LOTR v HP

gravertom

gravertom

Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
1,163
Decided to start a new thread.

I have never read the HP, nor have I allowed my children to. I have read LOTR, and some of my children have also.

Why the difference? It is in how "magic" is treated.

My perceprion= Magic in LOTR is the exercise of powers inherent in the creature's nature, or derived from an outside source. It seesm that the Elves, Valar, Maiar, etc. don't do "magic" in the sense that most folks think of it. They just exercsie powers inherent in their nature. Those powers can be used for good or evil, ie Melkor.

There are some creatures who use inherent powers supplemented by outside sources, ie Sauron, balrogs, etc.

Thirdly, there are those who primaily rely on powers derived from other sources, ie Ringwraiths.

Tolkien seems to be consistent in that the desire for powers from outside sources result in evil, and the corruption of the being seeking such powers. Few went down the path and ever turned back.

Galadriel's talk with frodo reveals a lot, in that she was confused that folks such as the Hobbits seemed to use the same terminology for powers such as hers, as well as the "deceits" of the enemy.

Tus, for me, the difference between LOTR and HP. Not having read the HP series, it seems that the characters are seeking to attain to a use of powers not in herent in their nature, or am I mistaken? Or is it suggested that "all have the potential, yadda yadda etc.". Either view, if true, would be antithetical to Tolkien's views, as I understand their expression in LOTR.

Understand, this comes from a person who dabbled in some of these things as a youth, therefore I wish my children to avoid some of those, as I see them, pitfalls. To me, HP might be such a temptation to a youthful mind. Yes, LOTR presents a set of temptations also. A judgement call, for sure.

I'm just talking, no real agenda, or desire to critcize. I figure my perspective will be rather unusual, so I thought you thoughtful folks might find it curious.

Two of the important themes I take from Tolkien are "the end does not justify the means", and " Be content with who you are."

Had Adam, and Lucifer for that matter, been able to heed those truisms, how different things would be!

JMHO, and YMMV

Take care,

Tom
 
Interesting thread, Tom:thumbup:

Sadly, I can't comment as I have not read ANY of the books by either author.:o Honestly, I need to pick up one or both series to give them a read over the winter. I have no idea why I haven't yet. I always tell myself that I'll buy them, start them, and not finish. Thereby being left with a hundred dollars worth of books unread. This is utter bologna. I'm a voracious reader when I start a book. I'll try to pick up a few books the next time I'm out.

However, I'll give it a stab. I guess most folks don't have a problem with JRR's stuff since it is set in a distant land in a distant past. I think a lot of folks that have a problem with "witchcraft" in the HP books see it as a contemporary group of kids engaging in such behavior. Something that kids today could emulate as peers of Potter. I think the one wobbly leg (and you'll have to forgive me for basing this on the movie series...which I watch but don't really particularly like) is that it might be different if these kids were being taught such magic out in the woods of the world and using them to bend this reality's foundations. However, the magic in the stories (for the most part) takes place at their campus that is inaccessible to non-magic folk. Magic simply is all around them. It is taught, and it is restricted in some aspects. Probably about the same as dangerous acids and explosive compounds that are kept from first year chemistry students. From what I deduce, the HP series started off as a coming of age tale about boy finding out about his past, dealing with his stressful family life, and learning the values of friends. The wizardry of Hogwarts was simply a backdrop for the story. By the time kids become teens in the story and begin to buck the system (from what I am told), the series has transcended children's literature and become a full (and quite dark) adult story.

As I've said, this is just discussion for discussion sake. I am totally ignorant both of these successful works:o However, I hope to change that over the course of the winter break. I'm really thinking about giving the LotR and The Hobbit a once over then starting the HP books if time allows. We'll see;)
 
Thanks for the thoughtful reply!

I may be missing a lot, of course.

BTW, I do not consider Tolkien's works "Christian", other than that his worldview runs through his works.

Also, I have let my kids watch most of the Star Wars. Maybe a double standard? maybe I know them well enough to help my kids navigate them? maybe I just don't want to spend the money on a whole series of books? ;)

Actually, I believe that even though visual images can be very powerful, that the written word is more powerful still.

The prose of Tolkien is far above the prose of the written accounts of Star Wars, IMO. Therefore, I think JRR's stories potentially more powerful. Same potential for HP, esp. based upon the comments I have seen here.

To be fair, there are some things in Shakespeare I don't want my kids to read too soon either.

Thanks for listening,

Tom
 
I read the Hobbit and LOTR trilogy every deer season, the series lasts me from Oct 1 to Jan 9 and even though I'm familiar enough with the stories (I've read them AT LEAST a dozen times) not to be engrossed and miss seeing deer, I still find something new every time. I've read the HP series up through Order of the Phoenix and then it got to "pop culture" and drawn out to make $$$ to keep my interest.

The HP books are written towards 14-year-olds, Tolkien's works were written for adults so that's a huge difference. My wife and I came to similar conclusions as you regarding HP. I read the first few books just to get a feel because we had a lot of friends shunning HP without even reading it. They took the "Conservative Christian" stance at face value and I figured that I could "risk a peek". ;)

Some of my conclusions:

LOTR has significant depth and a strong sense of morality. There are definite "good guys" and "bad guys". HP lives within a gray area somewhere in-between.

All races and characters are treated with respect and dignity in LOTR. Some are more bumbling or goofy, but they are still respectful. HP makes muggles (non-magic users) look like bumbling oafs and contains a variety of insensitive and disrespectful attitudes, especially towards authority.

HP gives the impression that "evil" or bad magic can be used for "good" if a person is careful. One of the central themes surrounding Hobbit/LOTR is that evil will always corrupt and cannot be used for good regardless of the intentions or moral strength of the individual.

As both books/movies have become popular recently, there have been a number of "pop Christianity" books flooding the market on "Finding God in LOTR/HP". Tolkien was insistent that his books were not allegory to the Christian faith even though his faith, his life during WWII and after definitely had strong influence on his writing. Rowling makes no claims regarding her faith that I've seen and I find it hard to extract allegory from HP.

My wife and I are very comfortable with our decision. When my oldest son (then 11) expressed interest in the LOTR movies, I told him that he had to read the books first. Ben has read all 4 of the Hobbit/LOTR books and has seen the three movies. He likes the books better!

J-
 
Thanks for those thoughts.

I have only let my kids see a few bits if the first LOTR movie. My oldest is probably old enough to see them all now. Time flies!

It takes a lot of time to view them, and his younger siblings would not be ready yet.

plus, my oldest is out in the garage engraving right now! Better than even a very good movie!

take care,

Tom
 
I read the Hobbit when I was a kid, I never made it through the LOTR. I've never read the Potter books, but my kid has, and I saw the first three movies (snoooore!).

One thing that's in common with both books is the idea of sacrifice to save others. In other words, the heroic ideal. In both series, the heroes are willing to lose their lives in a struggle against evil, to save their loved ones and to "set things right."

This doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.

Re magic: in both books, people can learn magic as a technology - the wizards in Potter, the human wizards in LOTR. Its just another case where technology is either a tool for good or a weapon in the wrong hands. Potter is a kid's series, tho, and its full of dumb goofy stupid things. LOTR was written by a very serious linguistics expert who was working out his internalization of the horrors of war and is a whole lot more literature and a whole lot less stupid than Potter.
 
I loved the LOTR books more than the movies, although they both were awesome. I did not like the hobbits, i didnt find it funny and it wasnt in the least suspenseful.

the HP books were pretty good also, although the 5th and 6th book SUCKED. the movies for HP also sucked.

just my oponion
 
Just to clarify, the Wizards in LOTR were not human, per se. They were sort of "Angelic" creatures that took on some human limitations for a time of service. Sort of a complicated idea to flesh out, but it is pertinent to the point I was making. They could grow in the exercise of their native abilities, but they were native abilities to start with.

Tom
 
Religion enters not a whit in either... LOTR should not be kept from any child; it bestirs imagination, the most powerful force in any world.

I'm plowing through the 4th or 5th HP, trying to learn the why of the appeal. But they are not in the same class... they're good but not great, like a decent- even awesome or world class- burger to a chateaubriand.

No books should be kept from anyone; that would only encourage any child to find out more.

"You can have any fruit, except from that one tree..." :D


Mike
 
gravertom said:
I have never read the HP, nor have I allowed my children to. I have read LOTR, and some of my children have also.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm . . . I've read both series of books, as well as others in the genre. IMHO, the Fundamentalists are over-reacting about Harry Potter. The HP series does not address the occult in a realistic manner, thus is as likely to "teach children witchcraft" as D&D or other role playing games. Remember, many Fundamentalists are also rabidly opposed to things like: comic books, videogames, rock music, dancing, sex education, the "theory" of evolution, and anything with origins in another culture (i.e., yoga, martial arts, chiropractic, accupuncture, or traditional artwork). I wonder what Jack Chick would say about Hogwarts?

gravertom said:
Understand, this comes from a person who dabbled in some of these things as a youth, therefore I wish my children to avoid some of those, as I see them, pitfalls. To me, HP might be such a temptation to a youthful mind. Yes, LOTR presents a set of temptations also. A judgement call, for sure.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you were into, or what sort of experiences you had, but you seem to have turned out okay. Myself, I've studied the occult for most of my life, but I consider myself an agnostic/deist rather than a practitioner. I have a number of good friends who are witches, though -- and they're some of the kindest and most trustworthy folks I've ever met. Then again, I've also met some self-proclaimed "satanists" (a confused & unhappy lot, for the most part) as well as a large number of "dabblers" who learned everything they know from reading books in the New Age section of Barnes & Noble. Yeah, it can be a very negative thing if approached with ignorance and disrespect -- as can be working with electricity or volitile chemicals. As they say, "a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing."

The thing is, HP does not discuss or encourage such activities as: necromancy, evocation, loa possession, or even Ouija. It's all about using specially fashioned magic wands (unique to each wizard) to implement a variety of fanciful "spells" (like shooting fireballs, or transmogrification) -- the like of which you'd see in a video game. The "magic" in HP is a bit more complex than you were led to believe. Most people cannot do any magic at all ("muggles"), and those who can have varying levels of ability. The ones who do well tend to specialize in one particular area. It's not like anyone can learn to do anything. I encourage you to read the first book yourself.

I'm impressed that your kids have read LOTR, as Tolkien is rather advanced. HP is more for a 6th grade reading level, as is The Face in the Frost by John Bellairs, and The Golden Compass by Phillip Pullman -- both of which are highly recommended for younger readers.
 
I'm not the typical fundamentalist, but do advocate caution and an age appropriate timetable for discussing /teaching things such as sex ed, etc. I do believe in enjoying sex, BTW! The more the better! :D

Our oldest son is a very advanced reader. I think he read LOTR through around the 4th grade.

One can't enjoy everything, so we make our choices.

Hp ultimately wouldn't likely be too much of a problem, but there are many other things we will likely spend our time on, hand skills, good history, philosophy, literature, etc., as well as hunting, camping, sports, and what not.

Thanks for the good discussion so far.

take care,

Tom
 
besides all that, if HP is offensive, even if mistakenly, to folks we know and love, it doesn't seem worth it to cause unnecessary offense.

Same is true of a lot of things for us. I don't let on to some folks what types of music we listen to, so as not to scandalize them. I'm sure some folks don't talk about some tender subjects around me.

Education/enlightenment sometimes must progress slowly, carefully, and lovingly, to have the best chance of success.

Somethings just cannot be, in this life. But things can still be very good.

Tom
 
The HP books treat magic in a more "personal" way...that's the best way I can describe it. The magic in LOTR seems more "grand", spectacular, mythic, lore, etc. The magic in HP is more offense/defense, incantations...for the individual.


I have read both sets all the way through and really didn't find anything offensive in either. The 3rd LOTR book almost kicked my butt in terms of patience to get through it. Didn't have any problems with the HP books - thrillers all the way to the end. Well, I take that back...the ending of Book 2...the "villian monologue" could have been a bit shorter...but other than that...great stuff.

Completely different than LOTR. I can't even find common ground to compare the two.


I guess that's why I find your question very fascinating/intriguing.

I'm curious to see what others say as well. Perhaps with more discussion, we might be able to draw out a better explanation than what I've offered.




Note from wife:
(who has also read all of the books - and hasn't read my comments above)

Magic in LOTR is more enchanting, illusionary, ethereal, larger-than-life...

Magic in HP is more practical, everyday life. Something you study, attain...vs. something you inherit.


In LOTR the magic is what controls the people, places and things...in HP the people control the magic.




Well, there ya go. :thumbup:
 
So "magic" in HP is more like advanced, esoteric technology?

To narrow it down again, it seems "magic" in Tolkien's world is not neutral, like technology. It is good or evil, depending upon it's source, and the motivation for it's use.

Evil powers do not grant access to their power without a price.

Tolkien's world has a certain correspondence to the real world. Angels and demons exist, and they exert power and influence. Mortals normally do not have access to those powers except perhaps by compromising with evil, or , occasionally, receiving special power from God, without any such compromise.

To sum it up,The world of Harry Potter portrays a world that does not correspond to reality, ie the supposed "neutral" use of supernatural powers, similar to an advanced technology, by human beings. A lack of correspondence to reality IS a legitimate characteristic of fantasy, but fiction has a tug, a direction, a pull, whether towards good or evil. When I was a young lad, I wanted Jedi powers. The pursuit of such things almost got me into some trouble. Maybe it was mostly in my head.

It is when fantasy does not correspond to reality in the moral realm that I have trouble with it.

As was suggested by someone else above, that lack of correspondence can blur important distinctions that are important to keep clear.

Rowling as social engineer or beneficiary of societal trend is not something I am able to discuss intelligently.

It doesn't really matter which, if either, is true.

Well crafted entertainment is a good thing. Blurring important distinctions is not. When both are combined in one attractive package, let the reader beware. The subtle assumptions we are exposed to without being aware of them are often far more powerful in shaping our thoughts than a deliberate attempt to persuade.

These assumptions can be passed on without an artist being aware of them, so I am not playing the conspiracy card, at least not by the Author herself. The Author of the REAL conspiracy goes back, again, to the garden, and before.

I've really rambled on this time!

take care,

Tom

( I guess I got to preaching somewhat. It's the whole antithesis thing. Didn't mean to when I started, although I suppose I felt like I should say SOMETHING about all this...)
 
I think I got through 3 or 4 of the DUNE books. # 1 was the one I enjoyed the most...

Tom
 
Well...if it's any consolation...my boys have seen several of the movies...the oldest (7) has been through the first four and is now reading the fifth on his own...and the next oldest (5) sat through most of the reading of book 4....:D


And while they love their wands...and talk about the characters, etc...it's really no different than any of their other characters...and definitely not as violent as when they play-act Star Wars scenes. Mostly it's just zooming around. My 5 yr old does remind the 3 yr old now and then that "Magic is not real"...then asks me to "confirm it". :D


I highly doubt they'll read LOTR before teenage years...and like a previous poster, we have a "read first, watch later" policy on movies-from-books anyway...so the films are out until then as well.

Like Danny said, Kids/Adults...different audience.
 
I've got to say that I don't see the machean world view of LOTR reflected very strongly in the real world. I certainly see reality as shades of grey. Actions are good or evil people are not, except insofar as by the actions the perform. Though I'm not sure that I agree that there are no shades of grey in LOTR, for example boromir attempts to take the ring from Frodo, the wrong choice, but for what he believes to be the right reasons. He acts out of what most of us would consider to be virtues: courage, loyalty, the desire to protect his people. But still the wrong decision, an example of a good person doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. To me that is an example of greyscale.

I would say that magic in HP is treated very much like tools in reality, devoid of inherint moral value, that value comes from how it is used and for what purpose.

I would definatly encourage my childern to read both of these series, I see them teaching valuable lessons, but beyond that literature can serve a purpose other than alagorical moralizing.
 
I think the reason magic seems less revered in the HP books is because all the characters (for the most part) are wizards, whereas in the LOTR books, magic was the dominion of a select few and remarkably powerful beings. That being said, wizards in the LOTR stories are more like fores of nature than they are specialized humans. Harry Potter and his ilk are kids with supernatural powers...like the X-Men.

Also, the target audience, yadda yadda yadda.
 
Clarke's laws:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

asimov's corollary to the first law:

1. "When, however, the lay public rallies round an idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly scientists and supports that idea with great fervor and emotion -- the distinguished but elderly scientists are then, after all, probably right".

Rowling's corollary to the third law:

1. any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.

and finally,

Kroncke's law:

1. "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top