Outrage?

[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.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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.)

Well, it's not an issue with the Faraway Tree tales, so it is not something that I have had to address with them. As I recall, the Famous Five stories are (or were) rather 'politically incorrect', and (as Mithalwen notes) the Golliwogs of the Noddy stories have been banned. But I wouldn't label Blyton a racist, as she was very much a product of her times. One might as well label Tolkien a racist for his depiction of the Easterlings and Southerners (there is, for example, one reference to a Haradrim warrior which likens him to a half-troll). Personally, I don't think it is a big issue, as I think that there are far more influential factors in a child's upbringing. I loved the Famous Five and Noddy stories as a child, yet somehow managed to avoid growing up a white supremacist. Parental opinion and guidance is far more important, and I would most certainly address these issues with my children were they to arise.

Originally Posted by davem

But we're not discussing what matters to you, but what matters to certain fundamentalist Christians.

Well pardon me from participating in what I thought was a discussion! We were, I believe, discussing why some Christians view the LotR and Harry Potter books differently, based on their respective depications of magic and the "absence" of God in the Harry Potter series. I was expressing my views on this issue. Is that not permitted?

Originally Posted by davem

I wasn't expressing my own views, necessarily, but attempting to show how LotR is essentially different from HP & why some Christians might have a problem with HP but not LotR

For someone who claims not be expressing his own views, you seem to be defending the distinction made by "some Christians" rather vigorously.

Originally Posted by davem

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?

That is not what I was saying. Most young readers approach Rowling's works already equipped with a sense of what is "right and wrong" and the books reinforce that. And to suggest that there is scope in the books to champion Voldemort is, frankly, a ridiculous assertion. There is no more scope for this than there is scope to regard Sauron and Saruman as the heroes of LotR. The existence of a "God" figure in one (albeit impliedly) and not in the other makes no difference either way.

Originally Posted by davem

Who says 'loyalty & bravery' are 'moral' or 'virtuous'?

When associated with characters who are fighting for good and against evil, then they are most certainly virtuous. Just as they are in LotR.

Originally Posted by davem

Its not about 'God' - its about some objective moral standard against which the character's actions can be judged - Tolkien supplies one - & you don't have to be a Christian to accept Eru. Eru simply provides an objective yardstick by which the actions of characters in Me can be judged. Rowling doesn't provide one - the reader must supply their own. Problem? Rowling's secondary world is not self contained & is dependent on the primary world for something absolutely essential if it is to work. It is a secondary world absent of its own objective moral standard, of a source of Right & Wrong, of Good & Evil. It is not self contained in the way Middle earth is.

It is frankly absurd to suggest that every book for young readers, or even every fantasy book, must contain some self contained "objective moral yardstick". Harry Potter and his chums are depicated as behaving morally, according to standards which will be familar to readers - call them societal norms, natural law or what you will. Their actions thus reinforce the mesages that they are (hopefully) being taught by their parents and in school. Why is that a problem? It is clear what the "moral yardstick" is in Harry Potter's world without it needing to be expressly stated. It is that which prevails in the society that Rowling is writing for. And it is, in essence, no different from that presented in LotR.

Originally Posted by Frodo Baggins

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.

LotR had much the same effect on me, in fostering an interest in fantasy, mythology and, yes, the occult. I do think that this is a case of double standards, simply because one contains (subtle) Christian imagery whereas the other does not.

Originally Posted by 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.

Is it not a "legalistic" approach to assume that all magic is black?

Originally Posted by Frodo Baggins

Trees that talk, swords that glow, and rings with strange powers are never addressed as "magic" in LOTR except by the Hobbits.

I would have to disagree. Gandalf addresses the Rings of Power as "Magic Rings". He employs learned spells in both The Hobbit and LotR. But that is rather beside the point. If one excuses the use of magic in Middle-earth as a talent or "higher technology" innate to some characters which other characters are not sufficiently advanced to understand, then the use of magic in Rowling's works can surely be excused on the same basis. Just as the power to manufacture "glowing swords" and Rings of Power and the power of foresight are abilities natural to Elves, then so is the ability to use magic in Rowling's world an ability natural to certain individuals, who are able to harness and develop that ability at Hogwarts.

[littlemanpoet]

I hope you will pardon my late arrival...

I too am a Christian. The group of Christians with whom I practice my faith shy away from Fundamentalism while embracing the Fundamentals of my faith. Lewis and Tolkien are honored, while Rowling seems to be an issue for continued discussion.

1. The original question.

Fifteen years ago, when I was still far too impressionable, and lived in the south (for a couple years) where Christian Fundamentalism is strongest, I felt compelled to disassociate myself Tolkien, and all of Lewis's fantasy, because it contained sorcery. Soon after I had made this decision, I was in a local Christian bookstore, perusing the racks, and noticed a book about the bad influence of Tolkien, Lewis, and all the rest. I checked it out and saw that the book was commenting on Galadriel as a well disquised witch who performs magic. The book admitted that Tolkien was popular with many Christians, but that they were being snowed by this author. Well, I knew better, and this extreme denunciation of something I knew to be very good, sort of helped remove the blinders in general.

2. Fantasy and Religion.

lindil is critical of Harry Potter because of an avoidance of religion. I find this interesting in terms of a recent discussion called
The Emblems of Religion don't belong ... or do they? . In this thread, some of the same readers that are posting to this thread, asserted that religion has no place in any fantasy work, and they further asserted that there was no religion to be found in LotR. Meanwhile, others were posting various evidences of religion sprinkled throughout LotR. What I hope is not being done on the Downs, is that an absence of religion is being praised in LotR while being denigrated in Harry Potter. That would be a double standard.

That there is a Christmas in each Harry Potter book seems to have more to do with culture than religion, it seems to me.

There is one thing that is consistent throughout Harry Potter, though. There is a consistent moral compass. I don't know where the poster got it from who said that characters changed sides at a whim. I, like Imladris, never saw that in Harry Potter. If there was changing of sides, it was consistent with the story.

3. Feigned reality, feigned magic.

Tolkien wrote about his Legendarium that it was feigned history, feigned reality. Nevertheless, there have been many readers who have refused to view it as feigned. Likewise, Rowling has said that the magic in Harry Potter is feigned magic; yet there are readers who have attempted to use the so-called magic as if it was not feigned. The point is, it's feigned. It's not the real thing.

Being a Christian who believes the fundamentals of my faith, I wish believers and non-believers alike would not get their knickers all in a twist over magic in a story. It's a story, by gum! It's feigned magic. Just as everything in any story is feigned reality (including Eru ).

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Well, it's not an issue with the Faraway Tree tales, so it is not something that I have had to address with them. As I recall, the Famous Five stories are (or were) rather 'politically incorrect', and (as Mithalwen notes) the Golliwogs of the Noddy stories have been banned. But I wouldn't label Blyton a racist, as she was very much a product of her times. One might as well label Tolkien a racist for his depiction of the Easterlings and Southerners (there is, for example, one reference to a Haradrim warrior which likens him to a half-troll). Personally, I don't think it is a big issue, as I think that there are far more influential factors in a child's upbringing. I loved the Famous Five and Noddy stories as a child, yet somehow managed to avoid growing up a white supremacist. Parental opinion and guidance is far more important, and I would most certainly address these issues with my children were they to arise.

Well, just for the sake of clarification and hopefully not to get too far off topic, let me say that I am a bit surprised that a loyer of your disputational skills, Sauce, would assume only a "worst case scenario". I think this scare about White Supremacists or racism overlooks the more subtle kinds of influences which affect our sensibilties. One doesn't have to believe that races of colour should be wiped out to fall prey to feelings of racial superiority and patronage. Why, just this weekend I was reading for the Chapter by Chapter discussion and came upon this passage in "Minas Tirith":

There dwelt a hardy folk between the mountains and the sea. They were reckoned men of Gondor, yet their blood was mingled, and there were short and swarthy folk among them whose sires came more from the forgotten men who housed in the shadows of the hills in the Dark Years ere the coming of the kings . But beyond, in the great fief of Belfalas, dwelt Prince Imrahil in his castle of Dol Amroth by the sea, and he was of high blood, and his folk also, tall men and proud with sea-grey eyes.

Of course, this passage occurs just after Pippin has indignantly defended his size to the arrogant guards of Gondor, so we are left wondering just what the narrator is trying to do or how much the narrator understands of Pippin's perspective. This isn't cruel or malevolent, yet it carries with it the wiff of habitual, pejorative denigration of 'swarthy' short races. It's the kind of thing Nevil Shute wrote of in The chequer Board, published in 1947:

Because he was uncertain what to do, he put his arms round her and kissed her... For a moment she yielded... then fear came to her, irrational, stark fear. When she was a little child, somebody had given her a golliwog, a black doll with staring white eyes and black curly hair, dressed in a blue coat with red trousers. It had terrified her; whenever she saw it she had screamed with fright so that it had been given to a less sensitive child. Now at the age of seventeen the same stark fear came back to her. What she had been subconsciously afraid of all her life had happened. The golliwog had got her.

I remember reading a wonderful essay--which I cannot find now--by a Black American, really sardonically funny--about his first victim. It recounts his experience walking down a dark street at night, realising that he is a figure of fear to the white people who quickly move to get away from him. There's more to racism than overt hatred.

What does this have to do with this topic? Well, all and all it seems to me that at least some parts of this discussion are based upon the idea that Harry Potter can have a bad influence whereas LotR has only a good influence. Part of Enid Blyton's popularity among children was due, I think, to the way that her books gave children a sense of their own power. They encouraged children not to be passive, but to be thinking creatures. I haven't read all of the HP series, but my recollection of the first book is that Rowlings does this also. They give children a sense of empowerment. But I'm not sure that LotR does this. It's enchantment and influence lies elsewhere. But with its constant emphasis on enclosing good against evil influence--even at the end when Aragorn bans men from The Shire--I cannot help but wonder if all this really creates the very passive atttiude of (some) forms of traditional religion where people are encouraged, even taught, to fear discussion.

I'm running out of time and am being called away. I'm not happy with how I've expressed this last idea, but it will have to do for now.