Posted on 12/26/2001 8:35:02 AM PST by 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.
You know, hardly the sort of behavior that the pagans themselves wouldn't distrust before conversion....
For instance, in both The Hobbit and LOTR, Bilbo and Frodo both use the Ring to become invisible. In The Hobbit, the dwarves use magical maps and keys to enter the Lonely Mountain. Aragorn uses the Palantir to gain knowledge, which is obviously a magical device. Merry's sword, a Numenorean blade, is able to kill the Witch-King precisely because of magical properties implanted by human smiths. In the Silmarillion, the Numenoreans are obviously great magicians. Many similar examples can be found.
Magic in Tolien's world is not portrayed as being inherently evil. It is merely a tool in itself, capable like most tools of being used for good or evil. Some forms of magic, like the One Ring, are evil of themselves and cannot be used for good. But that is what sets the Ring apart so greatly and why some characters find it hard to believe that it cannot be used against Sauron safely. They would not have this difficulty if all magic was evil and dangerous for men to use.
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.
Great men don't need to obey rules, eh? Were our founding fathers great men, then?
As a matter of fact, I can name several examples. I can remember the "Jordan Rules" in which the NBA hardly ever called fouls on Michael Jordan. Then there was Michael Irvin in the NFL who used to push off the defender practically every time he caught a pass, which was rarely called. Then there was the great spitballer Gaylord Perry. Not that these people are heroes, but they exemplify the reality of which I speak. Who else? The founding fathers? Well, they only broke all of King George's rules. So there you go.
It's not that great men don't need to obey rules; it is that rules are often bent in order to accommodate them. There is a big difference.
Let me get this straight. Letting one's kids watch Harry Potter is the moral equivalent to letting them do drugs, rape, abuse and terrorize? You are way out there, guy. Your house must be a laugh a minute.
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.