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.
As I am sure you are aware, the background (previous 9000 years of history) of LOTR is told in The Silmarillon. It reads a lot like the Appendices to LOTR. From your remarks, I take it that you haven't read it lately.
Nicely said, and FWIW, if it were possible to time travel someone from a few hundred years ago to present day, our technolgy would seem like magic to them.
Uhhhh.
Where? I'd appreciate a citation.
Men (and all other creatures) are urged to turn away from the temptation to evil, not to turn away from magic.
You have obviously not read some of Tolkien's other works. The Similarillion has much about the wonders of Numenor, inhabited by Men. It is obvious that much of their power comes from the use of magic. The Palantiri or Seeing Stones are portrayed as only a shadow of what had been present in Numenor, and these objects are obviously magical but not inherently evil, although they can of course be used for evil purposes.
Numenor falls because it succumbs to the evil lust to dominate Nature and people, not because it uses magic.
The Silmarils themselves are great magical jewels. They are portrayed as inherently good, in contrast to the inherent evil of the Ring. They thus burn and torment the evil Morgoth (Sauron's boss), who has captured them. One is eventually used by a human-elf hybrid to rescue Middle Earth from Morgoth's domination, but the other two are lost when the Valar destroy Morgoth.
I think that most people don't automaticly link magic (as in LOR) with witchcraft.
A number of science fiction writers, among others RA Heinlein, have commented on this. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
In Middle Earth, magic is their technology. Actually, Tolkien portrays anything more "industrial" than a watermill as far more sinister than the routine use of magic.
Harry Potter is popular for reasons having nothing to do with witchcraft. If you pay attention to the emotions of the kids (and grown-up kids) in regard to the books and movie, their chief affection is for the school, Hogwarts. Rowling tapped into a powerful longing for "belonging" with her books. Everyone would like to belong to a noble, artistic and nurturing institution like the school, and everyone has had the feeling that they are persecuted by insensitive, vulgar Muggle families. The kids also get cool pets and supernatural teachers. The books are a hit with kids because the story is simply GOOD--not great--but kids don't have any GOOD stories anymore. Instead, they have boring propoganda forced on them by publishers and media. Naturally, a GOOD story is going to be a hit...kids are discovering the pleasures of decent literature, and they are clearly very hungry for it!!
Supernatural stories for children have a very long, very wide history. George MacDonald wrote "The Princess and the Goblin" stories...he was also a brit and, I believe, a clergyman.
LOTR, on the other hand, is magnificent. Great. Not merely good. Tolkein had a VISION, not just a lively story. Rowling's books lack this abiding and important vision and important themes--of humanity having to unite against evil, and how the least is sometimes the greatest. Combine that with a scholar's grasp of language, richly embroidered English/Norse/Arthurian legends and fairy tales, a devout foundation of Catholicism, and you get a transcendent work which will provide transcendent pleasure.
I cannot WAIT for "The Two Towers!" Ents, next time! The Riders of Rohan and Eowyn the Shield-Maiden!
Obviously, not from the Christian God, but then it really wouldn't be as much a fanstasy if it used a real world God.
In some ways, Tolkien's mythology parallels the Old Testament. The "genesis" of his mythology involves the rebellion of an archangel (for want of a better term) who believes that he should have the power to create life and be equal to the one God. The Silmarillion, chronologically the first book, is about a war waged by this fallen archangel against the rest of the world. The parallel to the fall of Lucifer is obvious. And as with Satan, the fatal flaw of this archangel is hubris
The Lord of the Rings tells the story of a later time, where a fallen angel who served the archangel tries to dominate the world as well. The wizards are not human at all, but rather good angels who were sent to help the rest of the world against this fallen angel. Though Tolkien doesn't use the terms angel and archangel, the connection between those concepts and the way he describes his beings are clear.
The tone of the LOTR, as others have pointed out, is very Christian. The hero hobbit Frodo basically sacrifices himself to protect the world from a greater evil, and his greatest strength is his moral courage and humility. It is a profoundly moral story, and the morality it teaches is a good one. In fact, many people who don't like LOTR blast it for its obvious Christian overtones, and view it as propaganda for Christianity.
In any case, here's an earlier comment from an earlier thread on such:
TOLKIEN VS POTTER FM A CHRISTIAN
In different threads, the question tends to be asked of Christians, why is Harry Potter so evil and Tolkien wonderful. Actually, some Christians are (to my view) mindlessly dismissive and hostile to Tolkien as well.
From my perspective, Potter glorifies, exalts, focuses on, engenders attraction to, fascination with witchcraft, spells etc. which are clearly forbidden human glorifying power grabbing activities God has very strong feelings and attitudes about as repeatedly mentioned in the Old Testament.
The quotes above illustrate such an attraction to such activities. The author may well have incredible things to answer for if, predictably, millions of youth become demon possessed as a function of the Potter stuff.
God is hostile to such activities because they avoid coming to God for solutions to problems. It's a way of saying "Up yours, God, I'll do my own thing, get my own power and solve my own problems without you! Harumph!"
Actually, demons commonly give illusions of increasing an individual's power while all the while tightening their grip on the individual to the individual's eventual destruction. These creatures are not harmless pussycats and friendly buddies. They are assistants to the father of lies and the ultimate Dr Death. They are hell-bent on destroying as much of God's ultimate creation and on messing up as many lives as possible as a way of satan getting vengeance back at God for being tossed out of Heaven.
----------------
Tolkien, on the other hand takes a genre of British history and illustrates timeless truths about good and evil. Gandalf is clearly tied into and derives his power from Good and Righteousness. He does it selflessly. Gandalf's efforts are sacrificial, life giving, life enhancing, protective. The selfishness, self-serving--especially needlessly at others' expense is absent.
Some believers may rabidly rail at the fact that he's still a wizard. I understand their perspective but I think they overreact. Gandalf is clearly not deriving his power from The Dark Lord. I wish Tolkien had used another label for him but given the setting and genre he chose to write in, it's an understandable choice.
In Potter, the incantations, spell casting etc. are very central parts of the whole thing. In Tolkien, supernatural power derived from and in behalf of good is much more incidental.
Potter makes Jr gods out of youth via satanic activities, essentially. He muddies seductively the issues and characteristics of good and evil. Tolkien highlights the differences between good and evil.
To avoid going on and on and ever on, I'll assume that's enough of a comment and shut-up.
Anybody know where I can rent a time machine cheap?
That may be the reason that I have always been disappointed by a movie if I read the book first. No movie can portray what our minds can fanticize.
Have you SEEN LOTR? Having read LOTR 10 times at least, The Hobbit (or There and Back Again) a few times, and the Silmarilion 1-1/2 times, this movie DEFINITELY portrays what the mind fantacized.
One of my bosses, a NAVAL MD from WWII was stationed in Japan. They loved the culture etc. and designed their home overlooking San Diego from a hill in the Japanese style with plenty of stuff from Japan. Most of it they ended up destroying after learning from a very trusted personal source that Buddhist monks would routinely pray demons into objects before shipping them to the west.
Objects are not usually inherently evil or good per se. There can be exceptions depending on history and use. And, objects can be dedicated to evil or good with meaningless or powerful ceremonies. Satanists don't get into animal and child sacrificies for idle recreation. Blood sacrifice has carried a measure and type of power with it since Eden. Christ settled the issue on The Cross for those who CHOOSE to apply His Blood covering for their imperfections, sins. Those still at war with him and in league with Satan seek whatever demonic power they can--including praying demonic forces into or at least into association with talismans, voodoo dolls etc. Depending on many factors, such objects can have influence on individuals and settings.
I personally have witnessed relief from relationship as well as health problems in families the church was involved in helping counseling when evil objects were removed from the home.
Scoff if you will. If you have an experience, you needn't bother about people who merely have an argument. I pray you never have such an experience. But the times are getting darker. Such will likely increase. If anyone should try various other methods to overcome such a problem, The Blood of Jesus is the only solution. Applying it in prayer is available--providing there is someone with an authentic relationship with Him who knows how to apply their authority in Him--or perhaps Christ is granting a special grace in a particular situation based on earnest calling on His Name.
Delightful! My husband is reading LOTR for the first time, and I think it will help him keep some of the details straight. He, like many, believes that dumping Bombadil was a good move.
I do have a little gripe with how they elevated Arwen to a "player"--she was supposed to be Mysterious and Unattainable--Aragorn's eventual trophy bride. But, I can see the need for a little romance and another female character.
The landscape was breathtaking, many of the characters an exact match for my imagination (Bilbo, for instance, and Legolas)
Got stuck partway thru, did you? Or are you in progress? A very different book from LOTR, which is very different from The Hobbit.
"Quite simple. Simply contrast the ways in which sorcery is presented in the two novels.
In LOTR, there are maybe 3 wizards on the entire planet, and any spell casting which occurs, if any, is minimal.
In Harry Potter, the whole thing is about a school for children wizards.
Basically, in LOTR, the whole realm of occult sorcery is minimized, while in Harry Potter it is excessively glorified..."
There's also a bit more to it than that. The nature of the sorcery in Harry Potter is different from that in LoTR. To wit, the wizards in LoTR are not really wizards at all, they are Maiar (lesser angels) cloaked in human flesh. In other words, the wizards employ a circumscribed form of their own angelic power, and only for the mission outlined by Eru (Elvish for God), though three of the five wizards eventually succumb to evil. Likewise, the evil dark lord Sauron is another fallen angel. The only other magic we see in LoTR is elvish "magic" and even Tolkien is at pains to explain that it really only seems magic to those who are not familiar with its intimate workings. What we would call magic is generally closer to extreme skill of the elves in that they are closer to their world, being unfallen and the first children of The One, in contrast to the weaker fallen second children, men. Tolkien does drop hints that in lands controlled by evil one sees "sorcery," which is basically practitioners of evil being granted power by Sauron. Indeed, the Nine started out as "sorcerors" millenia before events narrated in LoTR.
In the Harry Potter books and movie, OTOH, the magic employed is specifically magic as we conceive of the world, i.e., human beings manipulating the preternatural world by their own powers for their gain. This is a sharp contrast to the "magic" of LoTR, which comes either from angels using their rightful powers or a simple closeness to creation.
All of the above aside, I think that it's overreacting a bit to cite the Harry Potter books as the first step towards your kid sacrificing the neighbors' cat to the dark lord Satan. Now, classical Christian theology has always held that the only way in which magic might be carried out is with the assistance of fallen angels. With such a thought in mind, then LoTR fits into a more Christian view, whereas Harry Potter falls on the other side of the aisle. But then, if we are to look at the ideas of "white" and "black" magic in a pre-Xian, "Natural Law" environment, say your pre-Xian fairy tail, then we can take a view in which there is room for both good and evil supernatural agency. After all, one might say that the priest is operating as a good supernatural agent when he transforms the elements into the body and blood of Christ (if you're Catholic; but since most HP denigraters are Evangelical Protestants, the whole sentence is fairly moot). To sum up, one can portray a supernatural battle of good and evil as long as it is recognized that it is, sans Xian revelation, and incomplete picture.
I never scoff at anything other people truly believe.
However, my basic premise is still correct. If an inanimate object becomes possessed, it is no longer inanimate. The object itself cannot be either good or evil; it is the being possessing it which possess the attributes of good or evil.
W.K.
Actually, in the fourth Potter book, The Goblet of Fire, I found this trend to be changing. Evil finally breaks through, and at the end of the book the main characters are starting to gear up to fight it.
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.