Why is LOTR acceptable among Christians...

[Krillin]

...but not Harry Potter?

I'm not defending Harry Potter at all. But sometimes I do stop and think about what makes one thing right, and another wrong. I mean LOTR alone has magic, demonic beings, and I remember seeing an article explain that Tolkien's inspiration for the elves came from Norse mythology - or at the very least, eerily resembles what can be found within it. Also, Tolkien went as far as to create a god over the middle earth universe named Eru. Although he isn't spoken about in the foreground of LOTR or The Hobbit, he does hold great significance to the history of Middle Earth.

It seems the only thing that makes LOTR acceptable to Christians is that Tolkien himself was a Christian, and that certain theologically correct Christian themes seem to make the story as interesting and exciting as it is.

So where exactly can we draw the line between LOTR and HP? Is it literally because one was written by a Christian and the other wasn't?

EDIT: I should also add that (If I understand correctly) Tolkien did not actually even intend on making a story that reflects Christian beliefs, unlike C.S Lewis with Narnia.

 

[asiyreh]

Lol good question I'm tempted to say yes. But I want to have a think about this and come back to it later

 

[Krillin]

Lol good question I'm tempted to say yes. But I want to have a think about this and come back to it later

It's good to think.

 

[Fireball1244]

A great many Christians, probably most, find nothing objectionable about Harry Potter, as it is clearly fiction and not actually encouraging people to become wiccans.

 

[Hetta]

Tolkein was a Catholic, and so while he did tap into various mythologies, he also tapped into his background in Catholicism. LOTR has many very positive themes including those of loyalty, friendship, overcoming temptation, heroism ... I mean, I could sit here all day and make a long, long list.

I am a fan of both LOTR and HP. My children have also been exposed to both and we have had a great many really excellent conversations based around the themes.

 

[RDKirk]

...but not Harry Potter?

I'm not defending Harry Potter at all. But sometimes I do stop and think about what makes one thing right, and another wrong. I mean LOTR alone has magic, demonic beings, and I remember seeing an article explain that Tolkien's inspiration for the elves came from Norse mythology - or at the very least, eerily resembles what can be found within it. Also, Tolkien went as far as to create a god over the middle earth universe named Eru. Although he isn't spoken about in the foreground of LOTR or The Hobbit, he does hold great significance to the history of Middle Earth.

It seems the only thing that makes LOTR acceptable to Christians is that Tolkien himself was a Christian, and that certain theologically correct Christian themes seem to make the story as interesting and exciting as it is.

So where exactly can we draw the line between LOTR and HP? Is it literally because one was written by a Christian and the other wasn't?

EDIT: I should also add that (If I understand correctly) Tolkien did not actually even intend on making a story that reflects Christian beliefs, unlike C.S Lewis with Narnia.

One thing is the actual relationship of success with magic. In LOTR, magic is a generally negative force.

Throughout the series of books, those who desire and use magic most are the antagonists; those who withhold the use of magic are the protagonists.

Happiness comes to the characters in LOTR in inverse proportion to their use of magic. The most successful and happy ending comes to the character that had the least interaction and use for magic.

 

[asiyreh]

How do you feel about CS. Lewis and Narnia Krill. I assume you would ask the same question? Or maybe not...

 

[cerette]

It's not generally so that all Christians are against Harry Potter.
Personally I have no problem with it, it's just pretend and using your imagination. Sort of like Santa and other things like that..fairy tales.

 

[Fireball1244]

Gandalf is a powerful major-weilder in LOTR, and he is not evil nor does he come to a bad end. He even bears a ring of power, as does Galadriel and Elrond, both of whom are noble throughout. In the end, Sam and Frodo are saved by the magic of Radagast the Brown.

 

[Krillin]

One thing is the actual relationship of success with magic. In LOTR, magic is a generally negative force.

Throughout the series of books, those who desire and use magic most are the antagonists; those who withhold the use of magic are the protagonists.

Happiness comes to the characters in LOTR in inverse proportion to their use of magic. The most successful and happy ending comes to the character that had the least interaction and use for magic.

Ah, these are good points. Never thought about it like that.

It's like Gandalf is a pharmacologist while Saruman is more like an addict.

 

[Max Shade]

CS Lewis and Tolkien were conversation partners. They talked.

That said, Harry Potter is fine fiction too. To the limited extent I have been exposed to it (having been in a room where it, one of them, was being shown while trying to finish case notes) it didn't seem problematic for Christians. It was certainly fiction and it was devoid of anti-Christian themes. I would suggest that Christians who have a problem with Harry Potter are probably in the same camp as Christians who have a problem with secular music (even stuff that has good theological themes and may even quote Scripture like Matisyahu and U2) and think that satanists putting up a statue outside a courthouse would be bad (for real satan statue might make people think about doing right on their way out or into a courthouse). By and large there are some Christians who will speak against anything outside their comfort zone. . . but they are a vocal minority and nothing more. They don't speak for all of Christendom and certainly have a hard time backing their reactionary stances with legit Scripture.

 

[RDKirk]

Ah, these are good points. Never thought about it like that.

It's like Gandalf is a pharmacologist while Saruman is more like an addict.

Yes. Magic is not Gandalf's modus operandi. Given a choice, he does not use it. And the Brown wizard was more of a "herbologist" (and I use "herb" her even in its slang use) than a pharmacologist.

 

[abysmul]

Harry Potter stories got a bad wrap because the media fed the attention seeking nut job-book burner types (which are a miniscule minority).

Nothing wrong with HP, LOTRO, or Narnia.

 

[Inkachu]

As a tremendously huge geek and fan of both franchises...

They don't compare to each other in terms of quality, depth, and enduring impact. LOTR is like the Shakespearean epic of fantasies, it will endure for centuries and nothing will ever surpass it. Harry Potter is a generational phenomenon, it will probably remain popular for a generation or two (maybe more, who knows), but it will never be as beloved or deep-seated in peoples' hearts as LOTR.

LOTR is much more pure in its storytelling and its motives than HP. HP has seeds of teen sexuality, rebellion, family dysfunction, even homosexuality (Dumbledore turns out to be gay, I'm still saying "what the freak" on that one). HP is dark, violent, and depressing in many ways. Unlike the noble character of Frodo, Harry is an angry, sullen, messed-up teen boy through much of the story. LOTR does deal with themes of evil and violence, but you aren't immersed into it and "marinated" in it like with HP. LOTR focuses on following the good characters; HP allows you to ride the fine line between good and evil, suggesting that "we're all a little of both".

While I don't have a problem with the witchcrafty/sorcery argument towards either LOTR or HP... I just find that LOTR leaves my soul feeling cleaner than after I read HP.

 

[RDKirk]

As a tremendously huge geek and fan of both franchises...

They don't compare to each other in terms of quality, depth, and enduring impact. LOTR is like the Shakespearean epic of fantasies, it will endure for centuries and nothing will ever surpass it. Harry Potter is a generational phenomenon, it will probably remain popular for a generation or two (maybe more, who knows), but it will never be as beloved or deep-seated in peoples' hearts as LOTR.

LOTR is much more pure in its storytelling and its motives than HP. HP has seeds of teen sexuality, rebellion, family dysfunction, even homosexuality (Dumbledore turns out to be gay, I'm still saying "what the freak" on that one). HP is dark, violent, and depressing in many ways. Unlike the noble character of Frodo, Harry is an angry, sullen, messed-up teen boy through much of the story. LOTR does deal with themes of evil and violence, but you aren't immersed into it and "marinated" in it like with HP. LOTR focuses on following the good characters; HP allows you to ride the fine line between good and evil, suggesting that "we're all a little of both".

While I don't have a problem with the witchcrafty/sorcery argument towards either LOTR or HP... I just find that LOTR leaves my soul feeling cleaner than after I read HP.

Good points. LOTR thus meets the requirements of the Philippian Prescription.

 

[Hetta]

As a tremendously huge geek and fan of both franchises...

They don't compare to each other in terms of quality, depth, and enduring impact. LOTR is like the Shakespearean epic of fantasies, it will endure for centuries and nothing will ever surpass it. Harry Potter is a generational phenomenon, it will probably remain popular for a generation or two (maybe more, who knows), but it will never be as beloved or deep-seated in peoples' hearts as LOTR.

LOTR is much more pure in its storytelling and its motives than HP. HP has seeds of teen sexuality, rebellion, family dysfunction, even homosexuality (Dumbledore turns out to be gay, I'm still saying "what the freak" on that one). HP is dark, violent, and depressing in many ways. Unlike the noble character of Frodo, Harry is an angry, sullen, messed-up teen boy through much of the story. LOTR does deal with themes of evil and violence, but you aren't immersed into it and "marinated" in it like with HP. LOTR focuses on following the good characters; HP allows you to ride the fine line between good and evil, suggesting that "we're all a little of both".

While I don't have a problem with the witchcrafty/sorcery argument towards either LOTR or HP... I just find that LOTR leaves my soul feeling cleaner than after I read HP.

I agree with you Inka that LOTR will endure. It already has for half a century after all.

I just wanted to take some issue with the third para. I don't think it's really fair to compare Frodo to Harry. Harry, as you said, is a teen boy. Frodo is an adult. Harry is given an equally hard task to bear as Frodo, but he has not the same level of maturity. ISTM that Frodo has always been surrounded by those who love him - friends and family - but look at Harry's childhood. When we first meet him, his room is basically the downstairs closet. His family of adoption seems to hate him. So he starts out on his 'quest' with far less in the bank, imo, than Frodo.

HP has, as I said, allowed me to have some great conversations with my kids about love and the nature of good and evil. While we've had good conversations about LOTR, it has been based more upon the movies, because while the kids have all read HP, they have found LOTR to be inaccessible. Now I have read LOTR more time than I can count, so I'm well grounded in every aspect of the story, but while much of that transfers to screen, some of it does not. Also, the characters are 'older', and HP is - of course - a boy. That character (and Ron, and Hermione) are far more accessible to many teens.

I didn't get the "riding the lines between evil and good" in HP that you did. I thought it was clearly expressed that Voldemort is completely evil, and that he tries to persuade Harry that he too is/could be just as evil (like Darth Vader and Luke of course), and Harry has his doubts about that because he's not sure if he's somehow condemned to become evil. But even then (still as a teen!) he rejects evil and even sacrifices himself, when he could have used magic to not die (the resurrection stone). I just re-watched the last three movies of course, so it's much more fresh with me right now.

Anyway, I only ever read any of the HP books once. They were a great read but I'm not really interested in re-visiting, whereas I re-read LOTR for the umpteenth time last year. So, evidently one is more appealing to me than the other.

Just wanted to give my defense on behalf of HP. You know I love you, right, so not trying to start a fight here!

 

[Scott1979]

I'm a LOTR addict but I guess something may be wrong with me because I never thought about the religious implications of the movie. It's just a great series in my opinion.

 

[Emil Rez52]

It's more picking and choosing, really. Though some do say Lewis and Tolkein were not real Christians, so who knows. Not everyone thinks they're great.

 

[Inkachu]

I agree with you Inka that LOTR will endure. It already has for half a century after all.

I just wanted to take some issue with the third para. I don't think it's really fair to compare Frodo to Harry. Harry, as you said, is a teen boy. Frodo is an adult. Harry is given an equally hard task to bear as Frodo, but he has not the same level of maturity. ISTM that Frodo has always been surrounded by those who love him - friends and family - but look at Harry's childhood. When we first meet him, his room is basically the downstairs closet. His family of adoption seems to hate him. So he starts out on his 'quest' with far less in the bank, imo, than Frodo.

HP has, as I said, allowed me to have some great conversations with my kids about love and the nature of good and evil. While we've had good conversations about LOTR, it has been based more upon the movies, because while the kids have all read HP, they have found LOTR to be inaccessible. Now I have read LOTR more time than I can count, so I'm well grounded in every aspect of the story, but while much of that transfers to screen, some of it does not. Also, the characters are 'older', and HP is - of course - a boy. That character (and Ron, and Hermione) are far more accessible to many teens.

I didn't get the "riding the lines between evil and good" in HP that you did. I thought it was clearly expressed that Voldemort is completely evil, and that he tries to persuade Harry that he too is/could be just as evil (like Darth Vader and Luke of course), and Harry has his doubts about that because he's not sure if he's somehow condemned to become evil. But even then (still as a teen!) he rejects evil and even sacrifices himself, when he could have used magic to not die (the resurrection stone). I just re-watched the last three movies of course, so it's much more fresh with me right now.

Anyway, I only ever read any of the HP books once. They were a great read but I'm not really interested in re-visiting, whereas I re-read LOTR for the umpteenth time last year. So, evidently one is more appealing to me than the other.

Just wanted to give my defense on behalf of HP. You know I love you, right, so not trying to start a fight here!

Normally, I wouldn't bother comparing the two lead characters OR the stories themselves at all (which I think I said in my first post), because they're on two entirely different levels IMHO. I only compared them here because that's what the thread is about

What I meant about "the line between good and evil", is that even some of the "good" characters in HP are so flawed that they hardly seem on the side of good at all sometimes. Harry himself, as I said, goes through such dark periods, where he is angry all the time, sullen, resentful, withdrawn... hardly a shining "good guy" character. He has moments where he almost falls into "the dark side" himself by virtue of his own personality flaws and weaknesses, walking the line between control and rage, virtue and violence. In other words, the story (to me) makes it clear that "any one of us" could end up on the dark side if born into or raised under the right circumstances, and it's only a matter of our choices that make us good or evil. And while that's not a bad lesson overall, the point is that you feel none of that from LOTR. The good guys are absolutely good. The bad guys are absolutely bad. You never feel like Frodo is going to snap and just start killing people. You never think "Oh, Frodo could SO EASILY have been a wraith if only life had been a little harsher to him!" I hope that makes sense. As usual, I am terrible at explaining myself.

Love you, too, and I KNOW you'd never just try to start a fight with me lol. I enjoy your well-thought-out posts, even if they don't agree with mine

 

[Inkachu]

I'm a LOTR addict but I guess something may be wrong with me because I never thought about the religious implications of the movie. It's just a great series in my opinion.

I'm more or less "aware" of the stories regarding Tolkien, CS Lewis, their faiths, their motives behind their writings, the controversies about their stuff, etc. I don't really CARE about any of that... but I'm aware of it