Outrage?

[Ainaserkewen]

Perhaps the problem with HP is that there is no background theology to explain & account for Magic.

That may still be revealed...they've still got another 2 books at least to go.

[Kath]

Magic is a neutral power & only its use determines whether it is good or evil.

Yes but this is also the case with Tolkien surely. From what I remember of the Silmarillion Morgoth was originally as 'good' as Manwe, it was his use of what he was given by Eru that he became evil no?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Kath

Yes but this is also the case with Tolkien surely. From what I remember of the Silmarillion Morgoth was originally as 'good' as Manwe, it was his use of what he was given by Eru that he became evil no?

Well, Morgoth perverted the Good 'powers' he received from Eru, but the Good pre-existed - it had its source in Eru Himself. What I was saying was that in HP, magic seems to be a kind of neutral power which can be used as the wizard wishes - there is no 'Good' magic which is qualitatively different from bad magic. A wizard is 'good' if he/she uses the morally neutral magic to help others, he/she is 'bad' if they use the morally neutral magic to hurt others. But the 'good' wizards are using the same power as the bad wizards.

Of course it could be argued that in LotR 'bad' magic is corrupted 'good' magic, so everyone is using the same magic there too - the good magic users are using it as Eru intended, the bad in a way He didn't intend, so I don't know how far the idea can be pushed of different kinds of magic. We do have Galadriel distinguishing clearly between what the Elves do & 'the deceits of the Enemy', so I think the real difference between good & bad magic in Middle earth is down to Eru's intent for its use. Gandalf uses magic as Eru intends him to use it, Saruman, et al, mis-use it. So, it is the existence & will/desire of Eru that is the yardstick.

Because 'God' (in some form - ie an absolute moral yardstick) is not present in the HP universe magic is simply a kind of 'natural' force, like electricity, to be used as its operators wish - but then, who decides what a 'good' or 'bad' use of magic is? Where/what is the yardstick? The wizards in HP are fumbling around in an amoral universe, trying to do the best they can - this makes the HP universe more interesting in some ways than Arda, but it also makes it more 'dangerous' for child readers - what moral criteria are they given by Rowling - how do they judge whether the action of a particular wizard is good or bad? Where is the absolute moral standard by which magical acts can be judged to be good or bad?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Here is my view on the 'good magic' argument. I may be wrong, but this is what I have gathered...

'Magic' comes from evil. That is why there is no such thing as a good Wizard. For, witchcraft and such comes from satanic powers, and therefore cannot be good, and no magic can be used for good because evil won't let it's own power go against it. There is a story in the Bible that explains this nicely.

22 Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23 All the people were astonished and said, "Could this be the Son of David?"
24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons."
25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28 But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

[Mathew 12: 22-28]

So, by the same token, Gandalf comes against evil, not with magic and witchcraft, but with the power of the Valar. Harry Potter, on the other hand, comes against evil, with evil. So who wins? Evil, of course. "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined", so it makes sense that, rather than witchcraft, Gandalf uses the power given to him by Eru as an Ainour, and the power bestowed on him by the Valar.

That's what I think anyway. And may have been Tolkien’s bases for Gandalf... then again, it may not be...

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Because 'God' (in some form - ie an absolute moral yardstick) is not present in the HP universe magic is simply a kind of 'natural' force, like electricity, to be used as its operators wish - but then, who decides what a 'good' or 'bad' use of magic is? Where/what is the yardstick? The wizards in HP are fumbling around in an amoral universe, trying to do the best they can - this makes the HP universe more interesting in some ways than Arda, but it also makes it more 'dangerous' for child readers - what moral criteria are they given by Rowling - how do they judge whether the action of a particular wizard is good or bad? Where is the absolute moral standard by which magical acts can be judged to be good or bad?

But this is effectively saying that those who do not have faith are incapable of making moral distinctions, which I simply cannot accept. In my view (and in my world) the perception of good and evil exists irrespective of the existence of, or any firm belief in, a God. Provided that the protagonists are using their powers in a way which is I consider to be good (as is the case in both LotR and Harry Potter's world), then it matters not to me whether its source is portrayed as divine or simply an innate ability or aptitude. I would have no problem with my children reading either.

Rowling is not (and should not be expected to be) setting out to teach children morality from scratch. Her books assume that her readers are capable of perceiving the difference between right and wrong (a reasonable assumption, in my view). But what she is doing is presenting them with characters - 'role models' if you like - who behave morally, exhibit virtuous characteristics (loyalty, bravery etc) and act for the good and against evil, thus reinforcing the lessons which they will have already begun to learn (from their parents, one would hope). To the extent that her readers "judge" the actions of her characters, it is against criteria with which they are already familiar.

I would also note that Rowling hails from a primarily secular society, and so the "absence" of God from her works is to be expected. I would no more expect Rowling to to portray her characters' magical powers as having their source in God than I would expect the abilities (such as intelligence and ingenuity) used by the Famous Five or the Borrowers or Doctor Who as having a divine origin (oops - showing my age again ). If one has a strong faith, then there is no reason why one cannot simply assume that the magical powers of Harry Potter and his friends are God given, just as one would assume the same of the (generally more mundane) abilities any other characters from children's novels where no specific mention is made of God. And if one does not have a strong faith, then the issue is, as I have said, largely irrelevant.

[Ainaserkewen]

Saucy, (not sure of the ages) Do you read HP to your kids/do they read it themselves? Do you have any worries that their age would affect their absorption of the "magic"? I mean, did it ever cross your mind?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Aina

Saucy, (not sure of the ages) Do you read HP to your kids/do they read it themselves? Do you have any worries that their age would affect their absorption of the "magic"? I mean, did it ever cross your mind?

My children are 7 (girl) and 5 (boy). I have not read the Harry Potter books myself and don't have them, and they are rather too young to be reading such books themselves yet, although we have seen the films. I would, however, have no concerns over the references to wizards, magic etc and I am perfectly happy for them to read the books. For the reasons that I have stated, it is just not an issue for me.

I have read The Hobbit to my daughter, and The Faraway Tree stories to both of them. The latter books, of course, have Elves, Goblins, Wizards, Witches and magic, but no religious context. Again, this doesn't concern me, because they set a good moral tone. The children and their friends in the Faraway Tree behave in a morally correct way (they do their chores, are concerned for the welfare of their parents and others and look out for each other) and "naughty" behaviour (for example, Ricks' greediness and Connie's spoilt behaviour) is shown to have appropriate consequences.

That is not to say that I am not alive to the possibility of the books influencing them in some way that I would consider wrong. For example, the children on occasion slip out in the middle of the night to visit the Faraway Tree in the Enchanted Forest. This was probably not an issue at the time Blyton wrote the books but I have no wish to encourage my children to be wandering around woods on their own at night, and so made sure that they understood that this was not something which they should ever consider doing.

[lindil]

SpM posted:But this is effectively saying that those who do not have faith are incapable of making moral distinctions

I would draw the distinction between the ethical/moral realm of the soul, which needs and presupposes no theology or revelation [ as in HP] and the realm of the human spirit, which can receive revelations, have insights into theology and trnascend space and time and come back to try and relate what it has experienced.

A simpler way to put is that faith is a spiritual relationship [or lack thereof ] with God, not an intellectual concept and moral distinctions are [prinmarily] a relationship with other people or things, and on the soul level.

This is the immense difference between HP and LotR/Silm:

HP has no theology, no background from whence the ethics and morality spring, everyone does the best [or most self-serving] they can.

Dumbledore is as high as the heirarchy of Authority goes.

Gandalf on the other hand, is - as was just pointed out, vested w/ authority from Manwe and thus Eru/God.

LotR effectively has a deeper dimension beyond the ethical/moral that so far at least in HP simply is not there.

Again I am not saying that JKR was necessarily wrong to leave all this out, but it makes in my opinion a 2 fold work, as opposed to JRRT's 3 fold.

[Selmo]

Ainaserkewen,

I read The Hobbit to my children before they could read it for themselves. I encouraged them to read LoTR as soon as their reading skills were up to it. They were older teenagers before Harry Potter was published.

I never once thought that reading and telling stories that included magic could harm them in any way. The dimmest of my daughters is of at least average intelegence. When reading The Hobbit, I didn't have to explain that Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits and dragons don't exist and that no one can realy make a ring that can turn you invisible. They could distinguise between fact and fantasy at an early age and knew without being told that LoTR and HP were only make-believe.

Interesting, exciting and a little disturbing, but not real.

For normal children, it would need a much bigger push than JRRT or JKR can give to turn them to evil.

One way to endanger children would be to tell them that reading any work that tells of witches and magic should be avoided because they are dangerous, that the super-normal powers in them are real and can be used in the real world. That would be putting a great temptation in their way.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

But this is effectively saying that those who do not have faith are incapable of making moral distinctions, which I simply cannot accept. In my view (and in my world) the perception of good and evil exists irrespective of the existence of, or any firm belief in, a God. Provided that the protagonists are using their powers in a way which is I consider to be good (as is the case in both LotR and Harry Potter's world), then it matters not to me whether its source is portrayed as divine or simply an innate ability or aptitude. I would have no problem with my children reading either.

But we're not discussing what matters to you, but what matters to certain fundamentalist Christians. I wasn't expressing my own views, necessarily, but attempting to show how LotR is essentially different from HP & why some Christians might have a problem with HP but not LotR

Rowling is not (and should not be expected to be) setting out to teach children morality from scratch. Her books assume that her readers are capable of perceiving the difference between right and wrong (a reasonable assumption, in my view). But what she is doing is presenting them with characters - 'role models' if you like - who behave morally, exhibit virtuous characteristics (loyalty, bravery etc) and act for the good and against evil, thus reinforcing the lessons which they will have already begun to learn (from their parents, one would hope). To the extent that her readers "judge" the actions of her characters, it is against criteria with which they are already familiar.

So, like the 'magic' in her universe, the 'morality' is morally neutral too? The reader decides, based on their own subjective criteria whether a character is 'good' or 'evil' - Rowling will not offer an objective moral standard by which actions are to be judged. So, a reder is free to see either Harry or Voldemort as the 'hero' depending on their individual moral value system? Who says 'loyalty & bravery' are 'moral' or 'virtuous'? Certainly they cannot be said to be 'moral & virtuous' in & of themselves - that would depend on exactly what the character is being loyal to, wouldn't it? And as to 'bravery' - that isn't necessarily morally good - a Death camp guard who risked his life to force children into a gas oven would have been seen by his superiors as behaving 'bravely', even heroically.

So, again, there has to be some objective moral yardstick by which even loyalty & bravery are judged as good or evil.

I would also note that Rowling hails from a primarily secular society, and so the "absence" of God from her works is to be expected. I would no more expect Rowling to to portray her characters' magical powers as having their source in God than I would expect the abilities (such as intelligence and ingenuity) used by the Famous Five or the Borrowers or Doctor Who as having a divine origin (oops - showing my age again ). If one has a strong faith, then there is no reason why one cannot simply assume that the magical powers of Harry Potter and his friends are God given, just as one would assume the same of the (generally more mundane) abilities any other characters from children's novels where no specific mention is made of God. And if one does not have a strong faith, then the issue is, as I have said, largely irrelevant.

Its not about 'God' - its about some objective moral standard against which the character's actions can be judged - Tolkien supplies one - & you don't have to be a Christian to accept Eru. Eru simply provides an objective yardstick by which the actions of characters in Me can be judged. Rowling doesn't provide one - the reader must supply their own. Problem? Rowling's secondary world is not self contained & is dependent on the primary world for something absolutely essential if it is to work. It is a secondary world absent of its own objective moral standard, of a source of Right & Wrong, of Good & Evil. It is not self contained in the way Middle earth is. If you wish there to be a 'God' in the HP universe you have to bring in your own, if you want morality, you have to supply it. As I said, a reader may decide Voldemort is the hero & Harry the villain if they wish. In Middle earth this is not logically possible, because Eru is the ultimate moral yardstick ('I think we'll get tired of that word soon!') by which characters are judged. A reader may be free to prefer Sauron to Aragorn or Frodo, but they are not free to decide he is 'Good' because Eru has set standards by which Good & evil are to be judged & by those objective standards Sauron is not good.

[Selmo]

Where can I find Eru's yardstick in LoTR? There are no Ten Commandments, Book of Deuteronomy or Sermon on the Mount to stand as such. Is Eru even named?
Are the Valar or Maiar ever refered to directly?

All we get are vague hints like Gandalf's words to Frodo that he was meant to have the Ring by the will of someone/something other than Sauron or Gandalf being sent back after his encounter in Moria by some unnamed and undefined higher power.

I know there is more information in the Appendices but few people bother to read through them all and even fewer go on to The Silmarillion.