfectly happy for them to read the books. For the reasons that I have stated, it is just not an issue for me.

My oldest is 5, and he and his younger sisters ask to watch FOTR DVD EE disc 2 from Rivendell to the Khazad-dûm bridge scene. Surely this is screwing them up, but as they always have the option of (1) turning their heads, (2) having it turned off, I have no problem with them watching it. Also, I'm on the scene to explain what is going on along with what is really going on (Gandalf is actually telling a tennis ball that it cannot cross a bridge), to highlight the good moral issues (friendship, bravery, etc) and to sit with them as a family. So far, no nightmares, and the only negatives have been that my daughter feels bad for the cave troll and thinks that its name should be Susan.

Batman, the cartoon character (The Batman, Justice League Unlimited) is also permitted as it is watched under the supervision as above. I make a point of showing that Batman uses deduction to fight crime - no magic, no superpowers - just a regular human with a good brain.

Some people use Aesop. I'm using LOTR and DC comics. You can find your gold (keep!) or boogeyman (ban!) wherever you choose.

[solarisa]

i doubt it. my opinion is lotr isn't...witchcraft...for example, sauron, he blackens nature, while galadriel tends it, and nature flourishes... i dunno, hp is about wands, and things against church. but our church doesn't ban it, on the contrary alot of my church friends are not fans, but avid readers. apart from the wands, etc. the story and morals inside is down to earth and a good read.

*i recommend hp!

**plus since churches havent banned lotr yet it's wasn't too big a problem, right??

[Raynor]

Magic seems to accompany the other races as they fade; while both Sauron and the elves use magia and goeteia, they, as "mythological" figures, are bound to dissappear. The dwarves seem to have magic abilities (judging from their song in the Hobbit, their participation in the magic protection of the troll hoard, their moon letters and the magic doors of Moria).

Concerning the race of Men, Tolkien states in letter #155 that magic "is an inherent power not possessed or attainable by Men as such"; the only exceptions found to this are the swords of the Westernesse "wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor" and the healing power of Aragorn (but in both cases there is an "elven descendancy" element involved).

The hobbits are a branch of Men, so it is rather unlikely they have magic powers (more or less seriously, Tolkien notes in the first chapter of the hobbit that "there is little or no magic about them, except the ordinary everyday sort which helps them to disappear quietly and quickly when large stupid folk like you and me come blundering along, making a noise like elephants which they can hear a mile off").

In the fourth age, the presence of magic among Men is bound to be restricted to the use of whatever magical objects are left (glowing swords, elven ropes cloaks and boats, the palantiri and to a much lesser extent Galdadriel's blessed earth given to Sam).

[Nogrod]

[QUOTE=Raynor]Magic seems to accompany the other races as they fade; while both Sauron and the elves use magia and goeteia, they, as "mythological" figures, are bound to dissappear. /QUOTE]

Good point.

I see here Tolkien's kind of a sorrowed-romantic vision of the grand-days passing away. The age of mythology has come to pass over and we humans just run this world, ever more tehnocratically & byrocratically

It also reminds me of a similar vision by T.S. Elliot and his "The Hollow Men" (in the Waste Land, 1921). If you haven't ever heard of it, check it out!

[Aiwendil]

Raynor wrote:

Concerning the race of Men, Tolkien states in letter #155 that magic "is an inherent power not possessed or attainable by Men as such"; the only exceptions found to this are the swords of the Westernesse "wound about with spells for the bane of Mordor" and the healing power of Aragorn (but in both cases there is an "elven descendancy" element involved).

There's also Isildur's cursing of the Dead Men of Dunharrow (which again may be put down to Elvish descent" and Beorn's shape changing (which cannot be). I think there is enough evidence to show that the statement that magic "is an inherent power not possessed or attainable by Men as such" is not strictly true (and Tolkien seems to have come to this conclusion as well, as indicated by his note against that passage).

Still, I think you are right that magic is, as a general rule, not accessible to humans in the way it is to Elves.

[narfforc]

Because The Dead Men of Dunharrow broke their pledge to fight for Isildur at The Battle of the Last Alliance, they were cursed. Surely this was after the battle, when Isildur had The One Ring on, therefore the power to do so was enhanced by the ring. If men had no ability with magic, how could The Witch-King of Angmar have been a powerful sorcerer, before he held one of the rings for mortal men doomed to die. Was not The Mouth of Sauron supposed to have been a Black Numenorean and also a powerful sorcerer?