First of all, sorry for the silence. I haven’t given adequate fodder for rebuttal. I’ve been on vacation and away from the internet, save net bars, and those get pricey. Let me also begin by saying, “Good arguments,” and “I’ve never read or heard any Falwell (or other) Potter attacks.” My conclusions are self-drawn. Again, having never read any HP, I am limited in my ammunition. There are a lot of people I am responding to here, so I’ll spare the direct quotations.
Let’s begin with children and how they deal with fiction. Do you remember when you were little, and you were watching Saturday morning cartoons? Do you remember the claymation characters singing, “After these messages, we’ll be right back?” The networks were required to do that because children didn’t know the difference between fiction and reality. They needed to be told when the fictional show was stopping, and when real life products were being advertised. But, don’t take my word for it (I have a feeling you wouldn’t anyway, with comments like, “your kid is wacked if they don't know the difference between fantasy and reality…” – courtesy Lady Bookwyrm). Below are a few articles I happened upon just by surfing a bit. I’m sure one could find more with a little more research. Now these deal with advertising specifically, but I believe the points can apply to other media types.
Quoted from:
www.caru.org/guidelines/parent.aspMarking Commercials
“When your children watch television, be sure that they know when the commercials start and stop. Young children may consider the commercial to be part of the program, so it is a good idea to "mark" the commercials for them. At the beginning of a commercial, say:
"Oh it's a commercial. After the commercials, we'll be able to go back to the story."
Help your child to recognize when the commercial starts. There will be a brief "black-out" or other indication of the shift from program to commercial. There is an announcement: "We'll be right back to our program after this . . . "
(this is referring to younger children obviously, but…)
Quoted from:
www.media-awareness.ca/english/parents/marketing/issues_kids_marketing.cfm(I didn’t read the whole article, but it looks good.)
“According to Consumer Reports magazine, 'young children have difficulty distinguishing between advertising and reality in ads, and ads can distort their view of the world.'
Research has shown that children between the ages of two and five cannot differentiate between regular TV programming and commercials. Young children are especially vulnerable to misleading advertising and don't begin to understand that advertisements are not always true until they're eight.
According to the Canadian Toy Testing Council the biggest area of concern with toy ads in Canada is exaggeration. Young children often think a toy actually can do a lot more than it can because of the way toys are portrayed in advertisements.
These concerns have led some jurisdictions to ban all advertising to children. Québec has banned print and broadcast advertising aimed at kids under thirteen. Sweden has banned advertisements aimed at children under 12 and it is lobbying European Union members to adopt similar policies.”
Do what you like with that, but when it comes to children (mine eventually) I want to do my best to protect them, which brings us to the next point. The role of the parent in explaining the reality of magic and spiritual warfare is imperative. Thank you dinadan, for making that argument so excellently. However, I believe that the sad truth of the matter is that too many parents do not sit down with their kids and take the time to explain the dangers.
Finally, what grade school kid hunkers down to read the LOTR trilogy? (Props if you did.) My dad was a big advocate of reading to his children, so after Narnia we delved into Middle Earth. He was there to explain “magic” and what that meant. Furthermore, when I was sitting in the theater watching “Fellowship” many of the kids in the audience got bored with it (it’s a long one) and started getting up, walking around, and leaving the theater. Did you see that when watching an HP film? (I’m getting to a point here, but first a story.)
One evening my wife was checking out books from the children’s section of the library (she was a primary school teacher) and she was waiting behind a grade school boy. He asked the librarian if they had any books about witchcraft and wizardry. The librarian regretfully told him that they were all checked out, but consoled him by offering a book of spells that he could photocopy if he liked. I don’t know the nature of the book she offered, and my wife didn’t check it out, but I would like to emphasize that all of the books on witchcraft were already checked out. Some children are surely reading these books and most likely experimenting, and they don’t know what they’re getting themselves into.
So, what’s the difference between the magic in Lewis and LOTR and HP? Here are some:
1] The hero in HP is a magic user. This is huge. With Lewis we have the white witch and Aslan as the magic users. What kid wants to be the bad guy, or is interested in turning into a lion? We don’t see Edmund and Lucy waving wands. In Tolkien we have Gandalf and the elven ring bearers as the primary heroic magic users. I haven’t checked, but I’m pretty sure the HP costumes are far outranking the white wizard’s in Halloween sales. Gandalf and the elves are powerful magic users and key players, but the primary hero is Frodo. The issue is, is the protagonist someone a child will want to emulate? If a child wants to emulate a Lewis hero, she will either adopt a British accent, begin deliberately walking into closets, or start roaring. Tolkien – I can’t picture this happening. We might see a white robe and a staff appear, but I doubt it.
A personal example here: for what it’s worth, when I was little and my dad was reading Lewis and Tolkien to me, I don’t recall desiring to further study the workings of magic. I believe I mostly longed for the reality of an alternate world. However, I do recall being envious of Peter Pan – flying, swashbuckling, and never growing old – now he, a heroic child with “magical” powers, I desired to emulate. I could relate to his never desiring to age, and flying just sounded so cool. He was someone I could admire and sympathize with. He appealed to me, but I don't think the idea of fairy dust is harmful to children.
2] HP books are marketed specifically at the child fantasy genre, Lewis was, but LOTR certainly was not. Tolkien’s audience is much more equipped for dealing with the fiction/reality of magic. With Lewis, again I don’t believe this is harmful if the main protagonists are the children. HP’s audience, I believe, does not yet have the necessary discernment (yourselves excluded) for dealing with a world where magic heals all.
3] J.K. gives examples of spells by, apparently, cleverly employing Latin. There is certainly nothing ethically wrong with the Latin language, but neither Lewis nor Tolkien give children a vehicle for experimentation, or I’ll go so far as to say, attempt to pique a child’s interest in that realm.
That’s it for now. Sorry for resurrecting the older topic. Feel free to ignore my comments and continue with conjectures on future HP plot twists. That being said, I warily await the counteroffensive.
Twyrch /|\
