Harry Potter/Lord of the Rings/Narnia - dangerous to children?

Fantasy or serious stuff? (Harry Potter, LOTR, Narnia)

  • All purely fantasy, should be taken at face value

    Votes: 21 48.8%

  • Narnia's symbolism should be taken seriously, not the others

    Votes: 6 14.0%

  • Harry Potter is dangerous and the others aren't

    Votes: 10 23.3%

  • other (if so please specify in a reply)

    Votes: 6 14.0%
  • Total voters
    43
Problem is, every bit of literature has religious symbolism. You are creating a bit of the universe as if you were a demigod and the way natural law and human nature unfolds in the story is a commentary on how you view natural law and human nature. So not necessarily the facts but the way they are presented, are unavoidable bits of religious--or irreligious--symbolism.

Robin Hood presumes it is right to rob the rich as long as you give to the poor. LWW presumes that betraying your family and friends violates a law greater than Municipal Code 132 Section B Paragraph 4. Peter Pan exalts the innocence of children. Watership Down promotes brains over braun and endorses the idea that there are powers at work above and beyond natural law. I could keep on going but not all of you have a broadband connection... :rolleyes:
 
good point Chakal! And it does hand in glove with what I mentioned about why CSL loved fantasy: it seemed to speak of a world beyond this one, and all good fantasy literature makes you wish for that world.

OMS, I have to disagree with your position that Tolkien did not want anyone to find Christianity in LOTR. He in fact stated that at first LOTR's very Catholic overtones showed up on their own, and that later he enhanced them. What he did not like was overt and obvious symbolism/allegory such as you see in Narnia. He didn't like CON for this reason: too obvious! But Tolkien's Catholicism is so skillfuly woven into LOTR, you will not see it if you are not looking for it -- and it is si profound, once you do see it, you cannot ignore it!
 
inkspot said:
But Tolkien's Catholicism is so skillfuly woven into LOTR, you will not see it if you are not looking for it -- and it is si profound, once you do see it, you cannot ignore it!
Click to expand...

Too true. Have you looked at the appendices and noticed the dates.
The Fellowship departed from Rivendell on the 25th of December (Christmas and the Pagan festival of "Sol Invictus", "The Indomitable Sun"), and the Ring destroyed on 25th of March! (The destruction of original sin!)
 
I stand corrected Inkspot. I was aware that Tolkien had similarities and such to christianity. I was more trying to point out to narniaqueen that saying HP is evil because it is not obviously Christian when LOTR is was wrong. I just know that Tolkien hated the really obvious tie ins to Christianity that were rampant in the Narnia chronicles. I was more trying to remind others that Tolkien wasn't trying to be overtly Christian either and I do know he would have been angry if accused of such. However, obviously I was a little confusing. I do love finding the symbolism in LOTR but I think it causes it to fall closer to HP than CON because you do have to search to find it.
 
I very much agree. And btw, I am pretty sure someone has written a book similar to "Finding God in Harry Potter." The title escapes me right now, but I am sure I have heard of it. In a way, Tolkien would have been more a fan of HP with its less obvious symbolism than CON with its blatant symbolism, you are right.
 
I like HP and I am a Born-again Christian.
I agree that Witches and Wizards in HP
are not human.
And if your not going to read HP because of Witchcraft
then you shouldnt read LOTR.
Wizards in LOTR were born with Magic.
 
Good point, KingAslan. Sometimes critics of HP say the magic in HP is bad because it is about children "learning to do magic" or "being taught magic," which it would be wrong to teach children in the real world to try to do spells and magic. But if they would read HP, they would see certain children are born as magical beings, and naturally they have to learn to use their magical skills -- just as in LOTR, the wizards and elves are born (or created) as magical beings. No difference.
 
Big difference. :)

Tolkien wrote concerning his creation of the Istari ("those who know"), who were called by Men (etc.) "wizards." They were emissaries sent from the Lords of the West to contend the will of Sauron. They were not, however, magical beings in the least. No more "magical" were they than was Jesus of Nazareth, who cast demons out of people and healed those who were sick. These Istari, these "wizards," were angelic beings, of a lesser degree than were the Valar (who were often mistakenly called "the gods").

The same applies to the natural abilities of the Elves. Inkspot, you will of course remember that I quoted Galadriel concerning the Mirror of Galadriel in FOTR, and how she addresses Sam:

"And you?" she said, turning to Sam. "For this is what your folk would call magic, I believe; though I do not understand clearly what they mean; and they seem to use the same word of the deceits of the Enemy. But this, if you will, is the magic of Galadriel. Did you not say that you wished to see Elf-magic?"
Click to expand...

(Bk. 2, pg. 364)

You came to this conclusion concerning her statement:

The example of Galadriel's pointing out her magic is different from Sauron's is one thing, but there is no denying Gandalf and Saruman have the same kind of magic, and one is good and one is bad
Click to expand...

Notice carefully, Galadriel never called her abilities "magic." She said to Sam, "But this, if you will, is the Magic of Galadriel." She never implied that it was "magic" in the first place, but only called it thus because that was what Sam believed it to be.

And in your statement concerning Gandalf being good, Saruman being bad, there was never any difference between the two. Saruman was a good being at first, but, perhaps much like Lucifer, pride and hate conquered him, and he fell away from his high calling, and therefore used what knowledge and skills he possessed for evil purposes.

In this I see a very great difference between the "wizards" of LOTR and the wizards of HP.

I should also like to mention, though, that it is not against "magic" that I have my reasons for disliking HP. Obviously we see "magic" in Narnia, and we do see some "magic" in LOTR. My arguments against HP have always been about the uses of "magic." What's the reason behind a "Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry" anyway? I love fantasy, but not to a degree where it goes into something that, in my opinion, is very touchy.
 
Last edited:
I think there really isn't anything wrong with fantasy, but I will say that there is NO SUCH THING as Good and Bad Witches/Wizards/Warlocks. I don't hold that against LOTR because I know about the author and since he was a Christian, I think it was more of an allegory. But Harry Potter, I don't like at all. I don't know too much about Rowling, but I'm pretty sure she isn't a Christian. Though I agree she is a fantastic writer, I find her books getting darker and darker and probably wouldn't let my kids read them, or I won't when I have kids atleast.
 
DifferentFree said:
I think there really isn't anything wrong with fantasy, but I will say that there is NO SUCH THING as Good and Bad Witches/Wizards/Warlocks. I don't hold that against LOTR because I know about the author and since he was a Christian, I think it was more of an allegory. But Harry Potter, I don't like at all. I don't know too much about Rowling, but I'm pretty sure she isn't a Christian. Though I agree she is a fantastic writer, I find her books getting darker and darker and probably wouldn't let my kids read them, or I won't when I have kids atleast.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting viewpoint: "I know Tolkien was a Christian, so I will allow his wizards were good, but I don't believe Rowling is a Christian, so I think her wizards are bad." Now, did you know Tolkien was a committed Catholic, and JKR is a member of the Church of Scotland, more or less an Anglican like CS Lewis? Knowing this, do you now think her wizards might be as allowable as Tolkien's?

Curumo said:
Tolkien wrote concerning his creation of the Istari ("those who know"), who were called by Men (etc.) "wizards." They were emissaries sent from the Lords of the West to contend the will of Sauron. They were not, however, magical beings in the least. No more "magical" were they than was Jesus of Nazareth, who cast demons out of people and healed those who were sick. These Istari, these "wizards," were angelic beings, of a lesser degree than were the Valar (who were often mistakenly called "the gods").

The same applies to the natural abilities of the Elves.
Click to expand...
In the basic text of the three books of LOTR, which is all most fans will read, there is no "religious" explanation given of the wizards and elves, but it is obvious they possess innately what we would call magic. In HP, it is obvious some people also innately posses magic: they are a different species than muggles, humans who cannot do magic, as the elves and wizards are a difference species in LOTR. These magical people are usually sent to a magic school -- if they continue living with oridnary humans, as young Voldemort did for some years, they can still do magic but it is hap-hazard and dangerous, so the school teaches them how to use their magic.

A few of these type go bad, as Saruman went bad, and most go right, as Gandalf went right. I still am not seeing the difference here between HP and LOTR magic, or "the use of magic." The good guys use it for good, and the bad guys use it for bad, in both stories.

Even in CON, Lucy uses a magic spell once for good, when she lifts the invisibility curse from the Duffers, and once for evil, when she eavesdrops on her friend. Yet no one suggests CON is dangerous. Any "magical" story could be dangerous if you suggested to a child that he could do magic himself. HP no more so than the others, in my estimation.
 
We had a really interesting discussion on this very subject at our church youth group on sunday. We also included His Dark Materials. The woman leading the discussino thought that CoN and LotR are not dangerous, but HP and HDM are. However, she admitted herself that she reads HP and HDM.
 
waterhogboy said:
We had a really interesting discussion on this very subject at our church youth group on sunday. We also included His Dark Materials. The woman leading the discussino thought that CoN and LotR are not dangerous, but HP and HDM are. However, she admitted herself that she reads HP and HDM.
Click to expand...
I haven't read HDM, but I understand it is an atheist manifesto. Did the Bible study leader somehow link HP and HDM as evil because they reject God? Because I don't see that in HP ...
 
No - they weren't linked in that way. She simply decided that whereas CoN and LotR couldnt be considered dangerous, HP and HDM could.
 
On what basis? I can see HDM because it makes out that religion is evil, correct? But I am curious about HP ...
 
I don't think any of them are dangerous to children. However, the LotR movies shouldn't be watched by kids and I would say that they should watch HP's 'Goblet of Fire' with a parent for the end part.

They are all fantasies and should be taken that way. Harry Potter isn't bad; the magic is silly, kid-like magic most of the time, which is totally different from actual dark magic such as Wicca and whatnot.

I can say this because I used to be totally against Harry Potter. I would suggest reading the books first before making assumptions.
 
I am just now jumping into HP and LOTR for the first time. The magic in HP is fake and means nothing except to push the plot development. Cloak of invisibility means nothing, just a tool the help move the plot along. Ms. Rowling knows nothing about real magic. HP, CON and LOTR are all harmless. Same with OZ books and Peter Pan. I wouldn't say the same about His Dark Materials books by Pullman. It all depends on the intent of the writer.

​

 
Last edited:
Back
Top