Why is Harry Potter Evil But Lord of the Rings Heroic?

self | massadvj

[massadvj]

As I lurk about the various topics here on Free Republic I have noticed a paradox that I think I can explain, but I'm not sure. The paradox is this. Currently, there are two mainstream movies out about magic and sorcery: Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. I have noticed that Freepers of the right wing Christian persuasion have lambasted Harry Potter for causing young folks to believe in sorcery and witchcraft; and also possibly causing hair to grow on one's palms. On the other hand, the praise for Lord of the Rings seems to be universal, in spite of the fact that it, too, features sorcery and the like. The question is why.

Personally, I liked both movies. Lord of the Rings was the better flick, in my opinion, because of its fantastic scope and special effects. Also, Lord of the Rings was a better story, which is where the question of the paradox comes in. If you think about it, Lord of the Rings is filled with Christian symbolism. One devil, the ring (original sin), a savior, there is even a resurrection at one point. So the movie appeals to Christian sensibilities at an unconscious level. This is nothing new to movies. Take a look at E.T. the Extra-Terrestial or The Abyss for two more obvious examples of tugging at Christian heartstrings.

Harry Potter, on the other hand, is more "New Agey" and relativistic, which rigid Christians find irreverent. And so, Potter gets slimed while Lord gets lauded.

That's my take, anyway. I'd be interested to hear whether others think this hypothesis of mine has any credibility. So flame away.

[nattyman]

One important difference that I have not seen mentioned is that LOTR is about mythical people in a mythical world that are in no way related to real life except in their struggles.

HP on the other hand is based in the real world about what could be "real children". Comparably, even in C.S. Lewis books ,The Chronicles of Narnia that had "real children" in it, nothing really magical happens until they go to a different world, Narnia.

With all of this said I loved the LOTR books and I thought the movie was great!! I have not read HP, but I still thought the movie was entertaining and, even as a believing Christian, I saw no real harm in it. Most of the people that I saw get excited about the witchcraft in HP did so from misinformation (i.e. that silly email that quotes The Onion).

[Khepera]

.

[DJ MacWoW]

Let's say you tell a kid not to play the piano when you leave the room. The kid sits down and plays like Chopin. What are you going to do? Reprimand the kid and send him to his room without his supper? Maybe YOU would, but typically, I don't think that's what's going to happen. So Potter is reflecting a reality that children will have to deal with one way or the other, and it is worth their consideration.

It would depend on the reason I told them not to play it. And parents should be able to expect obedience from their children. Parents set rules for very good reasons and it's NOT up to a child to arbitrarily dismiss them.

That reality is this: in the real world there is one set of rules for the truly great and another for the simply average. In the face of that, which do you want to be?

Excuse me? Great people lie, cheat and break all the rules?! Who are your heroes? Does this mean you think the Clintons are "great"? Please think what you're saying.

[ColdSteelTalon]

I would say that the main difference is that Lord of The Rings teaches that evil will consume you namely that the ring (a talisman) has power and that power, even the wanting of it is evil. While Harry Potter teaches that talismans are fun. The movie has a number of talismans such as wands and broomsticks. And that it is fun to use them.

Huge Difference

[ecurbh]

Here is the relevant portion of Tolkien's text:

"Who made the flood?" asked Frodo.

"Elrond commanded it," answered Gandalf. "The river of this valley is under his power, and it will rise in anger when he has great need to bar the Ford. As soon as the captain of the Ringwraiths rode into the water the flood was released. If I may say so, I added a few touches of my own: you may not have noticed, but some of the waves took the form of great white horses with shining white riders; and there were many rolling and grinding boulders. For a moment I was afraid that we had let loose too fierce a wrath, and the flood would get out of hand and wash you all away. There is great vigour in the waters that come down from the snows of the Misty Mountains."

[Darksheare]

Even if I opposed it, I'd monitor it and encourage discussion about it, but I wouldn't restrict it.

So let me get this straight.... You'd let your kids do drugs, rape, abuse, and terrorise others all with your monitoring and encouragement? Please refer to what you've said before answering. That IS what you've said. I'd really hate to be your neighbor. Your kids probably have a record by now, considering the non-parenting style you've just espoused.
Great men don't need to obey rules, eh? Were our founding fathers great men, then? Especially since the rules that govern our society were put in place by them? Think before you speak, this will be so entertaining.

[Darksheare]

But, if you are such a Tolkien scholar, you'll also remember that Gandalf was a maia (Angel like being) that was sent to middle earth to oppose Sauron. You'll also remember from the Silmarillon that the Elves were created very much like the Valar and the Maia. Men had no power of their own and lusted for it. That is where the rings came in and where the sad commentary of the story goes.

[BibChr]

Thanks, excellent!

So I was right that it wasn't Glorfindel/Legolas/Arwen who caused the river to rise, and that Gandalf did the white horses; I got my other idea from remembering "it will rise in anger." But Restorer was right that Elrond was ultimately behind it.

Dan

[Psycho_Bunny]

You're right, Wizards weren't sent by Eru, they were sent by the Valar.

The cosmology of Tolkien is EXTREEMLY Christian. Eru was The One God...the Valar were his Arch-Angels, Melkor was the fallen Arch-Angel that created evil and fought against the rest. Wizards were under the employ of the 'good' Arch-Angels. The Balrogs were Melkor’s equivalent agents….

[Restorer]

I've always found Tolkien's cosmology regarding the Valar fascinating. They are essentially the Greek/Roman/Norse gods, far larger and more powerful than men, but are equally creations. God (Eru or Illuvatar) remains God but drops out of the story for thousands of years, till the point the Numenoreans invade Valinor, the home of the Valar.

Then they call on "The One" and he destroys Numenor and removes Valinor from the Earth, so that only magical Elven ships can ever reach it again.

Considering the cataclysm created by God's direct intervention, it's understandable that the Valar didn't call on him more frequently!

I thought the whole story was a great way to have your cake and eat it, too. Monotheism and demi-gods both.

[SamAdams76]

I haven't even read the responses here yet but when I saw your post, I had to respond because I feel the same way as you. It will be intriguing to see how some of my fellow Freepers justify raving about LOTR after bashing poor Harry Potter these past few weeks. I look forward to reading the responses.

Let me state why I think this is so. I feel that many Christians disdain the Harry Potter books because the author of them (J.K. Rowling) is an avowed agnostic. I strongly feel that if Rowling, like J.R.R. Tolkien, was an ardent Christian, then her books would be much better received WITHOUT CHANGING A SINGLE WORD IN THE BOOKS!

After all, Tolkien's LOTR has the same elements that the Potter detractors have been railing about these past few weeks: Magic, sorcery, wizards, trolls, and pure evil.

Some will surely say that the Potter books are bad because they are targeted towards gullible children who might not realize that the world of Harry Potter is completely make-believe. Well I will answer that charge by saying that LOTR was also targeted towards children when it was first published in 1945. The children of that age were much more literate then the children of today, being that there was no TV, video games or rock and rap music to distract them. Even when I went to school in the 1970s, it was different. I remember tackling books like "Moby Dick", "Red Badge of Courage" and "Call of the Wild" when I was in fourth grade. These days, most kids in fourth grade would find these books too hard to read. But I submit that any child (of any age) that is capable of reading Harry Potter and/or LOTR would also be intelligent enough to realize that they are fantasy worlds, not real.

And then there are some who will claim that Tolkien's LOTR is better than Harry Potter because Tolkien's story contains Christian imagery. My Freeper friends, please don't take offense to what I am about to say, but LOTR doesn't contain a SHRED of Christianity. Not even a hint of Christianity. Of course, this doesn't mean that it isn't a great book nevertheless. And it doesn't make Tolkien any less of a Christian by writing it. But you should be able to read it guilt-free without feeling the need to make it something it is clearly not. And the same goes for the Harry Potter books as well.

[Restorer]

You may be correct that Tolkien did not put Christianity into LOTR. However, the worldview of the good characters is very definitely a Christian one, although the story takes place in a pre-Christian time.

No offense, but if you think otherwise you don't really know much about Tolkien or his life.

[SamAdams76]

I know enough about Tolken to know that he discouraged people from reading too much allegory into his works. He wrote these stories as a way to pursue his love of linguistics. Creating the languages and the imaginary worlds were more fun for him then writing the stories themselves.

As for the Potter books, have you read them yourself or are you just judging them on what others have to say about them? I read all of them, if only to know what my kids were reading. While these are not the literary classics that Tolkien wrote, they are very enjoyable books and a step above most children's fare.

There are good characters in the Potter books as well. In fact, the headmaster (Dumbledore) is loosely modeled on the character of Gandalf. The protagonists in the books (Potter, Ron Weasley, Hermione, Hagrid) are good, decent characters who fight the evil in the book much the same way as Frodo, Sam and the rest of the hobbits in LOTR. And I suppose the main villain in the Potter books (Voldemort) can be roughly based on Saruman.

Basically J.K. Rowling has cleverly integrated many of the elements of LOTR into her series. Of course, I'm not saying that Rowling comes close to equaling Tolkien. If you want to criticize the Potter books on their literary value, why that is fair game. But to allege that the Potter books "encourage children to engage in witchcraft" is almost too ludicrous to respond to, and you will realize this if you took the trouble to read just one of the books.

BTW, I know there are quotes from the books circulating around the Internet that make Harry Potter seem ominous and dangerous. But hey, using that same tactic, you could take an Ellsworth Toohey quote from "The Fountainhead" to prove that Ayn Rand is a communist.

[SamAdams76]

I also want to add that reading Harry Potter to learn about witchraft will prove to be as futile and frustrating an exercise as watching a Gilligan's Island marathon in order to learn how to survive on a deserted island. Having read the Potter books, it is difficult for me not to laugh out loud when I see these kind of statements being made.

[Restorer]

I read the first two HP books before allowing my daughter to read them. I don't have a major beef with the HP books, except for their being far less serious and moral than Tolkien. But that applies to almost all books written today.

Which post of mine are you replying to? You may be confusing me with some of the HP bashers around.

I do however understand how some parents may object to their children being force-fed these books by public schools. I can even understand why some feel they are dangerous, even though I don't personally agree with their objections.

[Restorer]

I haven't seen any of the posters on this forum recommend burning witches, or even banning books, except perhaps from public schools, where parents should have a legitimate right to input on what their children are taught. All I have seen is people using their freedom of speech to state their disagreements with a book/movie. I don't happen to completely agree that their concerns are appropriate, but I respect their right to have and express their opinion.

What I don't understand is reactions like yours where you seem to be greatly offended that someone else has a different opinion, and will freely lie about what their objectives are.

[wi jd]

Really -- my take is that certain people (who post here)think HP teaches magic

I tried using some of the HP spells to make my wife clean the house. Unfortunately the spells did not work.

So much for my being a wizard.

[SamAdams76]

My comments weren't directed at you personally. I was responding in general. Sorry for the confusion.

[XJarhead]

I do not think that either HP or LOTR are immoral or encourage witchcraft. People who get uptight about either need to get a life.

I do think there are enough substantive differences between the two books so that if someone was going to babble on about witchcraft, they'd have a much better case against Harry Potter than against LOTR.

For starters, none of the humans in LOTR really cast spells. That's the province of the non-human wizards and elves. Tolkein also made it clear that magic was going to leave the world when the wizards and elves did. Men aren't able to use "witchcraft" or become wizards. For the religious folk, its the idea of men consorting with the devil or whomever that makes witchcraft evil. But since men can't use magic in LOTR, that potential criticism isn't applicable.