The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Lalwendë · 06-25-2005, 02:35 PM

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.

06-25-2005, 02:35 PM	#113
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	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. __________________ Gordon's alive!