Harry Versus the Hobbit ( religious reaction )

With the recent release of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone on video and DVD, it is an apt moment to review the religious reaction to last fall's two major film releases, the Harry Potter movie and the Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. The key religious issue in both movies is the role magic and witchcraft play in the stories, and the presence of wizards as main characters. Is it acceptable for Christians to enjoy these entertaining stories when the Bible forbids witchcraft and links it to sin and demons?

With regard to Harry Potter, it is not surprising that different Christian groups disagreed. Mainstream Protestants did not think the question was worth addressing; the story was a fantasy, after all, and a fairly innocuous one at that. Evangelicals were divided on the question. A column at the popular religious Web site Beliefnet.com emphasized that Harry was about goodness and love overcoming hatred and evil. The more traditional Christianity Today argued that the story led people toward sin.

It was the fundamentalists who came out solidly against Harry, holding that it encouraged children to think about magic and to incorporate it into their play. This in turn would lead them toward witchcraft and deeper sin. So, it was surprising that some of the most vocal anti-Harry groups came out in favor of Lord of the Rings. Campus Crusade for Christ and Focus on the Family even went so far as to create Web pages to help Christians understand and enjoy the film.

Why the apparent double standard? Both films make extensive use of magic, witchcraft and wizards. Spells, potions and other occult acts appear throughout both stories. Their general plot lines are similar, focusing on evil wizards who want to take over the world, and who are successfully defeated by good wizards.

In his recent essay, "Harry and the Evangelicals," Richard Peace argues that the difference lies not in the stories but in the authors. J.R.R. Tolkein, who wrote The Lord of the Rings, was a committed Catholic whose close friend, C.S. Lewis, was an author popular in religious circles. Tolkein's comment that the book was "a fundamentally religious work" has strengthened the book's Christian credentials. By comparison, J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series, is a Presbyterian who has kept her religious beliefs out of the public view. Rumors of Rowling's childhood play at being a witch and making potions with sticks have weighed against her. In the fundamentalist view, Peace states, these clues to each author's character make the difference.

Another difference lies in the intended audience of the two works. Harry Potter appeals to a younger audience that may not understand clearly the boundaries between reality and fantasy, and are thus particularly impressionable. The Lord of the Rings is for a more mature audience that has a stronger understanding that imaginary worlds are simply that, imaginary. Tie to this the observation that Harry lives in "our" world; that Harry, his friends, and even Hogwarts exist in modern-day Great Britain. By contrast, The Lord of the Rings takes place in a totally different time and place with no identifiable links to the real world. Thus the story aimed at the younger audience goes further to confuse the distinction between reality and imagination, while the story for mature audiences reinforces the difference between them.

In the end, however, I think it is Harry Potter's newness that works against his story in conservative and fundamentalist circles. The Lord of the Rings has been around for half a century and has had time to become a "classic." Harry Potter is new -- a fad, perhaps. Given the famously ambivalent relationship fundamentalists of all stripes have with modern society and culture -- embracing their media while rejecting many of their messages -- we should not be surprised to find them rejecting this new fantasy world while embracing Tolkein's old familiar one.

Paul V. M. Flesher is director of the Religious Studies Program at the University of Wyoming. This piece appeared in the June 2 edition of the University of Wyoming's weekly e-publication Religion Today.

If I was 12 again, I would have loved it.

Hm...I am not sure but I think that I have been insulted here. LOL!

Actually, I am a 5th grade teacher's assistant and there were a lot of parents worried about their kids reading these books. I had to read them to see what the big fuss was. They are definitely kids books, but also entertaining. I did enjoy them and would have had no problem letting my kids read them.

I read all four Potter books just to see what all the hoo-hah was about. I found them to be entertaining and clever but nowhere near the level of LOTR. I was also surprised at how "dark" book 4 was in comparison to the first three. Definitely not appropriate for younger children IMHO. I understand the next three are supposed to be darker yet.

I rented the video a few weeks ago and again found it to be very entertaining. The special effects are pretty cool, esp. the "flying" during the Quidditch game.

"Both films make extensive use of magic, witchcraft and wizards"

I guess I have to take some exception to this comment. The Potter books are saturated with spells, etc. but LOTR relies more on action and dialogue to tell the story.

Sorry! No insult intended!

I was just commenting on the fact that the book seemed to be exactly the style of entertaining fiction that I loved around that age.
It's just that I go through different phases and like to read different types of books at different times. For a while I loved Clancy techno-thrillers, another time I loved to read Orwell and Davidson style books and at one point I loved a Peter Hoeg novel or an historical Rutherford book.

I just don't think I'd be able to enjoy a HP book at the moment. You never know though, maybe in a few years time I'll feel the urge and I'll walk into a bookstore to buy one.

Sorry again, no insult intended earlier! :-)

I read them all, liked them, see them as harmless entertainment, directed at kids, but able to be enjoyed by adults.

Alot of my enjoyment, though, is sharing them w/ my daughter, who loves them. I find the characters attractive and get the same feeling about the author.

HP is clearly lightweight compared to LOTR, but that doesn't take anything away from the enjoyment of HP, I don't think.

"I guess I have to take some exception to this comment. The Potter books are saturated with spells, etc. but LOTR relies more on action and dialogue to tell the story."

Yeah, I think Tolkien put "magic" in the same category with machinery, which he didn't like all that well.

And remember the scene where Gandalf is trying to recall the secret password to open the door to Moria?

An air of magical mystic is reduced to a simple brainteaser by the hobbit, thus making it appear to be more of a puzzle than an occult ritual.

Clever.

The closest thing to magic I can think of (off the top of my head) is Gandalf setting trees on fire to hold off the Wargs.

The camo cloaks the fellowship got seemed to only approach being magical, they weren't quite I don't think - I suppose some of the stuff for hunters in Cabela's catalog is as good.

I think the difference is that HP is about magic. It's the entire focus of the stories, since that is what sets Harry and his friends (and enemies) apart from the muggles.

In LOTR, magic plays a very important part at times, but it is always in the background. The main characters, the hobbits, are about as non-magical as one can get.

But I don't buy it when some try to say that Tolkien portrays all magic as evil. He doesn't. Only the Ring and similar evil magic is portrayed as intrinsically evil. They're evil not because they're magic, but because their purpose is to dominate and enslave, which intentions would be equally evil if they used a non-magical method.

"but because their purpose is to dominate and enslave, which intentions would be equally evil if they used a non-magical method. "

Yes, Tolkien spoke of the evil that sought to exert "dominion over other free wills." I may be screwing up that quote a little, but not by much. The evil forces seemed to use machinery and military force more than magic, but some very odd stuff was involved, like orc breeding from elves, wraiths and their aura of fear, etc.

Magic is definitely much more of a focus in HP. I think it has the same appeal as "parlor magic" to kids, trivial fun. I wonder, though, if those who burn HP books feel as strongly about magic shows for kids.

From problem in the musical

Children incorporated "magic into their play"? There is a wonderful and marvelous book out regarding the phenomena of Superstring Theoritical Mathematics, and the magical conciousness of young, children, playing imaginary games.

They are related. ie. the mathematics, and the humanities. Some grown-ups do still pretend...

So at any rate, I'd quit tolkienizing the Bible, if I could, but at this moment in my life I'd rather throw myself in front of a desperate destructive moment of denial in myself...Now what. I sing,

heck

Here are 3 reasons why I think the Lord of the Rings is a better book than Harry Potter;

1- J.K. Rowling copied key ideas and characters from Tolkiens books (and C.S. Lewis'). Such as the Nazgul and the dementors; they were both robed in black, fed off of evil "feelings",and they both have "weapons" that turn people into wraiths. The Hogwarts train had already been used in one of C.S. Lewis' Narnia books. This lack of originality weakens the story.

2-Harry Potter presents a watered down version of the battle between good and evil. If you have noticed only about 5 or so wizards are fighting voldemort, the rest are waiting to be saved by Harry. In Lord of the Rings everybody is doing their part, Gandalf was there to lead the men and elves not to save them. This is a more realistic way of how evil must be fought.

3-In Harry Potter the story was written with the main idea being magic, not the battle of good and evil. The outcome of the battle depended on the wizard's ability to bend magic to their will, instead of purity of heart and will power,as in the Lord of the Rings. Lord of the Rings speaks more directly to us and our battles with evil, where we can not use magic, our weapons must be purity of heart, will power and faith. Harry Potter focuses more on the weapons instead of the heart of the warrior.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.