Outrage?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

Harry Potter, on the other hand, is very clearly a wizard in the Biblical sense.

I guess it's not clear to me. Could you please describe this Biblical sense?

I couldn't even find the word "wizard" in my Bible.

Harry Potter does wizardry, which is a seemingly magical transforming power or influence, but so does Gandalf.

Harry Potter doesn't do sorcery, which is "the use of power gained from the assistance of evil spirits especially for divining" (Webster). There is the Witch of Endor, but that's not the same thing.

The thing about Harry Potter is, that it dose not have any moral standards, its more a sequence of events that conforms to Hollywood's ideological views of how to be a good person.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, Hookbill, with the quotes from the Bible on moral standards, other than to show that Christian belief holds all of us alike to be unable to save ourselves by our own morality, which I agree with. But are you trying to say that J.K. Rowling consulted Hollywood before she started writing the series? Or are you saying that she was already under the influence of Hollywood? And if so, could you give an instance from the books that show this?

[Encaitare]

I guess it's not clear to me. Could you please describe this Biblical sense?

Perhaps the "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" bit of the Bible has something to do with what he's referring to. (I believe the quote is correct; I've seen it tossed around by many denouncers of paganism.)

SpM, cheers from me to you for your last post. I thank you for saying a lot of what I've been wanting to say, but could not find the proper words to say it as politely and eloquently.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

A wizard in the biblical sense, in my mind, would be someone who uses witchcraft and "hocus-pocus-size-of-a-chafige". The use of natural things, and perverting them by use of said witchcraft. Harry Potter is human, and mortal, as a 'real' wizard would be, unlike Gandalf who is a higher being.
I can't find the Bible references right now (its too early in the morning ) But I will this afternoon.

are you trying to say that J.K. Rowling consulted Hollywood before she started writing the series? Or are you saying that she was already under the influence of Hollywood?

I'm saying the latter. Most modern types of media do. It’s kind of unavoidable. By "The Hollywood Ideology", I was kind of generalising, it's not just Hollywood that holds the ideologies, but its one of the most prominent. A form of conformity, in a way.

And if so, could you give an instance from the books that show this?

It’s more to do with the general layout of the books, being overtly thesis-antithesis-thesis, which is a Hollywood trend.

I'll have to update this post later when I have more time...

[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.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by HTG

It’s more to do with the general layout of the books, being overtly thesis-antithesis-thesis, which is a Hollywood trend.

This is news to me. I thought thesis-antithesis-thesis was from Hegel. If this is what Hollywood's up to, it has a higher intellectual calliber (sp?) than I've been crediting them with in some time. Did someone tell you this about Hollywood and t-a-t? If so, what did they tell you about it? If not, I'm still not sure what you mean by it.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I never said Hollywood invented t-a-t, but they use it allot.
When I refer to Hollywood, I'm more talking about you’re general big american films, and indeed most films these days. Hollywood is ladled with the blame for it, though I daresay it’s not the origin. I'm not sure what 'Hegel' is, but still... it’s a rule that Hollywood likes to follow.

The t-a-t theory has been associated with Hollywood for a long time now. Look at most films these days, they do follow the pattern of; "Everything's cool, and nice and happy", followed by "Oh no! Something has gone wrong! Lets put it back to right" ending with "everything's back to normal now! They all drank lemonade! The End!" Do you catch my drift?

In a way, The Lord of the Rings follows this, but to a lesser extent, i.e. nothing is quite the same as it was. The shire is never the same again, and indeed, Frodo swans off to Valinor never to see his Friends again. Many people believed that this was why The Lord of the Rings could never work as a Film, in that it does not have the truly 'happy ending'. Most of my friends say that this is Tolkien being realistic... :|

[Anguirel]

I fail to see how Harry Potter follows your t-a-t pattern. Have you read it?

Each book starts with a description of boredom and frustration so acute it practically evokes Madame Bovary. The supremely ironic timing of Harry's birthday means he regularly "celebrates" while being denied any affection, and being cut off from contact with his only true friends. People pop by and insult his dead parents and himself. His cousin beats him into pulp if he can get the chance, as does his uncle. He is starved.

Personally, I can't see any lemonade there.

The central part of the book-while the mystery is being followed and solved-is usually the closest Harry gets to happiness. He's in the company of friends, in a remarkable school. But it's scarcely unalloyed cakes and ale, what with the whole insidious agents of Voldemort lurking everywhere side of things.

The conclusion always involves pain and terror, and, nowadays, usually death as well. Harry is left feeling futile, overburdened, guilty, depressed, you name it. Again, I fail to see the happy prancing pixies and the jovial mountains of fairy cakes.

I believe the films may have misled you; this is very much an a-t-a series, not a t-a-t one...

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I have to hold my hands up here. I do not know that much about Harry Potter, I have not read it. But I have listened to the unabridged audiotapes while on a trip to London with my Grandparents. (I did spend a lot of time pointing out why The Lord of the Rings was better )

But I have many friends who have read all the books and have given me their opinion. From what they told me about it, that was the general view I got. So, I must apologise if I generalised too much. I was only going on what I had been told, which went along the lines of,

"Well," explained Friend, "he goes to this school and has a wonderful time and all that. Then this evil wizard chap-"

"All wizards are evil" says I,

"Yes, I know... Anyway, this chap comes along and everything goes wrong and he fights to return it back to normal... basically."

"Okay, I see."

So, there you go. My mistake.

[littlemanpoet]

The "thesis-antithesis-thesis" plot outline you describe is that of the classic fairy-tale. At least Hollywood has fallen out of love with its former dalliance with "absurdist" film. You can thank George Lucas and Stephen Spielberg for that. It's no bad thing in itself.

As for "not suffering a witch to live", I thought that Someone's grace had fulfilled and rendered needless all that stuff.

Still, it's all feigned anyway.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

I think what sets The Lord of the Rings apart from Harry Potter, is the fact that Harry Potter depicts witchcraft as something even a child could do, and so it would encourage them to try it out.

It seems to me that this is a fair argument and probably the most credible basis for distinguishing the Harry Potter books from LotR. Nevertheless, I think that most young readers (those of an age likely to read the Harry Potter books) are perfectly capable of distinguishing fact from fantasy. And, if they are the sort of person who is likely to be interested in trying “witchcraft” out, then I would argue that they are likely to do so anyway, regardless of whether they read Rowling’s works or not. (As I have said, reading LotR provoked an interest in such matters in me, although most certainly not an inclination to put them into practice.)

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

The thing about Harry Potter is, that it dose not have any moral standards, its more a sequence of events that conforms to Hollywood's ideological views of how to be a good person.

I don’t think that Rowling was particularly influenced by Hollywood, any more than any other modern day writer of children’s books. I suspect rather that the moral standards that feature in her books are her own. And, although I am no expert on her works, they seem to be pretty good ones to me.

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

A wizard in the biblical sense, in my mind, would be someone who uses witchcraft and "hocus-pocus-size-of-a-chafige". The use of natural things, and perverting them by use of said witchcraft. Harry Potter is human, and mortal, as a 'real' wizard would be, unlike Gandalf who is a higher being.

Two points on that. First, there is no obvious indication in LotR (and much less in The Hobbit) that Gandalf is a “higher being”, and certainly little for the young reader to pick up on in this regard. And secondly, it is not just Gandalf who uses “magic” (in its widest sense) in LotR. The mortal characters do too - even the Hobbits (the One Ring, Sting, the Mirror of Galadriel etc), the characters with whom young readers are most likely to identify.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

… 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 sensibilities … There's more to racism than overt hatred.

My dear Bb, my posts are generally verbose enough without me adopting wholesale the style of argumentation that I employ in my professional life. Truth is, I was exaggerating to make the point. But you are right, not all racism is overt. I most certainly do not consider myself racist in any shape or form, but I will freely admit that I am a product of my upbringing and position in society (white and “middle class”), and so I will inevitably have a different perspective on some issues than someone of, for example, Afro-Caribbean descent. I do not think, however, that reading the Famous Five books as a child had much of an effect on me in this regard, one way or another.

As I have said, I do not regard Enid Blyton as racist, but as a product of her times, just as I am. In this regard, my children are growing up in a much more multi-racial and tolerant society than I did, which is something that I welcome. As Mithalwen has pointed out, the Famous Five books have been edited to excise material which might today be regarded as “offensive”, so this is unlikely to be an issue, should my children ever wish to read them. But I am sure that they will come up againts racist views as they are growing up. I am confident that they will be sufficiently intelligent and tolerant to reject these, but I will always be willing to talk through such issues with them.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

They give children a sense of empowerment. But I'm not sure that LotR does this. It's enchantment and influence lies elsewhere.

I wonder whether the sense of empowerment is in the fact that readers (particularly young readers) will tend to identify with the Hobbit characters - those who undergo the most “empowerment” as the story progresses. One of Tolkien’s favourite themes was the ennoblement of the humble and I suspect that this is somthing which appeals to children and adults alike.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

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 am not entirely sure what you mean by this, Bb, but it seems to me that there are sufficient “ambiguous” characters - those who acts are both “right” and “wrong” at various times (such as Boromir, Denethor, Gollum and even Eowyn) - to engender intelligent thought in the minds of those who are sufficiently receptive. Similarly, I remember thinking on reading The Hobbit recently that Tolkien presents quite a sophisticated moral dilemma with Bilbo’s predicament (stuck between two mutually antagonistic forces of “good”) on the eve of the Battle of Five Armies.

Perhaps that might be a basis on which to distinguish, and even criticise, the Harry Potter books - that the characters are too clear cut, either good or evil with no shades of grey. I do not know the books well enough to say for certain that this is the case but, if it is, there might be a basis for arguing that they present less material to stimulate intelligent thought on moral issues in the minds of young readers.

[Mithalwen]

I heard this this morning and thought of this topic. I think it is spot on as to where the real danger of "magic" lies.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/progra...20050621.shtml

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

In an odd way, my beef with HP is probably the same as these ultra-orthodox-Christian fundamentalists' beef. I object to the HP books because their depiction of the world is utterly materialist. There is no real 'magic' in the books insofar as the spells and potions all have purely rationalist explanations. They are merely extensions of the scientific-technological view of the world that is now the primary mode of understanding. The way to get something done -- to have power -- is to figure out the technique whereby that can be accomplished.

In the HP books the individual magician/scientist is entirely capable to the task of conquering evil without the aid of any larger beneficent force in the universe guiding him along. This stance is essentially anti-religious.

LotR's depiction of magic shares nothing with this. Magic in Middle-earth is not a science but an art (or an Art). There is a mystery to it that defies mortal understanding (but which does not fool it or deceive). The place in M-E where we find a Harry Potter view of magic is in Isengard, where Saruman is trying to develop technologies with which to control the power of nature.

The primary difference between the two, however, is that Tolkien does not have faith in the ability of the individual to conquer evil without help from the 'outside' (Eru or God). That is why those who object to HP do not object to LotR, I suspect.

The only difference between the ultra-orthodox fundamentalists and myself in our approbation of Tolkien's work is that while they think that the Bible or God is entirely sufficient to redress the inability of the individual to battle evil, I believe that the communal effort of 'good thinkers' is sufficient to that larger task.

[alatar]

Thanks, Mithalwen, for the link.

My question would be, in regards to the thread, is this way of 'magical' thinking or mindset enhanced by reading books such as LOTR or Potter or not?

I assume that many adults would see the books obviously as harmless fantasy ("magic isn't real, silly...") yet don't see that they practice their own types of magic on a daily basis, whether that would be reading a horoscrope, consulting a psychic, seeking out a faith-healer or wearing magnets on one's wrists. Did this way of thinking come from books read as a child, or was it from the culture or education system?

Members of my own family want me to bury a statue of a Saint in our yard in order to sell our house more quickly. I politely told them that I will not entertain such silliness nor promote such superstitious thinking (even though our house hasn't sold yet, and we may start getting desperate ).

One can believe whatever one chooses, and some beliefs are harmless, but as seen some have deadly consequences. What really torques me is when it involves children who don't have the wherewithal to make decisions for themselves and so have to rely on their parents, who may or may not be clueless.

Surely many parents of young children have considered 'demonic possession' (one of mine must have been giving Satan too hard of a time and so he sent her above ground ) as the reason for a child's poor behavior, but just as bad are parents who are ready to place their hyperactive children on the Ritalin bus not due to evidence but because of poor parenting skills ("it keeps little Jimmy quiet while I'm watching TV...").

Sorry for the rant.

Read a book to a child - even Harry Potter - and I think that some good will come of it.

[the guy who be short]

I object to the HP books because their depiction of the world is utterly materialist. There is no real 'magic' in the books insofar as the spells and potions all have purely rationalist explanations.

The magic in HP can only be described as magic, not an extension of scientific knowledge. Waving a wand and muttering a few words generally doesn't cause much effect, other than to attract a few odd looks. There is no real rationale behind the magic that I can see.

The place in M-E where we find a Harry Potter view of magic is in Isengard, where Saruman is trying to develop technologies with which to control the power of nature.

Saruman's pursuit of technology cannot really be seen as a pursuit of magical knowledge, unless we class technology as magic. The way in which Saruman industrialises with no care for the environment demonstrates Tolkien's anti-industrialisation stance rather than a dislike of magicks.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Fordim

There is no real 'magic' in the books insofar as the spells and potions all have purely rationalist explanations. They are merely extensions of the scientific-technological view of the world that is now the primary mode of understanding. The way to get something done -- to have power -- is to figure out the technique whereby that can be accomplished.

In the HP books the individual magician/scientist is entirely capable to the task of conquering evil without the aid of any larger beneficent force in the universe guiding him along. This stance is essentially anti-religious.

Whoa, Fordim, have you been reading A.S. Byatt's attitude about HP? She objects to what she calls a lack of truly perilous stuff in HP. I must send your comments to Lush. She will be so not amused.

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I am not entirely sure what you mean by this, Bb, but it seems to me that there are sufficient “ambiguous” characters - those who acts are both “right” and “wrong” at various times (such as Boromir, Denethor, Gollum and even Eowyn) - to engender intelligent thought in the minds of those who are sufficiently receptive. Similarly, I remember thinking on reading The Hobbit recently that Tolkien presents quite a sophisticated moral dilemma with Bilbo’s predicament (stuck between two mutually antagonistic forces of “good”) on the eve of the Battle of Five Armies.

Perhaps that might be a basis on which to distinguish, and even criticise, the Harry Potter books - that the characters are too clear cut, either good or evil with no shades of grey. I do not know the books well enough to say for certain that this is the case but, if it is, there might be a basis for arguing that they present less material to stimulate intelligent thought on moral issues in the minds of young readers.

I do think you are right that LotR acknowledges a complexity in moral choices. Complexity of moral dilemma is not, however, completely at odds with the sense that some things are too evil to be contemplated and that goodness must often shut itself off from potentially evil influences in Arda. I suppose what I was getting at was the existence of a continuum of this perspective, that rather than allow discussion, debate, intermingling, there is a tendency in LotR to close off good, to restrict the borders. This happens with Melian's Girdle, with the Shire at the beginning of LotR under the unacknowledged protection of the Rangers and with Aragorn's decree at the end. I'm not saying that LotR is as close-minded as those who see banning or censorship as the only viable option, but I think there are some similarities of attitude.

[Kath]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry
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 don't really have the energy to look at all the points raised here recently and many have already been discussed to death anyway, but this one caught my eye.
I'm still not entirely sure as to what you meant but I just thought I'd mention that this is similar in HP. The young witches and wizards are all taken off to a school that is hidden from the Muggle world to protect both sides. Muggles are banned from Hogwarts as Men are banned from the Shire, but in neither case are the opposing sides forbidden to communicate. I don't think that they fear discussion, just change.

[littlemanpoet]

My guess would be that the wizards and witches in HP fear both chaos and a new batch of witch hunts.

The magic in HP, as Fordim says, follows the general perameters of "if you say this and do this, THAT will happen". That's scientific. However, I don't think Rowling's story telling limits ALL the magic to quite that. Well, perhaps it does, but still she is able to pull off WONDER, which rates pretty high with me.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

In the HP books the individual magician/scientist is entirely capable to the task of conquering evil without the aid of any larger beneficent force in the universe guiding him along. This stance is essentially anti-religious.

I wouldn't say anti-religious (a word that might more appropriately be applied to Pullman's books) but areligious.

I hate to keep labouring the point, but Rowling lives and works in a society that is (unlike the US) largely areligious, by which I mean that the majority of people do not have strong religious convictions. In the UK today, Islam probably has a stronger following than Christianity. But most people are quite happy getting on with their lives without feeling the need for any strong belief in some omniscient deity guiding them. I am assuming that Rowling, like me, is just such a person and so her work is bound to reflect her approach in this regard (in the sense of not feeling the need to explain the existence of magic in her world by reference to such a deity).

Given that this is the case, why is it not possible for people who have strong religious convictions to (willingly) suspend their belief and accept a fictional fantasy world (which is what Harry Potter's world is, despite its apparent setting in modern day Britain) in which God does not take centre stage, just as I willingly suspend my belief when I read LotR and accept the existence of Eru in Middle-earth? Really, it is not going to bring the world crumbling down around them and turn all their children to Satan. Take it from me as someone who has led a largely areligious (although most certainly not amoral) life.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Given that this is the case, why is it not possible for people who have strong religious convictions to (willingly) suspend their belief and accept a fictional fantasy world (which is what Harry Potter's world is, despite its apparent setting in modern day Britain) in which God does not take centre stage, just as I willingly suspend my belief when I read LotR and accept the existence of Eru in Middle-earth? Really, it is not going to bring the world crumbling down around them and turn all their children to Satan. Take it from me as someone who has led a largely areligious (although most certainly not amoral) life.

Note tongue in cheek -->

Coming from that "religious" place across the pond, I would say that one argument for the ban regarding the Potter series is that the fight against evil must be fought not only on the big battlegrounds but also in the back alleys, in the nurseries, the schools - pretty much everywhere - as the eternal destiny of the children is at stake, and what parent would like to see their child go to hell? That Devil is sneaky, and he does not sleep, and it's books today about witchcraft and tomorrow it's gonna be public demon worship...

Rowling, obviously an agent of Satan, has used the gifts given to her by the Dark One to create a book series that is popular with children. Satan, knowing that younger children are more impressionable and, being rather impatient, did not want to wait until these kids were seduced by rock and roll (an old staple of the going to hell crowd) later in their teenaged years. These books glorify occultism and witchcraft, for gosh sakes! And the fact that Hollywood has gotten behind the books is prima facie evidence of satanic involvement.

Here is one sad tale of what can happen.

Note that I believe none of the above, and also mean to insult no one's beliefs.

Is it that Potter is the latest boogeyman for (primarily) Christians who (1) have little better to do, (2) require an enemy for something *to* do, (3) see the Devil in lots of things (like a evil being Rorschach's test?), (4) know little to nothing about what their religion actually says, and (5) are more energized and exciting about fighting the Devil in the pages of Rowling than fighting the 'demons' that exist in their souls?

For those of you old enough to remember, there was even a similar outrage regarding the movie "E.T." (which I will never watch). One prominent (at that time) Christian stated that Hollywood was trying to make us 'like' and accept ugly little ET-like toady thingies as this would allow for an easier acceptance of demons (who, as we all know, are also ugly as all evil things are...). And he was serious!

Sometimes I'm not sure whether to laugh or to cry.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Is it that Potter is the latest boogeyman for (primarily) Christians who (1) have little better to do, (2) require an enemy for something *to* do, (3) see the Devil in lots of things (like a evil being Rorschach's test?), (4) know little to nothing about what their religion actually says, and (5) are more energized and exciting about fighting the Devil in the pages of Rowling than fighting the 'demons' that exist in their souls?

Unfortunately, many of you're points there are too true. There are few enough Christians in the world today, and those who claim to be, many are not true Christians. Many have chosen to see it as a sign of the times... Sometimes I agree.

Looking at Church history it’s easy to see where you are coming from. I do not mean to insult any Catholics that are here, but point (4) is very true. My father was brought up a Catholic before he got saved, and he tells me that the reading of the Bible is not banned, but neither is it encouraged. Its only in relatively recent history that the Bible has been allowed to be read in secular Catholicism, so there are bound to be many people who do not know a lot about what the Bible actually says. This is what My Father tells me from his experience; please correct me if I am wrong...

I do sometimes wonder about the demonic nature of H-P, to my mind, Satan's teachings would be much more subtle. On the other hand, one could look at it this way; The church has become less and less significant in modern society, plus sin has become, slowly, more acceptable. The best example of this is Blasphemy; 100 years ago you would be stoned for it, but now its just common slang to use the name of God in vain. So, the very fact that something like H-P is around goes some way to support this. Yes, there are worse books around; it is the fact that H-P is aimed at Children that causes unsettlement.

Of "The Demons that exist in their souls" I can sympathise. From my Bible studies, I get the impression that full on Demonic possession takes many daemons, but one on his own can plant thoughts. The story of when Jesus cast out a legion of Daemons from the wild man is a good example of it taking many daemons to posses someone fully. Still, one has to realise what daemons acutely are, that is fallen angels. They can easily deceive people. The comical image of Satan as the Lord of Hell, wearing all red and with a trident is misleading. Firstly, Satan isn't the master of Hell. For Hell, the lake of fire, is the prison set aside for him and his angels at the end of time, and of course, all those who have sinned and do not have their name in the Lamb’s book of life.

Well, that’s all I can think of just now. *Sleeps*

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

Unfortunately, many of you're points there are too true. There are few enough Christians in the world today, and those who claim to be, many are not true Christians. Many have chosen to see it as a sign of the times... Sometimes I agree.

Looking at Church history it’s easy to see where you are coming from. I do not mean to insult any Catholics that are here, but point (4) is very true. My father was brought up a Catholic before he got saved, and he tells me that the reading of the Bible is not banned, but neither is it encouraged. Its only in relatively recent history that the Bible has been allowed to be read in secular Catholicism, so there are bound to be many people who do not know a lot about what the Bible actually says. This is what My Father tells me from his experience; please correct me if I am wrong...

*

Hookbill, I am not Catholic and no longer Christian but I have to say that what you are implying is rather arrogant and insulting. It is arrogant for a start to assume you are saved - and that members of a different Christian denomination with a different tradition and perspective are ignorant of their religion. The bible and Christianity are not the same thing all though clearly you belong to a "bible based" denomination. The traditional teachings of the church have a greater role in the longer established denominations such as Catholicism - particularly Catholicism which feels a great sense of continuity with Saint Peter. You may not agree with it but you are clearly not in a position to say they are ignorant.

As for bible reading - I very much doubt that it was banned as such although it certainly had limited access before printing and when all books were writtten in Latin. The development of the printing press certainly coincided with the rise of protestantism. Access to the bible in English meant that people could read and make up their own minds and reduced the power of the priests as instructors and sole interpreters of Holy Writ....... how ironic that fundamentalist protestants now seek to limit access to books. La plus ca change .............

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Hookbill, I am not Catholic and no longer Christian but I have to say that what you are implying is rather arrogant and insulting. It is arrogant for a start to assume you are saved - and that members of a different Christian denomination with a different tradition and perspective are ignorant of their religion. The bible and Christianity are not the same thing all though clearly you belong to a "bible based" denomination. The traditional teachings of the church have a greater role in the longer established denominations such as Catholicism - particularly Catholicism which feels a great sense of continuity with Saint Peter. You may not agree with it but you are clearly not in a position to say they are ignorant.

I don't think that Hookbill was being "arrogant and insulting," as (1) I don't think that that was what he was trying to do in his post and (2) his generalized observations are commonly held in the community. My wife and her family are Catholic, and I have made the same observation - note that I do not include all, just the small set that I have observed.

I would also like to point out that there are Protestants who also do not read their Bible nor understand/care what's therein.

As for bible reading - I very much doubt that it was banned as such although it certainly had limited access before printing and when all books were writtten in Latin. The development of the printing press certainly coincided with the rise of protestantism. Access to the bible in English meant that people could read and make up their own minds and reduced the power of the priests as instructors and sole interpreters of Holy Writ....... how ironic that fundamentalist protestants now seek to limit access to books. La plus ca change .............

Not saying anything about religion nor especially anything about any specific religion, but knowledge is power, and to hold it secret and close allows one to maintain control. Think of guilds, of an aunt's secret recipe for cookies, of special knowledge from a supernatural source.

[Mithalwen]

"My father was brought up a Catholic before he got saved" ..... It may not have been his intention but I think that statement is likely to be offensive....well I found it so and I am only a lapsed anglo-catholic.....

[Bêthberry]

If I may gently tiptoe into Estelyn's moderating domain, I suggest that posters keep the thread topic in mind and return to considering points in the Harry Potter books and LotR rather than making generalisations about religion. PMs can always be used to discuss off topic points.

Bethberry,
Moderator for Rohan

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I do not mean to offend; it’s just what I think. Not that what I think is often reliable... or listened to...

Mithalwen, my statements were based on what I have observed. The term 'saved' is what my father uses to refer to his actual payer, as while he was brought up, his parents never brought this to his attention. I do know that Catholics are taught that being saved is essential, it was just my grandparents were a little set in their ways and were huge believers in the traditions rather than the Bible. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with holding a few traditions, when those traditions divert from scripture and start to take centre stage, then I tend to get a little nervous and sometimes objective because of what the Bible says.

Access to the bible in English meant that people could read and make up their own minds and reduced the power of the priests as instructors and sole interpreters of Holy Writ....... how ironic that fundamentalist protestants now seek to limit access to books. La plus ca change .............

This is where I agree with you. As John the Baptist says, "I must decrease as he increases." Giving power over other people's spiritual life is dangerous, and I belive it is unscriptural (a la, Church of the Nicolitians). I have heard many people liken it to the Babylonian teachings regarding how the priests should be the soul interpreters ect, ect. But this causes arguments and things are broken, and I cannot fully see the connection.

I did not mean to be insulting, and I do not call people who hold other belief systems to me, ignorant. I hold my beliefs due to the evidence I have witnessed and experienced.

clearly you belong to a "bible based" denomination

I wouldn't say that. I wasn't brought up in a church that was particularly Bible based. I formulated my opinions from reading scripture and studying it. I find it fascinating, personally, and it only gives me a desire to go out and tell others about Christ. As Christians are commanded to "Go into all the world and make disciples of every creature". Besides, I do not like the term "Denomination", we are all one church, its just many people worship in different ways. If people prefer the more traditionalist way, then it is good for them if they are saved. Catholic or protestant, you can still be saved. I do not believe the Bible teaches different.

Hem... I think we are moving off topic here, so before the Barrow Wight closes this thread, I'd better finish on topic...

So, moving swiftly on, Harry Potter has not been banned in my Church, but children who read it are advised to take caution because of its witchcraft-based narrative. All in all, I am always going to be of the opinion that The Lord of the Rings is a better book... Ye Downers agree?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

"My father was brought up a Catholic before he got saved" ..... It may not have been his intention but I think that statement is likely to be offensive....well I found it so and I am only a lapsed anglo-catholic.....

Possibly offensive to some, though I would assume that Hookbill did not mean to be so.

Again, in the community (as heard on a local Christian talk show), being Catholic and "being saved" (which I assume means giving one's life over to Christ) are routinely considered to be separate things. This would also apply to Protestants who are members of whatever demonination yet are not saved until they 'take the plunge.'

Back to the thread, I was reminded of an old C-movie (it was bad) where there is a discussion regarding whether the school kids in the movie can put on a play by Shakespeare. The anti-play side (show as Christian bigots) quotes him, showing how lewd and prurient are his words, whereas the pro-play side quotes Scripture, demonstrating the same.

So not only is the Bible banned in some places due to its message, it could also be banned for its content. Not sure that I would want those less mature reading Song of Solomon.

And I'll throw this in as I too try to return to topic, but the real reason that I have not yet read the Potter series is that my former boss, whom I did not really like, gave the first book to me as a gift before I had children. I thought that that was in poor taste, and so link Potter books with Bad Boss.

Pretty illogical? Probably, but maybe not any more so than linking Potter with practicing witchcraft?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I absolutely agree, alatar. Belonging to a 'denomination' and giving one's life to Christ are different things. It doesn’t actually matter which denomination you belong to, so long as you are forgiven...

Back on topic.

The Bible is, I think, banned in some places. Although, I am not sure if it is because of its message, more because it is religious. Moreover, I would not be surprised if it did get banned for its message, i.e. what Jesus says;

"Men will hate you for my name, because I preach that the world is Evil"

Harry Potter shouldn't be banned on it's anti Christian teachings. I mean, every other religious book would be banned on those terms. People should be aware of the dangers of what witchcraft is, and realise that it is a fictional story. You can't discriminate someone because they teach something different. That is not good. I have often witnessed to Muslims, firstly by finding common ground, usually the moral law, before giving them the gospel.
I fear I did get a little carried away with my previous two posts, so that I apologise for. It is something I feel passionate about. I mean, I do get rather offended by blasphemy, and it seems rampant and I have caught many Christian out, using God's name in vain.

All in all, Harry potter shouldn't be banned, but if children are buying it, they should realise that it is fictional and that the practice of witchcraft is a dangerous thing.

[Formendacil]

If anyone has any doubt as to which faith I follow, I refer them to my signature. In the event that they still don't know, here are few hints: "Mary", "JPII", and "Roman Collar"...

However, to get back to the main topic, I refer you to a couple quotes from Hookbill and Mithalwen:

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

Looking at Church history it’s easy to see where you are coming from. I do not mean to insult any Catholics that are here, but point (4) is very true. My father was brought up a Catholic before he got saved, and he tells me that the reading of the Bible is not banned, but neither is it encouraged. Its only in relatively recent history that the Bible has been allowed to be read in secular Catholicism, so there are bound to be many people who do not know a lot about what the Bible actually says. This is what My Father tells me from his experience; please correct me if I am wrong...

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

As for bible reading - I very much doubt that it was banned as such although it certainly had limited access before printing and when all books were writtten in Latin. The development of the printing press certainly coincided with the rise of protestantism. Access to the bible in English meant that people could read and make up their own minds and reduced the power of the priests as instructors and sole interpreters of Holy Writ....... how ironic that fundamentalist protestants now seek to limit access to books. La plus ca change .............

As a practising Catholic, much interested in history and theology, and contemplating entering the seminary a year from now, I can confirm some of this...

The practise of only having clerics read the Bible in the Middle Ages did come from habit. After the fall of Rome, the only people in the West who COULD read the Bible were monks and priests, for the most part. As everyone ought to remember, it was the monastaries that saved western learning.

This developed into habit, and as Mithalwen notes, there was hardly a Gideon's Bible available for everyone who wanted...

Yes, this is ontopic. I'm getting to my point....

This changed shortly before the Protestant Reformation, with the arrival of the printing press, but the Church was slow to change. The Church has always had a very healthy respect for tradition- too healthy at times, but it is a respect that many other institutions lack entirely. Furthermore, this was a sorry time in Church history, with numerous abuses going on. And when the Protestants championed Bible-reading by the masses, the Church's knee-jerk reaction was to go the other way. And this remained the case pretty much until the past century.

But the Catholic Church was not without it's reasons. One thing that separates Catholics from Protestants, and has been a bone of contention between them, is that Catholics believe (or are supposed to believe) that only the Church has the authority to interpret Scripture. People may get insights from it on their own, maybe personal revelations, but the message intended by God in any particular passage is to be determined by the Church and not however the reader pleases.

As a result, the Church had good reason to be somewhat concerned with the reading of the Bible by the masses. The Church, after all, is called to shepherd its faithful, and keep it in Communion with God. Now, as everyone ought to know, the Bible has more than a few passages that, if interpreted at face value with no acknowledgement of context, translation, or figurative speech, could well be interpreted in a way widely different from the proper interpretation, thus leading to a misunderstanding and a misbelief on the part of the reader.

Therefore, in order to spare it's members the possibility of falling away from the true faith due to misunderstanding, and because of its healthy respect for tradition, the Church did not encourage reading of the Bible by the Laity for many years.

Of course, this changed in recent times, with the realization by the Church that it is better to have its members reading the Bible and being aware of its proper interpretation than to keep them in safe, but ignorant, bliss, where they would be ripe prey for anyone who knew the Bible and had an alternative view.

Now, to my point:

I see the actions of the fundamentalists concerning Harry Potter as being highly reminiscent of the actions of the Church concerning the Bible. In both cases, those being prohibitive were concerned for those in their care, either their children or the laity.

The Catholic Church was concerned with keeping its members safe from false teaching, fulfilling its mandate- even if the choice they made to do so wasn't the best one.

Similarly, the fundamentalists are concerned with keeping their children safe from the occult and witchcraft, doing their duty as Christian parents- even if the choice they make isn't necessarily the wisest.

Perhaps its time for the fundamentalists to realize what the Catholics realised some time ago: that it is better to teach those in your care to DISCERN what is right and what is wrong, what is real and what is evil/fictional, than to shield them in the hope that they will never reach a situation where they would need to use such a knowledge. Just as a Catholic is bound to find someone who has contrary Biblical views, so to is a fundamentalist child bound to encounter the occult or demonism in some form, some time.

Now, with regards to the Lord of the Rings, I admit to not knowing why the critics of the day didn't pounce on it. At the time of its publication, there was none of the huge mass of background information which we so diligently enjoy on this site, and the critics wouldn't have known much about it anyway. However, I have a theory:

Harry Potter is a series in which magic is in your face. The book is about a wizard, about his time spent in a wizarding school. It describes his spells and the magical world in detail. Quite frankly, without magic there is NO Harry Potter. With the Lord of the Rings, the situation is quite a bit different. Although magic is certainly there, and plays some important roles, it is never more than a supporting cast member. It takes up far less of the "screen time" and is described in far less detail.

Therefore, going by the argument that Harry Potter is being banned by fundamentalist because of the threats it COULD pose to children, the Lord of the Rings is quite a bit less likely to be potential threat to children because of the much weaker concentrations of magic in it, thus leading to a lower threat, and no banning on the same massive- and public- scale as Harry Potter.

There! See, I did stay ontopic.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Harry Potter is a series in which magic is in your face. The book is about a wizard, about his time spent in a wizarding school. It describes his spells and the magical world in detail. Quite frankly, without magic there is NO Harry Potter. With the Lord of the Rings, the situation is quite a bit different. Although magic is certainly there, and plays some important roles, it is never more than a supporting cast member. It takes up far less of the "screen time" and is described in far less detail.

Good point. I'd also like to make a quick point about some small, yet important, diction in The Lord of the Rings. The Hobbits seem to refer to the ring, at least to begin with, as "a magic ring" where as everyone else calls it "The Ring of Power" There seems to be a difference, in my mind. To me, Gandalf wields Power, not magic. Where as Harry Potter openly uses magic.... I thought it was an interesting thing.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Hookbill the Goomba

All in all, Harry potter shouldn't be banned, but if children are buying it, they should realise that it is fictional and that the practice of witchcraft is a dangerous thing.

Do you seriously think that any child with the capacity to read it would think it was factual? Rather unlikely surely....

Mind you the people who seek to ban it, probably also wish to ban the teaching of the theory of evolution, seeing Genesis as documentary rather than allegory .....

[davem]

I think its important to keep in mind that Rowling is not depicting true Witchcraft - anymore than Tolkien is when he refers to the Lord of the Nazgul as the 'Witch-King'. Both have constructed an entirely negative pseudo-'witchcraft' - for Rowling it has 'positive' connotations, for Tolkien negative ones, but neither of them are attempting to depict Witchcraft as it actually is. I had a long correspondence some years back with an initiated Witch & he was as friendly, compassionate & decent a guy as you could wish to meet (or hear from ).

The point is, Witches draw their 'power' from a 'Higher' (or perhaps it would be better to say a 'Deeper') source - whether that source is seen as 'nature' or the Goddess, or the God & Goddess. Satanism is a Christian heresy & clearly did not exist before the appearance of Christianity.

Now, the point of this is to try & make sense of why (some) Christians seek to ban the HP books. They are not trying to ban Witchcraft, because they have no real idea what Witchcraft actually is - they confuse/conflate it (often deliberately) with Satanism, & are seeking to 'ban' that. Basically, what drives them is a desire for control.

Unfortunately, Rowling has fed into this 'Christian' power trip by misusing the terms 'Witch' & 'Wizard'. While she has presented her Witches & Wizards in a positive light, she is not actually presenting true Witches at all. As a result she has given her child readers a totally fallacious concept of Witches. Her greatest 'sin' in this regard has been in not placing her 'magic-users' within a philosophical/religious tradition. For instance, true Witches would go out of their way to avoid doing harm, as they believe that any harm done to another - particularly harm done by magical means - will cause the Witch her/himself to suffer three times the harm in return.

So, the problem with Rowling's approach to magic is that it lacks this philosophical/spiritual background - true Witchcraft is a highly complex spiritual path which requires years of dedicated work & study to master - years in which those who only seek power & self aggrandisement will tend to drop out or learn better.

All this is a very roundabout way of saying that what Rowling is presenting in her books is neither Witchcraft nor Wizardry, & certainly not 'Satanism' - which is a horse of a very different colour. Looked at in this light, what certain 'Christian' groups are doing is less attempting to ban a fantasy but rather using a fantasy as a weapon to ban another religious tradition. Unfortunately, Rowling has aided them in this by deliberately refusing to give a spiritual tradition to support her Witches' & Wizards' practices. She has also, because of this, offered a very misleading idea of what Witchcraft actually is - principally, that it is both easy & self serving. From this point of view it is difficult to argue that her books may do harm - not to the children who read them, but to the followers of other spiritual traditions - Witches & Pagans in particular.

Having said that, most Witches & Pagans I've come across like the HP books - for the way Witches are presented in a positive light at least. Mind you, they have suffered from some very negative 'Christian' propaganda over the centuries.

[Mithalwen]

"Her greatest 'sin' in this regard has been in not placing her 'magic-users' within a philosophical/religious tradition."

I have to say that this is dumping an awful lot on Rowling who never claims to be more than a storyteller. Having spent Wednesday evening watching "A Midsummer Night's Dream" I don't see that Shakespeare places his magic users in a tradition either so why not have a pop at him too? Magic has been a feature of many children's books - I remember enjoying a series of books as a child featuring a school for witches (The littlest witch?) - it was read out loud in class (quite possible by a teacher who was also the vicar's wife). I don't remember people getting their knickers in a twist about those. If Rowling has a sin it was to be so popular.....

[Lalwendë]

It's interesting how many people have described Gandalf as being an 'angelic' figure. Of course, it's easy for us to say that, as we have access to a discussion board such as this, but casting my mind back to when I first encountered Gandalf, I saw him as nothing remotely like an angelic figure. Instead, he followed on from all the fairy tales I had been brought up on, and in my youthful mind, he was simply The Coolest Wizard Of All Time. He still retains something of that aura for me today, despite being able to intellectualise his role in Middle Earth and relate it to a greater cosmological idea.

So while we might argue, as rational adults (both old and young) that Gandalf's magic is theologically acceptable because he relates to an angelic figure, I wonder how many young readers 'get' this concept? His role is not so clear to a first time young reader, and neither is that of many other characters, which is why re-reading bears such fruit in terms of new understanding gained. In contrast I would argue that in HP the terms of the world in which he lives are made very clear.

In HP there are Wizards and Witches and there are Muggles, and Rowling makes it clear that the possibility of any ordinary child being other than a Muggle is remote. Children cannot become Wizards without going to Hogwarts or one of the other schools (and Hagrid is given as an example of one who was banned from practising), and they cannot go there unless they are invited. Nothing they do otherwise will make any difference. Under these kinds of rules I would say that the worst most children could do with the influence of the books would be to daydream that they would get a Hogwarts letter, much as I used to daydream that the fireside rug was really a magic carpet or that if I climbed the tree in the garden I would meet Moonface and the Saucepan Man.

What I am getting at here is to wonder why some should find LotR acceptable for a child while HP is not? Do children themselves really pick up on anything we might see as 'deep'?

I don't really see that LotR is any less 'sinister' than HP or any other series of fantasy type fiction, certainly not in the eyes of the casual or young reader. So why is it more acceptable? I think it is that it is more established, while HP is a relatively new phenomenon, and this inevitably instills fear in grown-ups, possibly annoyed that their children keep clamouring for more HP products (not the sauce...). At the time LotR came out it was a more innocent world in many respects, with parents happy to leave their children alone with tales of goblins, elves, witches and pixies, and such tales have been told to children from the beginning of time. It seems that today many more people are seeking to protect children from such things when history does not really bear out their fears. If people are growing up and rejecting religion then it is down to other things than the sorts of tales that have always been told to children.

[Lathriel]

I think it is a thing of today to make a big deal out of certain things.
Harry Potter is just a kid's book. That is why it doesn't have as much depth as LOTR. I don't think Rowling expected her books to become so popular nor to be taken so seriously.
I am certain that children can decide what is fact and what isn't. I remember that when I was a kid ( and that wasn't very long ago)I was able to see what was true and what wasn't. Of course there were times when I wished this world I had just read about in a book was true but I still knew it wasn't.
I never understood why there were adult versions of HP. It is such a kids book and it was definitly not meant for adults(Of course they can still read them) or meant for deep study.

[littlemanpoet]

davem, you are directly contradicting things you said on three different threads I can think of: "What breaks the enchantment", "And Eru Smiled", and "Emblems of Religion don't belong in fantasy - or do they".

Do you hold with your most recent post, or with what you said earlier?

While she has presented her Witches & Wizards in a positive light, she is not actually presenting true Witches at all.

As you said, it's a work of fantasy.

Her greatest 'sin' in this regard has been in not placing her 'magic-users' within a philosophical/religious tradition.

Does religion now belong in fantasy?

Christians seek to ban the HP books. They are not trying to ban Witchcraft, because they have no real idea what Witchcraft actually is - they confuse/conflate it (often deliberately) with Satanism, & are seeking to 'ban' that. Basically, what drives them is a desire for control.

No, this is to supply a psychological understanding to a basically theological issue. Christians of the Fundamentalist variety that you are lumping with the rest of us (ahem) see only Christianity versus Evil. Luke says that Jesus said "if you're not with me, you're against me." Therefore, since the CF's are convinced there is a spiritual war going on for the hearts and souls of humanity far and wide across the globe, they are called to do battle. Since they see all non-Christian faith as falsehood, they do not (and do not see the need to) distinguish between Wicca and Satanism. And all the defenses claimed by both groups as to what they are, or are not, means nothing to CFs. What you must understand about CFs is that they are convinced that they are the good guys, no matter how obvious it might be to you that they are evil.

The above is why they attack Harry Potter. They see only Christianity (as interpreted by themselves) versus the evil world. Harry Potter is an especially dark part of that world. Yes, it is a rather negative view, but it is logical within its own confines, as any closed system is (Islamic Fundamentalism has the same qualities).

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Her greatest 'sin' in this regard has been in not placing her 'magic-users' within a philosophical/religious tradition.

If that is a 'sin', then it is one which Rowling shares with countless others. From Hans Christian Anderson and the Brothers Grimm down to L Frank Baum, Enid Blyton, Roald Dahl and whoever created Chorlton and the Wheelies. Children's tales throughout the ages have included 'magic-users' without feeling the need to place them within any philosophical or religious tradition. I fail to see why Rowling should be singled out by Christian fundamentalists, Wiccans or anyone else for writing the same sort of tales that have been fascinating children throughout the ages.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I fail to see why Rowling should be singled out by Christian fundamentalists, Wiccans or anyone else for writing the same sort of tales that have been fascinating children throughout the ages.

It may be just a matter of timing, from a historical perspective. You see, the strongly eschatological (end times) bent in Fundamentalist theology led them into a "separate from the world" kind of stance. Therefore they stayed out of that especially muddy thing called politics ... that is, until things got worse than they could stand, and people like Falwell spoke up and said "America is a great Christian Nation! We can't let the heathens take it over!" Thus was born the Moral Majority (which some assert was neither of the two words) and the Christian Fundamentalist jump into politics AND the culture wars, as they are called. Star Wars was one of their first media targets. They don't trust C.S. Lewis or Tolkien, but probably note that their fellow Christians who are NOT fundamentalist, hold those two in high esteem. Harry Potter, by contrast, is authored by a modern and a woman (perhaps I'm exaggerrating the CF viewpoint with that ), and contains no Aslan or Eru. Prime target material for the culture wars. So, timing, I think, SPM.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

davem, you are directly contradicting things you said on three different threads I can think of: "What breaks the enchantment", "And Eru Smiled", and "Emblems of Religion don't belong in fantasy - or do they".

Do you hold with your most recent post, or with what you said earlier?

As you said, it's a work of fantasy.

Does religion now belong in fantasy?

Probably am. But I think there's a difference between what Tolkien was doing & what Rowling is doing. Tolkien set his story in what is effectively another world - for all he suggested that it was this world in the ancient past. Rowling has deliberately tied the HP world to this one. HP lives in this world. No-one can go to Middle earth & become a Wizard - that world is gone forever. That is why we are so moved by the story.

Its because Rowling has linked the HP world so closely to this one that it is valid to make connections between the Witches in her book & the Witches in our own world. Rowling does not even seperate the 'magical' from the mundane worlds - as does Lewis. The worlds 'bleed' into one another - probably the reason for a lack of a spiritual/philosophical background, now I think about it. There is only this single 'reality', this one world. The HP universe exists totally 'within the circles of the world'. As such it is closer to a 'realistic novel' than the kind of fantasies produced by Tolkien & Lewis. Therefore, one can criticise the way the contemporary world is presented in HP, & the extent to which it is presented correctly. If a writer wishes to set his/her story in the contemporary world they should get their account of that world correct, just as a SF writer is expected to have a working knowledge of science & not get the basics wrong.

[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.

What most strikes me is that Rowling actually pulls this off so well.

To the point. If one insists on the right to criticize the contemporary world as presented in HP, then this can only be done when the story takes place in our world, when magic affects our world. When the story is set in Hogwarts, the Ministry of Magic, the Weasley home, in a magical bus or car, or the village just outside of Hogwarts, it is the Hogwarts world. There, as often as not, our world is spoofed. But the rules are Rowlings' creation, and should be critiqued with that taken into consideration.

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.

[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.