Outrage?

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Although the worlds bleed into one another, they are two different worlds. Rowling has created a transitional fantasy.

When magic affects our world, such as a massive quantity of letters from Hogwarts invading the home on Privet street, Rowling creates excitement and wonder.

When Harry steps into a house, a bus, or into a magical car, he has transitioned into the Hogwarts world. All the rules have changed. Magic no longer is affecting our world, magic is the way things are done. Even greater excitement and wonder, with the addition of mystery.

I can see this, but Harry can do magic in this world, so he is a wizard in both worlds. Hermoine is a called a Witch in this world. If she was called a 'scientist' in this world we would expect her abilities to conform to what we know of scientific theory & practice. I don't think that what Rowling has created is a classic 'transitional fantasy' - which, like the Narnia stories, involves the movement from one self contained world to another. The Thomas Covenant stories of Stephen Donaldson likewise have a movement from one world to another, but while Covenant can perform magic in The Land he cannot do so in this world. Yes, there is an element of the breaking in of the otherworld into this one, but that is a result of a 'doorway' opening for the central character to pass through. This is an interesting subject, & kind of echoes what happens to the Hobbits of the Shire when 'magical' events/beings - like Gandalf - enter into the Hobbits' world & draw them into the 'otherworld' of Middle earth. There is then a passage over a river to enter that world. The point of the story could be seen as an attempt to preserve the seperation of the worlds. The Ring is an otherworldly object, brought into 'our' world to prevent Sauron, the Dark Lord of the otherworld, getting his hands on it. When he discovers where it is he sends his forces through to regain it. The Ring has then to be taken back to its world - principally to destroy it, but also to keep the two worlds seperate. In HP the two worlds are basically one - the magic exsts in this world, but is hidden or covered up by the Ministry of Magic. So, not exactly a 'transitional fantasy'. Its not a case of two seperate, self contained,worlds co-existing

As to the philosophical/theological underpinnings, whereas I may sympathize with what you are suggesting, I think you're asking something of the work that it is not meant to give. What are the phil/theo underpinnings of Grimm's fairy tales? Of the Snergs stories? of Alice in Wonderland? et cetera.

I think my points actually cover this - the otherworld may have its own 'phil/theo underpinnings or it may not, but it is seperate from this one - which has its own rules. The stories you mention take place in the otherworld - humans visit them but they don't belong there - I'm reminded of the incident in Smith with the Birch tree. In HP there is, as I said, no 'transition' from one world to another, there is simply one world. The magic is of this world - its just that most people - muggles - can't do it.

[littlemanpoet]

Another fantasy novel occurs to me in this connection: Neil Gaiman's American Gods; also his London subway novel, the name of which I forget. Those two novels also function the way Harry Potter does. Do they also abuse the way you suggest?

Anticipating the application of The Saucepan Man's question about "why Harry Potter, now", and not Neil Gaiman's, I'd say that it's an issue of popularity as well as timing.

It strikes me that more fantasy novels are going to be this "non-traditional" kind of "transitional fantasy", and I think this is because there has been a paradigm shift in the consciousness of modern readers as opposed to just 30 years ago, when Thomas Covenant was written, namely: Tolkien's thesis and wish for escape, consolation, and recovery, seems to have occurred to our society as a whole, in that many readers have recovered a sense of, and desire for, the fantastic; for wonder. One result of this is that magic (for lack of a better word) is understood and accepted as possible in our world, rather than having to go outside, or into space, or underground, to find it. The frame of mind seems to accept that the fantastic can happen here, and now, instead of beyond our borders. Far from being a problem or 'sin', I think that this is a fascinating development which allows for all kinds of new stories to be written, and I congratulate Rowling on her ability to tap into the desire that had been woken by Tolkien and others. Expect more stories like it. As I said before, each of these stories needs to be judged on its own merit as story. As soon as you have started critiquing it in terms of spiritual/philosophical underpinnings, or whatever this world standards, you have broken the enchantment, which is something many of us have a far better understanding of than we did a few short months ago.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

One result of this is that magic (for lack of a better word) is understood and accepted as possible in our world, rather than having to go outside, or into space, or underground, to find it. The frame of mind seems to accept that the fantastic can happen here, and now, instead of beyond our borders. Far from being a problem or 'sin', I think that this is a fascinating development which allows for all kinds of new stories to be written, and I congratulate Rowling on her ability to tap into the desire that had been woken by Tolkien and others. Expect more stories like it. As I said before, each of these stories needs to be judged on its own merit as story. As soon as you have started critiquing it in terms of spiritual/philosophical underpinnings, or whatever this world standards, you have broken the enchantment, which is something many of us have a far better understanding of than we did a few short months ago.

Problem being - the magic originates within this world. It does not have an external source. There is nothing beyond the circles of the world. Neither is there any other place to go to after death - Harry's parents merely hang around as ghosts - inevitably, as there is nowhere for them to go. Also, nothing can 'break in' to this world. This world is a closed system. If people are to be 'saved' they must save themselves, there is no external,objective standard of Good (or evil).

Tolkien's 'escape' includes (as it must if it is to be a true escape) the escape from death - ie the escape from the circles of the World, to a place where there is 'more than memory'. In HP all there is after death is memory - ghosts. What writers like Rowling do is not make this world more 'magical' they simply make it odder & more chaotic. The 'magic' has no logic, no explanation. In a fairy story set in a secondary world this would not be a problem - it would be simply a 'given'. When it happens in this world it requires an explanation in terms of the 'rules' of this world - or at least an explanation of why this world's rules are incorrect.

[littlemanpoet]

You are asking for more than the story is meant to give. If this is necessary for you in all your fantasy, I wish you luck in finding satisfying reading material.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

You are asking for more than the story is meant to give. If this is necessary for you in all your fantasy, I wish you luck in finding satisfying reading material.

I'm not a big fan of fantasy per se, but I don't see why we can't expect products of the genre to be Art as well as entertaining. Do you think Rowling wasn't capable of that, or was it that she just couldn't be bothered?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm not a big fan of fantasy per se, but I don't see why we can't expect products of the genre to be Art as well as entertaining. Do you think Rowling wasn't capable of that, or was it that she just couldn't be bothered?

I think Rowling was capable and achieved it, so the second part of your question does not obtain. It's not Tolkien calibre, but what is? Not every mineral in the ground can be diamonds, my friend.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Anticipating the application of The Saucepan Man's question about "why Harry Potter, now", and not Neil Gaiman's, I'd say that it's an issue of popularity as well as timing.

I acknowledge of course that Rowling comes under particular scrutiny because of the current popularity of her works. As far as I am concerned, however, logic dictates that, if one is to criticise one body of work on the basis that it fails to meet certain criteria, then one should criticise all works that fail to meet the same criteria on the same basis. It is this lack of logicality in the approach of those who would seek to ban Rowling's works that I find unacceptable.

Davem - I find your distinction between tales set in "our world" and those set in an "other world" overly technical. Rowling's works are set in a world where wizards and witches live alongside muggles. That is a fantasy world, regardless of the familiarity of many of the surroundings. It is not real, any more than Oz, Narnia, Middle-earth or the world of the Brothers Grimm's tales are. The distinction between all of these worlds and the real world is a distinction which most young readers are perfectly capable of making. To the extent that they are not, then the failure lies in their upbringing, not in the authors of the books that they read.

This is why I find it both illogical and unacceptable that Rowling's works are singled out as being such a bad influence on young readers, when the multitude of other tales which similarly have no "theological underpinning" are not.

That said, I regard the lack of any "theological underpinning" as irrelevant, given that all of the tales that we are discussing here clearly have a strong moral underpinning. When one strips away the superficial devices of magic and wizardry, the messages that they are giving to their readers are good ones. I fail to see a problem.

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by davem

Problem being - the magic originates within this world. It does not have an external source. There is nothing beyond the circles of the world. Neither is there any other place to go to after death - Harry's parents merely hang around as ghosts - inevitably, as there is nowhere for them to go. Also, nothing can 'break in' to this world. This world is a closed system. If people are to be 'saved' they must save themselves, there is no external,objective standard of Good (or evil).

I'm bound to turn off 'banning books' course, and stray from Tolkien up to and extent, but I have a minor bone to pick here.

The attitude towards death as the worst that can happen is Voldemort's position, and is shared by characters who do not yet know better. Though 'dementor's kiss' be a huge mistake on Rowling's part, unless, of course. she distinguishes soul from spirit and soul is supposed to mean the psychological image of the person, or midset that is being lost when dementor kisses one. (the distinction is never made clear, or not made clear yet, hope to see something in books to follow)

But Dumbledore, up to and including volume 5 (I haven't got to 6th yet, there may be more interesting things to come there, I'll come back later with them) constantly hints about death as being not the worst that can ever happen.
Dumbledore tells Ron and Harry by the end of Book I:

After all, to the well-organized mind, death is but the next great adventure. You know, the Stone was really not such a wonderful thing. As much money and life as you could want! The two things most human beings would choose above all -- the trouble is, humans do have a knack of choosing precisely those things that are worst for them

It is Ron and Harry's flaw not to follow suit:

So the Stone's gone?" said Ron finally. "Flamel's just going to die?"
"That's what I said, but Dumbledore thinks that -- what was it? -- 'to the well-organized mind, death is but the next great adventure.
"I always said he was off his rocker," said Ron, looking quite impressed at how crazy his hero was.

It is Ron's and Harry's lack of understadning, not Rowling's (which seems to me siding with Dumbledore):

'But there can't be anything worse than the Avada Kedavra Curse, can there?' said Ron. What's worse than death?'
'Maybe it's something that can kill loads of people at once,' suggested George.
'Maybe it's some particularly painful way of killing people,' said Ron fearfully

Hint by opposite, the whole conversation seemed to me. The dialogue certainly has a taint of implying these kids do not know all there is to know, and therefore, death is not the worst, extending the logical chain to indicate death is not that bad, by and large

In book 5, when Dumbledore directly opposes Voldemort in the ministry, such and intercourse occurs:

There is nothing worse than death, Dumbledore!' snarled Voldemort.
You are quite wrong,' said Dumbledore, still closing in upon Voldemort and speaking as lightly as though they were discussing the matter over drinks

And, finally, there is a hint that there is something beyond the world, and the evaluative shade the conversation again bears indicates that it is good to get there. I refer to Harry's hope that his dead godfather Sirius may have stayed with him as a ghost, as he inquires Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, or Nearly Headless NIck, Gryffindor's resident ghost, if Nick have seen Sirius:

He will not come back,' repeated Nick. `He will have… gone on.'
`What d'you mean, "gone on"?' said Harry quickly `Gone on where? Listen - what happens when you die, anyway? Where do you go? Why doesn't everyone come back? Why isn't this place full of ghosts? Why -?T
'I cannot answer,' said Nick.
`You're dead, aren't you?' said Harry exasperatedly. `Who can answer better than you?'
'I was afraid of death,' said Nick softly. `I chose to remain behind. I sometimes wonder whether I oughtn't to have… well, that is neither here nor there… in fact, I am neither here nor there…' He gave a small sad chuckle. `I know nothing of the secrets of death, Harry, for I chose my feeble imitation of life instead

I suppose all this must have found further development in Book VI, as I've said, I'll get back.

C'mon, get off it, I myself thought there was nothing worse than death when I was fifteen!

But any time Dumbledore and Harry are paired over the subject, they are almost Gandalf/Frodo-like figures, one wiser instructing the younger one in order for the latter to get the correct view of the world. It is not in an instant that Frodo comes to share Gandalf's opinion, is it? Same with Harry/Dumbledore.

And as for 'magic originates within the world' issue, just as good it does so. Otherwise, the 'book banners' would indeed have had grounds to have some grudge against Harry Potter series. To quote myself from Acceptance of Mythology thread:

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

As a piece of literature, it is somehow closed on itself, therefore, inside its boundaries, one must rely on what is stated in it. Now, it is not said in it that all witches of HP performed some rites to draw their power from Enemy

On the other hand, what is said in it, and as far as the HP story goes is never unsaid, the magical powers of non-muggles in HP are not supernatural to the extent that those are not drawn outside of nature, but are something people are born with, as natural good sight, or musical talent. There is no free will involved in becoming a wizard for Harry Potter, he is natural born one. As this is concept, than common principles come in. As one can use his/her cleverness to good or bad ends, so one can use one's magical abilities.

People you looked up in a dictionary were quite ordinary men and women, who became sorceres and witches as a consequence of act of choosing

Which moves HP magic onto the same plane as ME one is - natural gift of Creator, used, according to choices performed with the free will, to be in accordance with His will or to disobey him

And further note - I won't return to this here topic unless I read book VI, as I'm afraid someone must have read it already and may spoil my fun quoting some more samples

[Turgon Philip Noldor]

I can't answer this question, not really at least. There is a difference between the LOTR and the Harry Potter. Harry Potter seems to make direct use of Witch Craft, and the Author makes it out to be a good thing. LOTR is deferent, J. R. R. Tolkien has magic in his book, but the book does not dwell around magic. I don't know enough about Harry Potter to say more then that, but I hope that helped the conversation if only a little bit.

[Elu Ancalime]

I think its a bit silly, banning books from school and public libraries. Religous places (churches, synagoges, mosques, etc) I guess have their own rules, since it is religon, but i think the main problem is that some kids get really into it, and play around like they're wizards battling monsters and read HP all the time. Then they get carried away and such.... But its usually either little kids who dont know any better and adults dont want any impression on them, or really (please excuse this term, at least here me out) honest-to-goodness-nerds that formulate their own Muggle religion and what not. Have I personally met someone like this? No, but I assure you there are. Sure, I think it would be really (mark me, really) cool to stop time and spend a year in Middle-Earth in the Fellowship or something. But I cant do that, so I have real things in my life....But anyway, the problem is when someone dosnt know when to take a break or a reality check or something. I admit, that after I 'discovered' Tolkien for about two or three years, i was in a sort of DIL-IM-A. (sp ) I read through all the Lost Tales, HoME, Silm, all that good stuff, all through Encyclopedia of Arda, so....Tolkien isnt exactly making new stuff, um....So I honestly did not involve myself in Tolkien for about six months (hehe not too long). And it was a nice little breather, but I found The Barrow Downs (forum anyway) and now I can disscuss Tolkien with other people!

Bottom Line? Healthy Obsession, Steady Moderation. (hmm...rhyme)
________
Toyota Tundra Specifications