Outrage?

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

To make a long story short (and it is somewhat related here), relatives who had spent some time in England donated a huge set of Blyton books to my daughter. We turned avidly to them only to be made very uncomfortable with the depiction of Blacks. (Can't recall which story now, but the pictures were part of what formed our negative opinion.)

Anyhow, as we were cleaning out things we decided to donate the set to our local school. The school wouldn't take them! Because of race issues.

Did you ever face this with your kids? Have you discussed the issue with them? (That is my favoured approach to books, not banning them.)

Bethberry - many of Blyton's books were re-edited to deal with this several years ago to a degree of controversy. I have a very battered toycar which is improbably valuable because as well as featuring "Noddy and Big Ears" it also featured Golly who was made a "non-person" after a short production run. I think your appraoch is wise - books and people are products of their time and times have changed relatively recently in this regard. It is hard to believe that "The Black and White Minstrel Show" was a mainstay of family entertainment in the seventies ...

A while ago I reread the John Buchan "Hannay" stories and on occasions was shocked by comments referring to black and oriental people. But in itself it was an indication of how much progress has been made. I don't agree with the attitude but I can't condemn someone who essentially lived in a different world - if such things were written by a contemporary writer ......

Blyton is usually quite positive about gypsies though.... if I remember rightly, although I feel here to be unsound on feminist grounds ... seem to remember Anne waiting on her brothers hand and foot (personally would have drowned them in a vat of ginger beer ).

But while these issues can be discussed, I agree that the main danger is in the he "sneaking out", and that is a more real danger than the "magic" - especially when the children go to visit some strange old man , Tamsomthing, who lives in the woods. That really sets the alarm bells ringing ...

[Ainaserkewen]

Thanks to the parents who answered my questions. I just wondered if indeed the "risk" of fairy tale and fantasy was present in the minds of responsible parents, or just media hype.

[Rumil]

Interesting discussion!

Luckily ?! I don't have children therefore the 'banning' issue does not personally resonate. However, on a more general platform, I still have to say that I'm amazed that in the USA, which, I'm led to believe, still has laws preserving freedom of speech, this subject still rears its ugly head.

First of all much appreciation of Saucie, Lindil, and many others, don't blame them if you dislike what I have to say!

A few points which I'm drawn to discuss -

Banning books will merely increase interest amongst potential readers - somehow I find this enormously comforting.

As a committed bibliophile, I can't abide book burning or censorship, at least amongst consenting adults. Mein Kampf was mentioned in this thread, I think that if Hitler's writings had been utterly suppressed then we would not be able to a) understand that period of history, b) be on our guard against similar nutters in future.

As for the Bible, Harry Potter, Medieval 'magic', the Koran and The Lord of the Rings, my opinion is that they're all works of fiction. I hope you will not torture and burn me as your co-religionists may well have done a mere few centuries (weeks?) ago if you feel offended by my opinion. I am quite happy if your opinion differs from mine, please extend me the same courtesy.

I think the real difference is that neither the Lord of the Rings nor Harry Potter has (yet!) been hijacked by a political or religious establishment in order to bend others to their will. I guess that there may be an element of the Green movement attempting to bend LoTR to their political agenda but this does not seem overly significant to me (though I would support many of their aims so may not be completely unbiased here).

Some have implied that Tolkien's work can only be fully appreciated by those who have some spiritual 'belief' (or irrationality, maybe?) and therefore JK Rowling is inferior (in this respect) as she does not conform to this belief framework. I absolutely disagree with this analysis. It appears to me that JK Rowling's books are more 'moral' than most. I also denigrate those who claim that morality can only stem from religion. As an atheist / agnostic (haven't quite decided as I'm not dead yet) this sort of attitude would surely condemn me to a life of thievery and murder, while I can assure you that I have committed no such acts! I imagine that the Spanish Inquisition would not have looked favourably upon the possessor of a book which claimed that demi-gods such as the Valar, in all contravention of christian teachings, ruled the world, even if they had the wit to see that it was a work of fantasy. In fact possession of books of any type generally seems suspicious to those of totalitarian bent (unless it is the book of the authorised Great Leader, Prophet or Disciple of course!)

I think that in the USA and the UK we have been so used to the idea of liberty that we are beginning to lose the appreciation of the freedoms that were so intensely prized by our forefathers and indeed foremothers. Beware of anyone trying to control what you read, listen to or view, soon enough they will claim to know what's 'best for you', then it gets really scary!

[Frodo Baggins]

I was going to refrain but I just HAVE to wedge in my thoughts.

Yes as you know I am a Christian and tend more toward the fundamental side, thought not as extremely so as many of those I know. However, fundamental, outside religious circles at least, is defined as that which is basic, original, or primary. Many people these days confuse Fundamentalism with legalism. Legalism is what makes some Christians (I'm not sure all legalists are Christians) have a "holier than thou" attitude of "since I act this way or dress this way or wear my hair this way or don't read this I'm better than you." Many liegalsitst are little more than Pharisees.

Now, I don't recall Tolkien or any of his cohorts ever labelling his fiction as "Fundamentally Christian" or even allegorical. In his own preface to LOTR Tolkien notes how he hates allegory and never intended to write it. I do see where he is coming from about Christian themes, however. Many Christians, even when not writing Christian works, cannot refrain from burying Christian themes in them. My own love of God Himself makes me write Christian themes into everything whether it is religious or not. Take Lewis' Space Trilogy as another example. It's not a story thick with allegory, if there's any in it its hard to see, but there is no doubt just who Maleledil is.

I know a good deal many Christians who LOVE LoTR. Heck, my dad, who is even more narow-minded than me, (it that's possible) was the one that introduced me to LOTR. I also know some who hate it and call it "pagan". And they are ones I would shove under the legalist class.

You are all right, magic is more subtle in LOTR and it is not used for everything as in HP. There are also no schools of magic. As Galadriel says "For this is what your folk would call Magic, I believe; though I do not understand clearly what they mean; and they seem also to use the same word for the deciets of the Enemy."
Magic in LOTR, if it can be called that, is used sparingly and only at great need, kind of like lembas. Many of those that use "magic" Gandalf, Galadriel, Elrond, other Elves are kind toward those who are weak and do not look down their noses at those who are inept in the magical arts. Saruman aside of course, who is in the end just a grumpy old man. Dumbledore is a magician and little else. Gandalf is angelic in every way, looks aside. When he's at the doors of m Moria it remids me of the Heavenly Messenger of the Divine Comedy who opens the gates of Dis the city of hell for Virgil and Dante.

I think why the Christans are so up in arms over HP is this: In LOTR you know from the beginning who is on the good guy side and who is on the bad guy side(exceptions: Saruman and Wormtongue, but Tolkien makes them suspect from the start). In HP people seem to arbitrarily switch sides. Also Children have easily influenced minds, I know I did, still do. HP makes magic seem so easy and discribes it is such a details that the incantations and other tools of it can be easily repeated and learned. People, especially Christians, fear that children will find all this easy to learn magic in HP cool and want to learn it, only to be led into witchcraft. And it is well documented in the Bible that God finds witchcraft among the most deadly abominations. The "magic" in LOTR is not like this. It is hardly used and when it is, it's secreats are not revealed. And the power of those like Gandalf seem more like the power of the angels themselves not magicians.

Oh and as for the comment that "At least Harry Potter celebrates Christmas" events in LOTR were supposed to have happened BEFORE Christmas was invented.

Last note. I have read the book of Revelation many times and there is only one dragon in it "behold a great, firey red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads." (Revelation 12:3) This is understood to be Satan. 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.

[Kath]

Frodo Baggins since you seem pretty well educated in the history and opinions of Christians in general can I ask what you feel the difference is between witchcraft and wizardry? Because it seems that is one of the major sticking points when cataloguing the differences between HP and LotR and why one is more suitable or acceptable than the other.

[Frodo Baggins]

As far as I know, and I am no expert, Wizardry and Witchcraft are merely two terms for the same thing, i.e. the practise of black magic. Trees that talk, swords that glow, and rings with strange powers are never addressed as "magic" in LOTR except by the Hobbits. Hobbits, who often come across as rather small-minded and are quite ignorant of whatever goes on outside the Shire, seem to use the word "magic" for anything they do not understand or cannot explain. What is called magical by them is really "Elf-work"(glowing swords and rings of power(Power not magic)) or the oldest things in the world (Ents). Elves, Ents, and other creatures like them are very very mysterious. No one knows just why they are able to do the things they do. Elves perhaps are very powerful simply by being the Elder Childern of Eru. They are excellent at nearly everything they do because they are old and they are very strong and wise. All the power of the elves seems natural to them, a sort of "kindly inclining" "as it should be" thing. Whatever they do, no matter how fantastic it seems to men, Dwarves, or Hobbits, seems old, powerful, and natural, as natural as breathing. It is as if they still carry all the strength of the young universe. They don't have to learn munch about how, they just do.

I digress. Simply put, the "magic", if you even want to call it that, in LoTR is much more subtle and mysterious. In HP the magic is very open and if you say this or hold your hands this way and your feet another way you can do unordinary things. The power expressed in LOTR, as I have before said is more like supernatural power, more angelic than magical. The magic of LOTR is more mysterious and subtle, it's never know exactly how it happens or why. "This was forged (not telling how) and so it will do special things (not knowing what)". It seems that the "Magic" of LOTR is not practised by anyone who wants to learn how but comes naturally to some, mostly to those that are very old and very wise.

Take, for instance, what just came upon me as I was writing the preceeding paragraph. In Lewis' The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe there is the Deep Magic from the Dawn of Time and then the Deeper Magic from Before the Dawn of Time. But when Aslan describes what those two magics are, they seem more like laws than random magic. That is more near what the "magic" of LOTR seems to be, old ancient laws, "kindly enclining" "as it should be" ways that things just run naturallly.

I think what the difference is that Christians see in LOTR is that its "magic" is (as I have said before) not displayed as magic but more as powers held and used bythe evil one and those who are very old and wise or messengers and representatives of the Valar and Eru himself. Of course Eru and the Valar have to have power themselves becasue they made it all to begin with.

Originally, the word "Wizard" meant an old wise man, a sage, or an especally celver person. While one who practiced magic , especaily black magic, was labelled a witch. While witch is usually reserved for the female types who practise magic, a more proper name for the male variety is warlock, not wizard.

Much thanks to my dear friend Puddleglum who helped me with this.

[Imladris]

Just a thought that occured to me as I read this very thought provoking thread:

So, like the 'magic' in her universe, the 'morality' is morally neutral too? The reader decides, based on their own subjective criteria whether a character is 'good' or 'evil' - Rowling will not offer an objective moral standard by which actions are to be judged. So, a reder is free to see either Harry or Voldemort as the 'hero' depending on their individual moral value system? Who says 'loyalty & bravery' are 'moral' or 'virtuous'? Certainly they cannot be said to be 'moral & virtuous' in & of themselves - that would depend on exactly what the character is being loyal to, wouldn't it? And as to 'bravery' - that isn't necessarily morally good - a Death camp guard who risked his life to force children into a gas oven would have been seen by his superiors as behaving 'bravely', even heroically.

So, again, there has to be some objective moral yardstick by which even loyalty & bravery are judged as good or evil.

I disagree. I believe that she her standard, her yardstick or whatever, is the Law of Nature (or the Law of Right and Wrong). To define what I mean:

This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that everyone knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it...but taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behaviour was obvious to everyone." -- Lewis

In LOTR you know from the beginning who is on the good guy side and who is on the bad guy side(exceptions: Saruman and Wormtongue, but Tolkien makes them suspect from the start). In HP people seem to arbitrarily switch sides. Also Children have easily influenced minds, I know I did, still do. HP makes magic seem so easy and discribes it is such a details that the incantations and other tools of it can be easily repeated and learned. People, especially Christians, fear that children will find all this easy to learn magic in HP cool and want to learn it, only to be led into witchcraft. And it is well documented in the Bible that God finds witchcraft among the most deadly abominations. The "magic" in LOTR is not like this. It is hardly used and when it is, it's secreats are not revealed. And the power of those like Gandalf seem more like the power of the angels themselves not magicians.

I've read the HP books many times, but didn't really catch any "switching of sides" but I digress...

Almost everyone who posts here compares the magic of LotR to the magic of HP without realizing that we shouldn't be comparing them at all. LotR and HP are totally different in the type of books they are. LotR is Mythical, HP is not. They are two different kind of stories, but instead Christians hold LotR (and Lewis) as a standard without considering that that is not the only type of fantasy there is. I think that scares them and hence, the cries for banning etc.

Again, these are just half formed thoughts that came to me as I tried to work out all the opinions and views of this thread in my poor tired brain, and I apologize if I missed the point entirely.