SOmething to think about...Magic in Literature: good or evil?

[inkspot]

Originally Posted by Copperfox

In the Harry Potter stories, does not your magic become YOUR OWN to command? But St. Paul writes that "the transcendent power belongs to God and NOT to us." That is not a trivial difference.

Yah, if HP were happening in our world, I can see the point, but it's a fantasy. Some folks in HP use their magic for evil, and some for good, and the ones who use them for good are the heroes. It's the same for magic in CON and LOTR, yes? What is the difference?

[Copperfox]

The difference is exactly what I have already said it is. Although the Harry Potter stories are fantasy, the SETTING of this fantasy is more nearly INSIDE our actual world than is the case with the other stories. Thus the Harry Potter stories come closer than the others to encouraging serious dabbling in the occult. It may be only a small matter of degree, for to be sure I never heard of J.K. Rowling openly telling her fans, "Now go try to cast magic spells for real;" but the premise of Harry Potter does at least bring us a little closer to saying that attempting self-willed sorcery is okay in real life.

There probably would be ABSOLUTELY no harm in the Harry Potter books if they had been written fifty years ago--before there was so much occult obsession in the English-speaking world. Unfortunately, as things are NOW, there are lots of people indulging in what Mr. Lewis called "unhealthy castle-building;" thus, without saying that Mrs. Rowling seeks this result, many such personalities will latch on to Harry Potter as a justification for taking their fantasy obsession beyond every reasonable boundary.


ADDENDUM: Badger, I have seen so much of illness and suffering, that if I were given that power to heal others at will, I would _gladly_ give up vacations, and give up all my artistic and literary projects, in return for being able to relieve suffering and give honor to God in this tangible way. This, always assuming that the power did not come from any evil source with a treacherous agenda.

[EveningStar]

I understand and sympathize, Copperfox. Really I do. However even the drain on the Son of God was so great when he was in human incarnation that he had to go away across the lake for a while.

You can try to take the strain and you can try to balance it because you love people and don't want them to suffer. Yet God has the power to touch someone and heal them, and he's not powerless to heal someone just because he didn't give you the One Ring.

Trust Him. He has it sorted out. That's why he never offered you the purple hat with silver moons and stars on it. That's why he's never offered it to anyone in THIS world.

Because the world of Narnia has not fallen away from God, perhaps God thought they could handle it.

[Glenburne]

This was an old post (2005) by faeriechylde that pertains somewhat to this thread. I've never read Eragon, and although I would probably word things differently than they were worded in this post, the author makes some good points.

I understand what you mean about the "fortune-telling" in Eragon, Soli_Deo_Gloria (may I call you SDG?), but we need to be careful about judging books because they have something that (in our opinion) approximates witchcraft. Obviously a secular writer is not going to have his characters pray to God before making a decision or trying to figure out the future. In fact, even Christian writers sometimes have God speak to their characters in weird ways (C.S. Lewis openly has his centaurs read signs in the stars, and Tolkien has the hobbits glimpse the future in Galadriel's mirror).
I think the more important element in a book is its overall moral tone. Is there a defined good and evil? Are the "good" characters really fighting for the good? Does the author condone or condemn his or her "good" characters for making bad choices? If a "good" character is using some kind of supernatural power (such as "fortune-telling"), it is only justifiable if the source of the power is good (or at least neutral) and the reason for using it is good.
That's where my real concern with Eragon lies. I couldn't find much morality in the tale. The whole ethical system seemed turned on its head: instead of Eragon being the protagonist because he is fighting for the good, Eragon is the protagonist, therefore whatever he fights for is good. That is a crucial difference.
Okay, sorry, I'll stop philosophizing about this now.

[inkspot]

I think the more important element in a book is its overall moral tone. Is there a defined good and evil? Are the "good" characters really fighting for the good? Does the author condone or condemn his or her "good" characters for making bad choices? If a "good" character is using some kind of supernatural power (such as "fortune-telling"), it is only justifiable if the source of the power is good (or at least neutral) and the reason for using it is good.

If this is the criteria, then we can say that the HP books definitely are on solid ground, as HP qualifies on every count. Good characters suffer for bad choices, the source of the power is neutral, but it's clear that those who use it for evil are going wrong, the good characters are indeed fighting for what is right ...

Perhaps I am out of touch with my times, but I don't see a demon around every corner, and I don't know any kids who have tried to "do magic" in this world because they've read about it in the HP world. Added to this is the clear Christian symbolism in HP, and I am perplexed as to why evangelicals have condemned it.

As for magic in general, I do not see any reason for it to be condemned in literature, and I think it's very sad that what the Veggie Tales creator said (in the first post of this thread) about the state of fantasy literature in the USA in the 21st Century.

[Pardine]

Originally Posted by inkspot

Perhaps I am out of touch with my times, but I don't see a demon around every corner, and I don't know any kids who have tried to "do magic" in this world because they've read about it in the HP world. Added to this is the clear Christian symbolism in HP, and I am perplexed as to why evangelicals have condemned it.

I don't see these people either, and quite frankly, for a long time I _WAS_ a wiccan/pagan thing.

We LAUGHED at the novels for getting it wrong. We laughed harder at the people who thought this would turn people into wiccans or make them want to cast magic.

I'm not on that path any more, but I assure you.. Harry Potter novels teaching people witchcraft would be like Narnia teaching people how to be drug addicts.

[inkspot]

Originally Posted by Pardine

I don't see these people either, and quite frankly, for a long time I _WAS_ a wiccan/pagan thing.

We LAUGHED at the novels for getting it wrong. We laughed harder at the people who thought this would turn people into wiccans or make them want to cast magic.

I'm not on that path any more, but I assure you.. Harry Potter novels teaching people witchcraft would be like Narnia teaching people how to be drug addicts.

That's kind of what I thought, although I did not have first-hand knowledge of how Wiccans would regard it ... but I do know a lot of kids who read HP, and I never heard of any of them trying to do magic or become witches. I'm embarrassed that Christians condemned the series when it has, in fact, so much Christian symbolism.

So I don't think just having magic in a story makes the story evil.

[Animus Wyrmis]

::raises a rather embarrassed hand:: I totally tried to do HP magic in elementary school. I attempted to unlock a door and I attempted to speak to a snake. Unfortunately, I was unable to do either. I don't see the harm, really; it's not like that led me to any real magic--in fact, it convinced me quite readily that Rowling's magic wasn't real at all. And if you're going to condemn her for that, I'll point out that I also tried plenty of Narnian magic (surely someday I would find a magic ring in a pawnshop, right? or go through a wardrobe? a door? something?) and that didn't work either. I actually think the best way for kids to learn [insert book] magic isn't real is to try it; it's not going to work, and anyone who keeps uselessly searching is someone who had problems that couldn't be solved by realistic literature. [This isn't to say that most kids are going to want to; I was a particularly fanciful child. I don't know even know now whether I really thought it could work, or really hoped it might, or only pretended.]

Generally, I think that magic is like any other plot device--I expect there to be costs (what sort varies on the book) and I expect there to be rules. Beyond that, I don't treat it any differently than I would treat Technological Bit X or Cool Talent Y. In our world some people (like my brother) are born with wonderful musical ears; others (like me) are tone deaf--why should an inborn talent for magic be different? Or maybe it costs a lot, like some technology now, or takes a lot of energy, or years of study; maybe the cost depends on what you're trying to do, the way it doesn't take a great deal to learn Chopsticks but it does to learn Chopin. And I evaluate the morality of magic the way I'd evaluate the morality of someone showing me a new piece of technology--what does it do? And who does it hurt to do it? And most of the time magic would be a neutral tool like a knife--are you chopping vegetables or people? Are you breaking through bonds or threatening people? It's not the knife that's the problem.

Re: magic and doctoring--doesn't Lucy face that? She can heal basically anything, but I'm pretty sure she doesn't spend most of her time wandering the lands healing people; we see her doing plenty of other things during the books, and her cordial is still half full the last time we see it. Do we think that was a moral failing on her part? (Anyway, I think this only holds true for some magical systems--not all of them have cure-alls the way Narnia does; HP can only heal some things, and I don't remember healing magic that powerful in, say, Mary Poppins.)