Outrage?

[Kath]

I was looking through some of the posts on this site and I noticed that many of the signatures seem to show that quite a few of the members are Christians.

I had also just been reading Harry Potter and remembered that when it came out, and now, it had been banned in many churches and church schools because it was condoning witchcraft and other things that went against church teachings.

I was just wondering whether The Lord of the Rings received this type of response when it was published, as it contains many of the same elements (think Dementors/Nazgul and so on, you can do it for most of the book).

If anyone knows (or can remember ) please post here!

[Kitanna]

I don't think it was, but let me check to be sure....

*after a useless google search* It doesn't look like it probably because LOTR had such a large religious backdrop. A lot of events and people mirror Bible events. I mean the last battle of good and evil, the return of the king...
So who's going to ban a book if the author devotely followed their religion?
But that's just me, if anyone can find proof of the books being banned I'd love to see it. Should be quite interesting.

[mormegil]

I don't believe that LotR's caused the same outcry from cetain groups as Harry Potter did. The major difference between the two is the use of magic. While "magic" exist in Middle-Earth it is not the same type of magic that is used in Harry Potter. The certain Christian groups that found Harry Potter so offensive claimed that it encouraged witchcraft and wizardry, both of which are forbidden.

So the analogy between Nazgul and Dementors while not in itself perfect, is not the cause of the outrage of Harry Potter. It is more based on the fact of the use of magic and magic wands and giving children the idea that it's okay to use magic. I think, myself, that they are a bit off but to each his own.

[Boromir88]

I don't think it caused the rage that Harry Potter did as well. If anything I think the Christian faith imbraced it. Since, they see a lot of Tolkien's stories being connected to their own faith. Why a couple months ago my pastor used a part of LOTR in his sermon to show how it connected with Mary and Joseph. I'll see if I can find the old thread.

Edit: Ahh here it is.

[Anguirel]

We must also consider that when Lord of the Rings was published, the world, and the Christian community, were very different. People weren't so inclined to break into hysterics, lose their heads and shriek over a book written for entertainment of its readership.

Nor were Tolkien's the first books containing enchantment, and what we now odiously call "fantasy". Kipling, E Nesbit, Dickens, Williams, and of course CS Lewis had dabbled or were dabbling in these realms.

The post-war era was a nervous age, but it was concerned about politics, and the overhanging sceptre of communism. The Lord of the Rings provided an escape from these aspects of life; where it touched on political matters it was traditional, English, Monarchist, ecumenical and reassurring, even reactionary in the Scouring of the Shire. That's why it appealed to the reactionary elements of the Hippy movement.

Today, sadly, though democracy is generally recognised as a Good Thing, religious extremism is our new bogey man, the new Ring, the new Dark Lord, if you like. Just as Sauron's imminence made Denethor into a hard and harsh man, the terrorism of Islamic extremism has brought into being disturbingly similar feelings in Christianity. Why, it's enough for a whole other thread. "You serve the Dark Tower or the White." "You're with us or against us."

It is in these circumstances that certain people or groups have been stirred up into vitriolic hatred against a perfectly innocent, unpretentious series of books for children, one of a vast genre heavily influenced by Tolkien, and only distinguished from the rest of that genre by its extraordinary success. It is not fair to say that the Christian community as a whole, in any case, frowns on JK Rowling. The late Pope John-Paul II himself, hardly wishy-washy in such matters, defended her.

Had the Lord of the Rings been published today, I think, sadly, a similar backlash by the narrow-minded, few of whom deign to read the books they detest, would have been more than likely.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Kath

I was just wondering whether The Lord of the Rings received this type of response when it was published ...

Well, it certainly has since. I understand that it has been (or was) banned in some schools in the US, and it has also attracted some criticism from those who condemn it for portraying occultism.

Some relevant threads:

LOTR banned!!!!!

Banning Tolkien, some questions

I don't believe this

Check out the link given in the first post of the last thread linked to above for a (rather deranged) analysis of LotR as a manifestation of Satan's work.

[alatar]

As I understand it, the line of demarcation between the two is in the presentation of the occult. In LOTR, there are the good and the bad, and it's pretty easy to see which side is the 'better.' The use of magic by the good is low key.

In Potter, which I've never read but have seen, I assume that the use of magic is encouraged, and it's not always clear on which side the characters are. The usual occult props (wands, snakes, skulls, ghosts, etc) are seen and not as 'bad.'

So one argument would be that children like the Potter books, the books encourage magic, occultism and witchcraft, those things are banned by the Bible, are therefore assumedly of the Devil, and so you get:

Kids->Potter->Magic->Devil.

Pretty clear to me.

However, the other POV is here.

And, back in the day, my parents were sure that playing Dungeons and Dragons was leading me into demon-worship.

Teens->The Hobbit->LOTR->D&D->Devil.

My assumption is that, like that Kevin Bacon game, if you try hard enough, you can always work something back to the Devil if that's where you hope to go.

[Kitanna]

Mmmmm after looking at the links Saucepan Man provided I'm completely outraged. I don't really like Harry Potter, but I certainly don't think it should be banned for "promoting black magic" if anything it does quite the opposite. HP and LOTR are both books that show the fight against evil.
On the last link was an article all about LOTR and HP glorifying Satan and bringing people away from God.
Tolkien was a devout Catholic. I don't think he was trying to lead people to Satan. I don't think he's led people to Satan.
Either the people who are banning these books have never read them or they have completely missed the point.
Grrr, this all makes me so angry.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

The argument of "If Harry Potter is banned, why not The Lord of the Rings?" is one that I have participated in on many occasions. The statement "Its just a bit of harmless fun" is one I do not accept.

My Pastor is a huge Tolkien fan. He has many books, but not as many as me . And he is ageist Harry Potter, he said this of it,

"J. K. Rowling has been very clever. She seems to know what will be popular and how to write it so that small children can enjoy it. I do not deny that it is an enjoyable read, it is the subject matter I disagree with. One must be aware that witchcraft is a real thing and is incredibly dangerous, to make it seem like a child's play-thing is dabbling in perilous zones."

"What about the Lord of the Rings?" says his wife, "That has Wizards in it."

"Gandalf is a Mair. Wizard is the name given to him by the people of Middle Earth. He's not a sorcerer, or practice of Witchcraft. Many agree that Mair are Angel-like creatures and Gandalf could be described as a sort of Guardian angel. Tolkien being Catholic and all."

I have to agree with this statement. He tells me he has known Churches that have tried to ban The Lord of the Rings, but he has convinced them otherwise.
So, that’s what I think anyway...

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Kitanna

Either the people who are banning these books have never read them or they have completely missed the point.

Isn't that usually the case? And what better way to increase sales, popularity, interest, etc in a thing than to ban it?

"Just what's so bad in those [whatever] books that makes people so afraid? Hmmm, I might just have to pick up a copy and see for myself."

Did some writing in college, and so know first hand that what you write and what your audience 'reads' may be two different things. JRRT may have secretly wanted to convert the entire world to Christianity or atheism or even 'Tolkienism', or may just have wanted to write a great fantasy story.

Conspiracies anyone?

[Boromir88]

Hookbill, I must say a wonderful way your pastor put it.

Generally, I am not one to approve of parents banning books from their kids reading. Growing up, many books on the AP English Exam were ones that had been banned by parents. Thinking they were not appropriate, therefor it's almost impossible to get higher than a two unless you've read the banned books on your free time. My view is, you can't hide "black magic" or "bad things" from your children for ever, they're going to have to learn eventually. You're only bringing down your child's education by selecting what books he/she could read. There were figures somewhere, in the 1950's the average vocabulary for highschoolers was 25,000. 2000 it is down to around 10,000. Do you think banning certain books impacts this? Or not? I'm just curious.

[Lalwendë]

And Farenheit 451 is also an interesting thread.

I am not aware of any such negative reception for The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings when they were originally published. This could be due to one of two things in my opinion.

It could be that they were not regarded as 'important' books, likely to reach a mass market or even to have a significant impact upon the lit-crit market. Harry Potter was an immensely popular series almost from the beginning (certainly much more so than Tolkien's work!) so naturally will attract more attention as we see kids (big and small) with their noses glued to them.

It could also be that today we live in a much more polarised society. Or at least, that the media encourage us to be polarised. Hatred is much more easily stirred up today, as evidenced in terrorist attacks, support for far Right politics, suspicion of certain types of people and so forth. It may have been different in the McCarthy era USA, but the UK was a more tolerant society when LotR was published - despite being before anti-discrimination legislation. Now we're always looking for the 'enemy'!

I think censorship arises as a result of two things, power and fear. Suddenly, all these children were clamouring for more Harry Potter, and this may have alarmed/puzzled some adults. The same thing has happened with Pokemon cards and video games. Adults soon forget that when they were young they too clamoured for things, whether Spitfire shrapnel, Tonka trucks or space hoppers (they also ignore their own crazes for the gospel of Jamie Oliver or the status symbol of the big shiny car ). Crazes leave them feeling out of control, so when something is seen that can be latched on to, whether it be intimations of witchcraft, violence or whatever else they do not understand, this is seen as sinister. Which is where fear comes in, as when we do not understand something we tend to fear it, and either run away or fight it by trying to control it.

Harry Potter, unfortunately, came out as a craze so it did instill fear in a lot of people, but in reality, kids for years have been playing games of fairies, wizards, witches and so on, inspired by traditional fairy tales and nursery rhymes. The difference is that the latter are not banned as they are multifarious, have been in existence for years, and do not constitute a craze. This why I think Tolkien's work has by and large got off lightly in comparison; it has been in existence for many years already and its influence has been relatively slow growing - as such, it does not constitute as much of a threat. I wonder how many of the instances of LotR being 'banned' occurred during the hype over the films, as that would make sense.

[lindil]

Excellent topic kath.

I have given the matter some thought [ I have young kids, who though not going to public school stil have friends that were into HP way before I or they were] as it touches near to home on a few issues.

First off, I am very fortunate, in that even though I belong to an extremely Traditionalist Orthodox Church, my Bishop and our Archbishop are not stuck in a Salem witchcraft level of intellectual analysis.

One of our Bishops rightly pointed out that it is fantasy and should be given the same liberties we have always given fiction and more importantly fairy tales for many hundreds of years.

I agree whole heartedly.

On the other hand, HP is very different from M-E in that the setting is not 'in a galaxy [ or time] far, far away. It is set in present day England.

Other than wordly references to Christmas there is so far a complete avoidance of religion.

Which seems odd as I would want a bit of prepping for dealing with Muggles in that regard if I went to a school dedicated to the stuff - but, realism issues aside, this avoidance of something so big and profound is not irrelevant. Magic is certainly the most important thing going on these kids lives [on one level at least]. Nobody prays, nobody even says so much as the word God, in the course of thousands of discussions JKR has recorded.

So harry lives in a very magical yet agnostic world, hmmm

that is the downside. I have dealt with that by simply pointing it and it;s ramifications out to my girls [6 and 9] and I will do it more than one more time I am sure!

As for how 'magic' is dealt with in the books, it is rather comical. It is so far from any real magic [ I used to study the Golden Dawn and Crowley so I know a little bit about at least one aspect of the 'real thing'] or witchcraft that I am tempted to beleieve JKR meant it as a joke of sorts. Note her [speaking through Hermione and Dumbledore] attitude towards divination, the only subject that they study that comes close to the real subject in theory and practice that we see in Potter world.

If you want to see books that blur the line between 'real magic' and religion and fiction, the Deryni series is it. Not Potter.


Is there danger in HP being so popular and influencing kids toward witchcraft and magic, I will say, at least indirectly yes.

But, the real problem lies in parents who can not or are afraid to teach their children discernment and how to sort wheat from chaff.

Traditional Christianity sets a very high bar for what is 'good' and 'true' and thus worthy of our study and bringing into the sphere of our minds and hearts, and I will flat out say that for a Christian to spend alot or even much time in Potterworld is dubious, and I am guilty hardly immune to it's considerable non-Christian charms.

But to remain ignorant of it and not be able to speak to my daughters about it from 'within' to me is far more dangerous.

I am sure many of the same parents who forbid Potter to their kids do not draw the line at violent video games or even hours of video games in general.

There is my 2 cents for the moment, again excellent topic.


I have to add this from Anguirel:

Today, sadly, though democracy is generally recognised as a Good Thing, religious extremism is our new bogey man, the new Ring, the new Dark Lord, if you like. Just as Sauron's imminence made Denethor into a hard and harsh man, the terrorism of Islamic extremism has brought into being disturbingly similar feelings in Christianity. Why, it's enough for a whole other thread. "You serve the Dark Tower or the White." "You're with us or against us."

Excellent, excellent insight A. I personally do see militant Isalm as a real threat to Christianity and much of civilization in a way, but I also can see why many in the Muslim world see America as 'the great Satan'. I do not by the whole analysis, but many of their critiques of our decaying 'Christian' but really Materialist/Corporate culture are spot on, Tolkein often expresses the same reservations of modern 'civilization' in his Letters.

Is harry potter dangerous? Yes! and so was Gandalf, by his own admission to gimili!!!, and so are we all, for we are surrounded by dangers. But the answer I think is in a good deep understanding of the whole issue from a higher intellectual vantage point than most reactionary 'ban it' mentality comes from.

edit:

I recall posting on one of the aforementioned 'LotR banned' threads that if I were the girl going to the prep school that banned LotR I would quit in as loud a huff as I could. I would not trust the intellectual 'forming' such a narrow institution is doing.

[Kath]

Thank you everyone for your fantastic responses!

Anguirel and lindil I hadn't really thought about the fact that the two were published in different time frames with completely different circumstances surrounding them. The society we have today is much less liberal than it was - even if that sounds odd it is in essence true as though we have more in the way of general freedom and women have gained the right to vote etc. we are incredibly controlled. Just look at the amount of CCTV and the fact that media covers every aspect of our lives. There is no real prvacy anymore. This kind of society breeds fear and distrust so anything that can be used a reason for the perceived terrors of that society (teenage violence for example) is condemned for no real reason.

I did know that Tolkien had written a lot of Christian and religious symbolism into his tales but I thought that might have actually contributed to any outcry surrounding the books as people may have thought he was trying to bastardise the Christian message in some way. That's not too clear, I mean that he was almost trying to create his own Bible - he was writing his own creation story, that we know, so I thought maybe this would cause problems.

The argument on different types of magic (from mormegil?) is a good one. In Harry Potter the magic is much more upfront and obvious as they are chanting spells, making things float etc, whereas in Lord of the Rings the magic is hidden almost. It is there in the world itself, the descriptions of landscapes and the land of the elves show magic. In the book itself Galadriel says she does not understand the word magic. The type of magic though is also less obvious, it is rooted in fairy tales, Eomer is surprised at the appearance of Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli and their tales of Lothlorien. The real magic here is in the reality of things that should be myth and legend.

Then this

In Potter, which I've never read but have seen, I assume that the use of magic is encouraged, and it's not always clear on which side the characters are.

This is not entirely true. Yes the use of magic is encouraged but it is always obvious which side the characters are on by the end of the book at least. And those who are Dark wizards use curses that hurt others, whereas Good wizards are taught to use their powers to help others and to protect themselves, never attack.

Hookbill your Pastor sounds great! And what he said makes perfect sense.

Oh and thank you to The Saucepan Man, Lalwende and alatar for those links. I've only had a chance to skim read them so far but I'll definitely be going back to them.

[Morsul the Dark]

as far as i know the church i am loosely affiliated with(I dont go a lot...ok at all but thats beside the point) doesnt consider harry potter evil secondly the pastor's son and he himself are avid LOTR readers and quote it in sermons sometimes( i stopped going because 900 on sunday is just too early...(please no religious hatemail )

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Kath

This is not entirely true. Yes the use of magic is encouraged but it is always obvious which side the characters are on by the end of the book at least. And those who are Dark wizards use curses that hurt others, whereas Good wizards are taught to use their powers to help others and to protect themselves, never attack.

I've only seen the first movie entire, and bits and pieces of the second, but doesn't someone add a pig's tail to Harry's half-brother (or whatever he is)? And what punishment does one receive for poor sportmanship/breaking the rule in Quidditch? And is the non-magic users' side of the argument fairly represented (i.e. why Harry might not want to dabble)?

But then again, they're childrens' movies and books, and as a parent, I would filter as needed.

[lindil]

alatar posted:

And is the non-magic users' side of the argument fairly represented (i.e. why Harry might not want to dabble)?

Good point.

Throughout HP the sometimes legit concerns of the Dursely clan are hardly treated as serious by the 'good guys'.

I can't help but wonder though whether the Dursely's will not play a crucial role for good in the end. Anyway back to the main thread...

[davem]

(Puts on tin hat before proceeding)

I think this anti-fantasy movement has come out of the US, particularly in the last 20 or so years. It is a product of fundamentalism. The more fundamentalist a religion becomes the more it reverts to a literalist worldview. There is less & less room for symbolism, for metaphor. So, if a novel has 'wizards' in it it must be 'Satanic'. Most serious Tolkien fans have read Tolkien's statement that Gandalf was a kind of 'incarnate angel' - or even if they haven't they will have got the general idea themselves. But because Tolkien didn't call Gandalf an 'incarnate angel' in the book, as far as the fundamentalists, with their literalist approach, are concerned he cannot be an incarnate angel by another name.

Tolkien was lucky, in that his first readers were mostly not fundamentalists, but rather educated, quite wealthy (given the cost of the books), or 'non-conformists'. When the 'Campus cult' took off it was mostly college students looking for something anti-establishment & escapist to read.

Nowadays, those who can accomodate Fantasy into their worldview will accept it, those who can't - the 'fundamentalist' Christians or 'fundamentalist' athiests - will reject it. The former will reject it because, if taken literally , it conflicts with their 'spiritual' worldview, the latter will reject it because it is 'escaping' from 'reality'. Both groups are equally intolerant of 'magic', because magic can't be explained. For the first group it is 'Satanism', for the second it is 'superstition'. For those who find they can accomodate it, it is a doorway to 'wonder' - something both the other groups are suspicious of.

In the Ballad of Thomas the Rhymer Thomas is brought by the Fairy Queen to a place where three Roads meet. One Road is 'Broad' & winds about the Lily'd leven - this is the Road to wickedness, though some say it is the Road to Heaven. It is the Road of worldliness, of materialism. The second Road, is 'all beset with thorns & briars'. It is 'The Road to 'Paradise', though after it but few enquires.' It could be seen as the road of 'religious' fundamentalism & moral absolutism. The Third Road is the Road to Fair Elfland. It is the Road that goes ever on & on.

[Formendacil]

Fascinating- and fast-growing- thread here...

An important thing to remember, which hasn't been mentioned yet on this thread that I can see, is Tolkien's own statement about the Lord of the Rings being a fundamentally Catholic (aka Christian) work, unconsciously so in the writing, consciously in the revision.

It's a minor point to add, but one which ought to be noted on this thread, methinks.

And although this is nowhere directly stated, in the Lord of the Rings itself, it is still there in the underlying structure. Note that the Harry Potter books have no such claim made- anywhere- by J.K. Rowling about them being "fundamentally Christian".

[HerenIstarion]

See also Acceptance of mythology? by Snowdog

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

And although this is nowhere directly stated, in the Lord of the Rings itself, it is still there in the underlying structure. Note that the Harry Potter books have no such claim made- anywhere- by J.K. Rowling about them being "fundamentally Christian".

Why should that make any difference to whether one or the other is banned?

I first read LotR at age 11. I had no inkling ( ) that it was "fundamentally Christian". Having read it, I soon moved onto other fantasy books and Dungeons & Dragons and also developed an interest in what might loosely be termed the "supernatural". Had the Harry Potter books been available back then and I had read them instead of LotR, I can imagine them having much the same effect.

In my view the books stand or fall together on this issue. I most certainly don't think that either should be banned. But I just don't get these distinctions based on one being "fundamentally Christian" and the other not being so, or on the portrayal of the nature of magic being different. Such distinctions would most certainly not have been apparent to me age 11.

[Kath]

Such distinctions would most certainly not have been apparent to me age 11.

No they probably wouldn't Saucepan Man, but then it is not the children that ban the books it is the adults. The distinctions are made by 'discerning' parents who want what they believe to be the best for their children and while it is all well and good to want to protect them it is still ridiculous to think that not reading a book will do this. Even if they don't read it at home if others at school do so they are likely to know about it or even to borrow it off a friend to read it.

On Formendacil's point

And although this is nowhere directly stated, in the Lord of the Rings itself, it is still there in the underlying structure. Note that the Harry Potter books have no such claim made- anywhere- by J.K. Rowling about them being "fundamentally Christian".

This is true but if she had made some statement about them being fundamentally Christian then she would probably have been accused for that. We are now a multi-religious society and to those who take slight at anything it such a remark would likely have been seen as some kind of insult. To say the books were Christian might indicate a lack of respect toward other religions (this is not my view it is simply an example). In Tolkien's time England was Christian pretty much through and through so this was not a problem, indeed he was probably liked more for it. It is just another example of the fact that the changes in society over time mean you have to be more careful with what you say.

And thanks for the link H-I.

[Selmo]

All the arguments put forward in this thread are very interesting, but I believe, irrelevant. There are good reasons to be concerned about the effects some literature may have on vulnerable minds but the mainly American fundamentalist Christians who wanted the first HP book banned didn't reach a reasoned value judgement from the contents; they only looked at the cover.

The first thing they saw was the title, "The Sorcerer's Stone". That aroused their suspicions. Had the US publishers used the real title, it might have slipped through unnoticed.

Then they saw the words "Hogwort's School of Wizzardry and Witchcraft". They didn't need to look any further. The book banners have a knee-jerk reaction to words like "witch" and "witchcraft". Had J K Rowling used wizzard and wizzardry for both sexes there might have been less of an outcry.

The reason there wasn't the same outcry when LoTR was published in USA?: there's no mention of witches on the back of the book cover or in the advertising blurb. You have to look very hard to find the word "witch" in Tolkien's work.



By the way, I am a Christian myself. My previous Minister (he moved on last August) was a fan of both Tolkien and Rowling and often drew illustrations from their work in his sermons.

.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Kath

No they probably wouldn't Saucepan Man, but then it is not the children that ban the books it is the adults. The distinctions are made by 'discerning' parents who want what they believe to be the best for their children and while it is all well and good to want to protect them it is still ridiculous to think that not reading a book will do this.

Yes, but that's my point. When I first read LotR, there was (putting aside the obvious stylistic etc differences) little in essence to distinguish its treatment of wizards, magic and the like from the treatment of these subjects by the Harry Potter books today. So what basis would there have been for "discerning" parents to have treated them any differently at that time?

Originally Posted by Selmo

There are good reasons to be concerned about the effects some literature may have on vulnerable minds but the mainly American fundamentalist Christians who wanted the first HP book banned didn't reach a reasoned value judgement from the contents; they only looked at the cover.

This "knee-jerk" reaction appears to have been applied by some to LotR too. But at least they are consistent. What I don't get is people who think LotR is OK because it was written by a Christian and contains elements drawn from the Christian faith (although no overt Christian symbolism, as has been discussed on another thread), but that Harry Potter books are evil because the same considerations do not apply. Both books essentially portray a struggle by "good" protagonists against an "evil" force.

[HerenIstarion]

Cover/back illustration/title argument is quite interesting and coherent, but some of the 'outrage' HP earned and LoTR shows the lack thereof has to do with specified audience of the HP - children (in addition to all listed, not solely, of course). It's a good excuse to make a cry (about anything) when you are fighting 'kiddies' war for them.

I'll have to throw in another sample for that - Terry Pratchatt's books are oft named like 'Sorcery' and 'Witches Abroad', are fantasy books (despite the satire) and the first one I've read (Lords and Ladies) had me hooked to the purchase by the cover painting of two excessively ugly warty angry-looking cronies and some bulky-nosy chap with horns and hooves on (as I've found later, King of Elves). Backcover annotation also read there are witches and elves to be found inside, and whilst elves are evil, witches are definitely the side to go along with. If there were some crusade against TP going on somewhere sometime, it eluded me completely or other there was none. Reason - you won't find TP books in 'Read for Children' section, as opposed to HP series.

Funny that I haven't encountered any Pullman-bashing web page yet, though, as his books definitely fill 'for children' bill in bookstores. Or are there some?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by HI

Cover/back illustration/title argument is quite interesting and coherent, but some of the 'outrage' HP earned and LoTR shows the lack thereof has to do with specified audience of the HP - children

When I first read LotR, the prevailing view was that it was a children's book, and I think that this probably remains the case with the majority (in the UK at least). Certainly, The Hobbit is regarded (rightfully) as such.

Originally Posted by HI

Funny that I haven't encountered any Pullman-bashing web page yet, though

Oh don't worry, Pullman has come in for his fair share of vilification for his portrayal of the Authority and the Church in his books. The Archbishop of Canterbury, however, welcomed the scenario presented by Pullman as offering a good basis for discussion on the nature of religion. He at least, I think, understands that children should be allowed to make up their own minds on such matters.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

See also Acceptance of mythology? by Snowdog

That thread at times tended to sound like an AA meeting, except instead of "My name is Joe and I'm an alchoholic" , the refrain ran, "I'm a Christian..."

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Funny that I haven't encountered any Pullman-bashing web page yet, though, as his books definitely fill 'for children' bill in bookstores. Or are there some?

Well, there was a news report that the movie script for Pullman's first book was being substantially watered down in its criticism of organised religion as the Authority and substituted political powers as the offending organisation of power.

I wonder if part of the response to Rowlings was motivated in fact by the zealous fan behaviour of her initial readers. Hasn't Tolkien grown slowly in reputation so that the initial response to him lacked the kind of fan fervour we see today? It always seems easier among a certain set to ban the cause of excess rather than discuss excess as a human propensity and give it its due place, although these days Tolkien certainly invokes a similar excess among some readers.

[Kath]

Funny that I haven't encountered any Pullman-bashing web page yet, though, as his books definitely fill 'for children' bill in bookstores. Or are there some?

Actually there was some bother about the films as Bêthberry said. There is a newspaper article up in my school library (which I still haven't read but will do eventually) and it says something like 'God removed from Dark Materials Trilogy' because of Christian outrage over the portrayal of God in the film.

I wonder if part of the response to Rowlings was motivated in fact by the zealous fan behaviour of her initial readers. Hasn't Tolkien grown slowly in reputation so that the initial response to him lacked the kind of fan fervour we see today?

This backs up the idea that Lalwendë came up with but if that is the case then was there a 'knee-jerk' reaction when the films came out? Because at that time a lot of people suddenly became very interested in Tolkien. The popularity of the books skyrocketed so people could read them before they went to see the film, or indeed after.

So what basis would there have been for "discerning" parents to have treated them any differently at that time?

I'm sticking with the different society theory for that one Saucepan Man.

[lindil]

Several people have brought up that as children we would/did not split these hairs: fundamentally christian worldview or not, differences in magic or not.

No of course these things are not in your face or in the forefront of your mind, this is why they are so potent, they slip in through a side door.

Violent video games/tv [to take a more obvious and I think more researched example] do not make kids immediately want to go and kill someone/thing but they do slowly but surely change perception and reactive habits. Many of our choices and perceptions, indeed our 'world view' are formed by impressions we take in when we are young. Spending one's childhood immersed in anything [I was seriously immersed in JRRT] def. shaped mine.
I got into Christianity as a direct result of JRRT, I got into magic [later] as a direct result of JRRT/StarWars, etc...

I had absolutley no parental guidance and oversight on this.

Harry Potter, like JRRT casts a potent spell for many, and to whitewash this and not take it seriously is imo, naive.

Ban it? No.
Ponder the ramifications of HP's 'worldview' w/ your kids, absolutely.

No 'entertainment' is w/out it's price. Beyond the $ tag.

----------

Anecdotal evidence from this board alone shows that JRRT was a spiritual turning point for many that led them to JRRT's ultimate source.

As much as I enjoyed HP [ I read 5 at least 5 times in the last 2 years] I recognize that it simply does not ultimately draw from the same depth of purity that JRRT did. It's complete absence of a cosmology [still 2 books to go I know, but I don't expect any radical changes in this regard] is a major weakness. It's immediacy, being told about kids today, is a big strength. JKR attempts and succeeds in showing [in #5] the very relevant situation of kids having to make major decisions for themselves, because the authority figures around them are on the run [Dumbledore], stupid and blind [umbridge], out of commision [mcgonagle] or otherwise incommunicado. The relevance of this to today is I hope something kids are absorbing on some level. This is HP's virtue. The means she uses to tell an important story are obviously a great lure, on the order of Star Wars, and JRRT, but the complete lack of a cosmology, leaving Witchcraft and Wizardry in a theological, though not a ethical/moral vacuum is unfortunate. How it will play out in each soul will be different.

But you can bet that just as JRRT informed an entire hippy/enviromental movement, HP has sown it's own seeds....

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Kath

I'm sticking with the different society theory for that one Saucepan Man.

This may explain why the Harry Potter books are more heavily targeted than LotR was when it was first published, but it does not justify it. Not does it justify the differing present day reactions to the renewed interest in LotR as a result of the films (on the one hand) and the Harry Potter books/films (on the other).

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by lindil

Violent video games/tv [to take a more obvious and I think more researched example] do not make kids immediately want to go and kill someone/thing but they do slowly but surely change perception and reactive habits.

Interesting point this. In a recent study, it was found that playing "violent" games where there was a clear distinction between "goodies" and "baddies" (eg Doom) not only improved children's reactions, but also increased their empathetic qualities. On the other hand, I agree that the impressionable nature of children justifies a reasonable degree of censorship. I was shocked to discover (from the same source as the research mentioned above) that a worrying proportion (something like 1 in 3, if I recall) of primary school children (under 11s) in the UK regularly play "Gangsta" games which involve players committing crimes and even sleeping with prostitutes and then killing them.

Originally Posted by lindil

Ban it? No.
Ponder the ramifications of HP's 'worldview' w/ your kids, absolutely.

I don't disagree, but the same should apply to LotR.

[alatar]

Thinking about it some more, surely LOTR had to have generated some outrage - maybe we just didn't hear about it or just aren't aware of it. Led Zeppelin, the greatest rock band ever! included Tolkien within their songs, and so there had to have been some benefit from that, meaning that it was either counterculture to do so or the hype of the day (or maybe they just liked LOTR).

Also, back in the day it was Dungeons and Dragons that was going to lead all children to hell, then video games (don't think that Pong was included in this), then those card games - not sure what came next. Paralleling this was the usual suspects - cults, rock and roll, violent cartoons and anything foreign.

It would seem that there is a certain subset of the society (not always the same people) who feel the need to gripe about what the next generation is being exposed to.

And today, we can know about one protester on the other side of the planet, and the nuttier, the better, from the media's POV.

[Selmo]

I am the parent of two daughters who are now young adults.
When they were younger, I never tried to prevent them reading anything they wanted. Thankfully, I never had to; they showed no interest in anything that I thought unsuitable. They have both read the HP books and one of them is an avid Tolkien fan.
While I would not ban any literature, if one of my daughters had read exclusively just one author or genre, HP, LoTR or any other, I would have intervened, not to stop her reading but to encourage her to read more widely.

Children can be influenced by what they read, even though they can tell what is fiction and what is not from a very early age. Absorbing just one person's ideas about any area of life, real or fantasy, is not a good thing.

Those who are worried about what children read are right to be concerned but, instead of banning books and narrowing a child's imagination, they should be helping to widen it.

[lindil]

SpM posted:I don't disagree, but the same should apply to LotR.

Absolutely!, but as I pointed out, JRRT in a masterful way consciously revised LotR towards Catholic origins. If you dig deep that is what you get, his cosmology is pointing to God. It is not in your face in LotR as in the Silm, but I doubt if many reading Silm are suprised or shocked by the opening chapters, even if they do not resonate with them initially.

Indeed I would not be suprised if at some point down the road, JKR does some sort of Silm like prequel[s] to HP, to put it in a religious context that it is so obviouly missing. Perhaps a revealing of why there is no religion in HP at all, what led to a silent 'seperation of magic and religion' and ultimately complete silence....

So I maintain, that as brilliant, captivating and downright instructive as HP is, it has built in 'flaws' that JRRT not only avoided, but encoded the essence of his religion in a seemingly a-religious work [LotR], and he began it with only purity of purpose, and a willingness to 'find the story', and what 'felt' right - well that and a near complete assimilation of the entirety of extant European [and beyond] Mythologies, and a serious and deep catholic religious life.

From a slightly different tack, i would say that JRRT wrote w/ a masterful blend of skill and inspired creativity in 3 worlds. The Physical, the moral/ethical and the spiritual.

JKR has done a brilliant job w/ the physical and moral/ethical [magic is clearly no shortcut to anything essential in these kids lives, is does not help him w/ Cho, or his relationship w/ the Durselys or even his God-father [ah, I'm suprised no one caught the one other reference to religion!].

It is truly a literary device, but as JRRT realised in his works [see the Letters] magic is a two-edged sword, giving the dunedain some abilities in this area was he realized a real problem.

In LotR human 'magic' is very much placed in a cosmological context. The 'why's' and 'who's' are rather clearly spelled out and their relationships clear, all the way up to the Valar [in LotR] and Eru in Silm.

In HP we have a who, w/ muggles/wizards, but absolutely no background as to how/why the division is there, where magical powers come from and what the realtionship is to God. IF harry has a Godfather, was he baptised?

I am not saying JKR was 'wrong' to not include all this, perhaps she will one day. But it leaves a big void in the 'spiritual' that JRRT did not leave. And that void is something that 'nature' [and many fundamentalists] abhor.

Persoanlly I thin kthe HP benefits in worlds 1 and 2 if you will, far outweigh the vaugeness of the spiritual. Indeed it gives me the opportunity to talk w/ my girls about the rampant de-personalization of God as 3 Persons--> God as Spirit [a very common way in Northern Cal. at least to refer to God in a totally non-'religious' way]. This trend is ubiquitous and I think ultimately insidious, but it is a fact, and one can reply in a variety of ways.

Now if HP had sly references to say, the Necronomicon or some other blatantly demonic system, well alot more of us would be singing a different tune, no matter how good the writing is. The Deryni books are a good example [again]. I would not let my kids read those, till I think they are really ready to have serious talks about the occult.

HP does 'trivialize' the occult in some ways. I find it a rather funny caricature of real magic and witchcraft [which I know exist].

Latin words + wizard blood + proper wand technique = HP 'magic'

Only in the spell used to repulse dementors, do we see anything approaching the real deal. And frankly I am very glad she was not more explicit.

[sorry for the several additions...]

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by lindil

Absolutely!, but as I pointed out, JRRT in a masterful way consciously revised LotR towards Catholic origins.

Ah, but you misunderstand. Not being overly religious myself, I do not find the lack of themes specific to any one religion to be a deficiency in JKR's works. My discussion with my children would focus more on the general moral messages to be derived from these works, and it seems to me that there is much common ground between the two in this regard.

While it's easy for me to say as I don't have any strong faith-based views, I would not seek to impose any specific system of belief (religious, political or otherwise) on my children. In this regard, they will have free choice. I am, however, concerned to encourage in them the same strong moral beliefs that I hold and I see both LotR and the Harry Potter books as being consistent with these.

[Larien Telemnar]

*Small Brain enters rather intelectual discussion*

I'm going to put my two cents in here, seeing as this is a pretty good subject.

First of all I just want to say a few things about the Harry Potter books. I'm sure that the books may be well written as far as books go, seeing as they're so popular. I haven't read them myself, or seen the movies, though. Growing up in a Christian Home in the middle of Nowhere, I have been taught a great many things about using discretion in reading different kinds of books. (I have a habbit of having a little bit of a too-active imagination, of which has made my father think I'm going to end up in a nice padded room. Go figure. ) I am tempted to read the Harry Potter books to find out why the controversy, but here are many of the reasons that many of my fellow Believers do not approve of the book.

1) Witchcraft
2) The undefined line of good and evil
3) The fact that many of the "good guys" lie to get what they want

Don't be offended by my writing, please. I'm only writing what many people have told me, who have indeed read the books.

Now about LOTR. I don't believe that it would ever cause any controversy, because even though it has Wizards in it, Magic is not the only factor in the Story. We have the power of love, the human spirit, friendship and friends who are willing to die for what is right. The Bible says: "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13) We see this so many times in LOTR, Gandalf in Moria, Boromir at Amon Hen (Amon Hen, right?), Eowyn almost died protecting Theoden. There are so many cases which reflect Professor Tolkien's Christianity.

Also, no matter what era you live in, there will always be opposition for any book, wether good or bad. I have several cousins who refuse to read Lord of the Rings because...... Weel I don't know. They're very legalistic and judgemental, and believe that any material you read other than the Bible must be dull and unimaginative. Anywoot, I agree with everyone who said that it was better accepted because of the Christian backdrop of the story. Even though Professor Tolkien did not write it as an alagory, his Christianity shows through in his works, shining with love for the story and for the reader.

[Gil-Galad]

Tolkien put some references to the life we have today in the book, in a way saying how Middle Earth was before Earth (Oliphaunts and elephants for example) though since it was widely fantasy, not a lot of out cries were made

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Why should that make any difference to whether one or the other is banned?

I first read LotR at age 11. I had no inkling ( ) that it was "fundamentally Christian". Having read it, I soon moved onto other fantasy books and Dungeons & Dragons and also developed an interest in what might loosely be termed the "supernatural". Had the Harry Potter books been available back then and I had read them instead of LotR, I can imagine them having much the same effect.

In my view the books stand or fall together on this issue. I most certainly don't think that either should be banned. But I just don't get these distinctions based on one being "fundamentally Christian" and the other not being so, or on the portrayal of the nature of magic being different. Such distinctions would most certainly not have been apparent to me age 11.

Yes, but you, as an 11-year old, were hardly the one in charge of banning the books, now were you?

I'm not saying the censors who ban books are necessarily wise, discerning, or particularly thoughtful, but they are also not 11 years old. Which is perhaps an important point to remember.

And while it might be discriminatory to ban books based on only one faith system, the fact of the matter is that in the United States (more so than any other country today), fundamentalist Christians ARE perhaps the dominant force in the censoring of art and literature.

So perhaps it isn't fair or just. Whether it's fair or just isn't really the issue here...

[Encaitare]

Only in the spell used to repulse dementors, do we see anything approaching the real deal. And frankly I am very glad she was not more explicit.

I'm wondering what you mean by this, and what you mean by "the real deal," lindil. The only thing that sounds like something resembling the magic(k) you said you know exists is the high degree of concentration necessary for the spell to work.

In response to Kath's original question, I think LotR would have been much less likely to attract negative attention like HP has, since LR doesn't place magic at the forefront, and has none of HP's "swish and flick" business. And, as I believe someone stated before, Middle-earth is a different world where different rules apply. It's not some kind of secret magical state that exists side by side with the 'regular' world.

Maybe that's part of what causes outrage: when writers mess around with the present reality. The da Vinci code got a lot of negative attention because of the material it dealt with, and the suppositions made and theories raised about Christianity. Even so, what people fail to realize is that this and all fantasy/sci-fi/reality-warping books are works of fiction. There are always going to be aspects of the world from which parents want to shield their children. SpM mentioned violent video games (I assume you were talking about Grand Theft Auto?). Games like these are clearly not right for young children to be playing, since they glorify senseless violence and killing. Some people argue that HP glorifies magic, but it's not really the case. It is a part of the characters' lives, plain and simple, whether in everyday events or in battles. In the latter case, instead of shooting each other, they say a couple of choice words and exact their revenge that way. (Has anyone realized that this actually sounds more humane than riddling someone full of bullets? This thought just came to me.)

I'm not sure where I'm going with this, and I have to go take a math final, so I think I'll be quiet now.

[Mithalwen]

While JK Rowling may not share the committed faith of Tolkien, she has stated publically that she doesn't believe in magic and is rather bemused by the people who tell her that they have "tried all the spells" since she has made them up.....

However what strikes me as rather sad is that the fundamentalists who banned it have totally missed (because they haven't bothered to read it presumably) that the main messages of Harry Potter include:

The overwhelming love of a parent for a child
Doing the right thing even though it is harder than doing the wrong thing.
Sacrificing yourself for your friends/common good..
Protecting the weak
Past wrongdoing can be redeemed.....

Hmmm where have I heard some of these things before?

However from my point of view such intolerance and bigotry helps dissolves any residual feelings of sorrow that I have lost my faith....... I rather think that the fact that that chappie Mister Yulko (in the link mentioned by SpM) thinks that poor old Prof Tolkien is roasting in hell just for being Catholic speaks volumes. I mean, I have some issues with Catholicism myself but at least I am an oecumenical agnostic

As for Tolkien, partly I think that it was a different atmosphere - maybe the secularisation of society has not only made the churches more fundamental and evangelical but made them slightly paranoid. When most people at least paid lip service to Christianity an "irreligious" book (not that I think LOTR is such)is less threatening maybe?

Also it was before the expansion in university education and a time when an educated person would to some level have received a "classical education"; many clerics would have been classics scholars and all educated people would have some Latin if not any Greek. If you have grown up in an atmosphere that regarded an education based on the myths of Greece and Rome as no threat to the Christian Religion, a novel set in "another world" was unlikely to be a problem. And LOTR has such a straightforward Good v Evil message that it is hard to imagine anyone sane having a problem with it.

If I hold anything sacred these days it is probably books. To me book banning (whether Harry Potter, Lady Chatterley or Gideon Bibles) is on a par with book burning and equally abhorrent. Any religion or political who tries to ban a book because it disagrees or is perceived as disagreeing with it's world view is clearly insecure. If they are right people will come to that conclusion for themselves. The more widely you read the more likely you are to develop sound judgement and make good decisions for themselves. To limit a person's reading is a form of brainwashing. And bans are counterproductive - forbidden fruit is the most desired..... Children are not stupid either .... they will read what interests them and they can cope with. If I were a parent I would be much more concerned by what my child saw on TV or film than what it read.

Also it is far easier to monitor what children read than what they watch. And books that can be enjoyed by both adults and children provide much needed common ground with adolescents... Tolkien and Harry Potter can help to keep the communication channels open I have found with my young cousins. I gave them Pullman's Northern Lights becasue it is fantastically well written though I did warn them it was one of the darkest books I had ever read...


I will end my ten pennorth with two favourite quotes :

"There is no such thing as a moral or immoral book. Books are well-written or badly written. That is all." (Wilde).

"Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale? " Shakespeare.