Outrage?

[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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

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.

Only read the first four Potter books a long time ago, but isn't Hermoine a 'Mudblood' - a child of two muggle parents? If so, then the idea is present that any child can get magical powers by study & practice. The only characters in Middle earth who get such powers in that way are the bad guys.

Now, I've read 'occult' books, worked with Tarot, etc, etc, so I'm not puting forward this argument because I hold to it, but attempting to show why Christians may be able to happily embrace LotR but totally opposed to HP.

[Anguirel]

One of the main theses of Harry Potter is that blood counts for nothing. So Hermione is born with magical powers despite her non-magical parentage, and some children in Wizard families ("Squibs") are not born with magical powers despite their magical parentage.

The point that remains is that all the powers of Wizards in Rowling's work are indeed innate, no less so than Galadriel's or Gandalf's; but, like Galadriel or Gandalf, the children in Harry Potter require instruction to fulfill their magical potential. Galadriel studied under Melian, for example.