Outrage?

[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.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

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

Sorry, I didn’t express my point sufficiently clearly. The point that I am trying to make is that, when I first read LotR, much of what has since been published concerning Tolkien’s works and life was not available. So, there was much less material available for those who might be inclined to ban the book on “irreligious” grounds to distinguish it from books like Harry Potter.

As I said in reply to Kath:

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

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?

But the point is moot as it is true to say that society has changed quite considerably since I was 11 (crusty old thing that I am). It is worth noting too that, on issues such as this, approaches will vary from one country to another. The Harry Potter books are much more likely to be banned by schools in the US than in the UK because Christian fundamentalism is a stronger force there. Although it has grown in strength in the UK in recent times, as witnessed by the extreme reaction from some quarters to the televising of Jerry Springer - the Opera.

Originally Posted by davem

I think the essential difference between Tolkien's world & Rowling's is in their attitude as regards magic …

I understand the argument that seeks to distinguish LotR from Harry Potter on the basis of their treatment of magic, but I don’t go along with it. Among the many fine points made against the argument by lindil in his long post above is the fact that wizards and witches in the Harry Potter series are born with this ability, as distinct from “muggles”, who are not. It is therefore a natural ability which they develop through training.

Moreover, in LoR, there are references to Gandalf using spells which it appears that he has had to learn.

From The Hobbit, Out of the Frying-Pan into the Fire:

But, of course, Gandalf had made a special study of bewitchments with fire and lights (even the hobbit had never forgotten the magic fireworks at Old Took's midsummer-eve parties, as you remember).

From LotR, The Bridge of Khazad-Dum (Gandalf speaking):

I could think of nothing to do but to try and put a shutting-spell on the door. I know many; but to do things of that kind rightly requires time, and even then the door can be broken by strength.

Originally Posted by lindil

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

... 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....

Agreed, and I of course respect that your approach is tempered by your beliefs. But, as you say, I am hardly qualified to counsel my children in the finer points of spiritual belief. Although I will be open to discussion, and will be happy to express my views to them, it will largely be a matter for them to decide whether and how they wish to pursue this spiritual matters. All I can therefore hope to do is make sure that they have a good moral grounding, as my parents did for me. I suspect, however, that they will end up, like me, non-practising CofE.

[Anguirel]

Regarding Sam Gamgee and whether he would be in favour of banning Harry Potter: I appreciate it was a remark made tongue in cheek, but I really think it's quite an interesting point!

There is, it is true, something in Hobbit psychology-small-minded in every sense-that is deeply afraid and opposed to anything "outside", and it is a small step from that to hating it. But this sort of Hobbit, the Daily Smial-reading, Little Shireling type, is very much not the Hobbit we learn to admire. This is Lotho Sackvill-Baggins, or Ted Sandyman.

All the Hobbits who are likeable to us-not necessarily only the adventurous, gentrified Tooks and Brandybucks, but Sam as well-react essentially with wonder as well as fear to the outside world, and grow to accomodate it. They see the absurdity of the small Shire view of things, and are able to be more "Elvish"-even as the Elves are becoming more insular, ironically!

Certainly after his travails, then, Sam would think such a banning abhorrent. But I would argue that he would despise a banning heartily before his adventures as well. After all, why does he think Gandalf might turn him into davem's spotted toad? Because he's been told stories of Wizards doing similar things, just as he's heard, with glee, of the Elves and of Gil-Galad.

Sam, then, understands what fundamentalist Christians do not-that enchantment comes from stories, stories like the very Bible Christians venerate, and that if these stories have a power to give someone joy, then they should be banned no more than the Bible should. That those who block out attractions and food to the mind, whether in a humble form or a lofty one, stifle thought and commit an unspeakable crime.

[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.