|
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.
__________________
Scribbling scrabbling.
|