How do you feel about Stratford Caldecott, Paul Kerry, Peter Kreeft, Alison Milbank, Joseph Pearce, Richard Purtill, Ralph Wood?
I’m a little too young to directly remember the attitude that Tolkien was an author for hippies, but I seem to recall that LeGuin talked a bit about that idea in her “Language of the Night” - and the National Lampoon seemed to think that hippie and drug references were the right way to pastiche Tolkien in “Bored of the Rings.”
I noticed. He was totally overstating it. I defer to your mastery of lore.
I disagree; there is plenty of “white magic” in LOTR.
And although the good guys generally resisted the temptation to use the One Ring, Frodo eventually did use it and nearly caused the failure of the entire quest.
Joseph Pearce, like Bradley Birzer, tries too hard to read Catholic meanings into Tolkien’s works. He has also written books in which he tries to show that C. S. Lewis was really (if only unconsiously) a Catholic too.
I don’t know much about Stratford Caldecott. He has also written a book about interpreting The Lord of the Rings in the light of Tolkien’s Catholic faith. The same is true of Paul Kerry, Alison Milibank, Ralph Wood, and Peter Kreeft. I gather that they are all Catholics who want to show people that there are Catholic values deeply embedded in The Lord of the Rings. This all strikes me as true and yet overemphasized. It appears to me that there are a bunch of Catholic scholars who feel the need to show that it’s necessary for Tolkien’s Catholic faith to be obvious to everyone who reads the books, even though it isn’t.
Richard Purtill is a reasonably good scholar. He sees the Christian values in The Lord of the Rings without overemphasizing them.
I don’t know much about the history of Christian revivalism, so I actually included Jewish fundamentalism in the OP for just that reason; I do know that Jewish fundamentalism is really taking root in the States post-World-War-II and by 56, the Haredi Orthodox leadership is confident enough to launch a unified full-scale theological battle with Modern Orthodoxy’s rabbinic association (via the Synagogue Council of America controversy)
Well, it’s only natural that Lewis would look a lot like a Catholic, since Anglicans are a lot like Catholics. All the more so since Lewis had a Catholic upbringing.
Very astute of you. All the horror stories about Harry Potter were based around the concept that kids would learn about witchcraft from it. It was often portrayed as a guide to becoming a witch or wizard. The fact that it was portrayed so realistically was the problem. They believed this was what real believers in magick thought.
The fact that it was our protagonist, who thought he was a normal human, had the same problem. In the other works mentioned, the human protagonists didn’t do magic. In fact, in Narnia, the one human who did do magic, Polly and Digory’s uncle, was explicitly declared to be evil. And witchcraft was explicitly condemned in Prince Caspian.
That’s the thing. Fundamentalists generally don’t have something against all magic, just witchcraft. I wish I could describe the difference, but I’ll leave that to someone else. The one thing I know is that magic from other people doesn’t count. And, oddly enough, shows like Bewitched or Sabrina the Teenaged Witch generally don’t count, either.
Perhaps it is because Harry wears black. I do know there is a definite creep out factor with wearing black, and anything creepy is bad.
Nitpick. Lewis was raised as an Anglican. And Belfast Anglicans are not quite as much like Catholics as Anglicans in some other places are.
Nitpick, ‘Scotland’. And I haven’t heard any conservative fundamentalists complaining about her writing on the dole (as a single mother, gasp).
Bpelta writes:
> I don’t know much about the history of Christian revivalism, so I actually
> included Jewish fundamentalism in the OP for just that reason; I do know that
> Jewish fundamentalism is really taking root in the States post-World-War-II and
> by 56, the Haredi Orthodox leadership is confident enough to launch a unified
> full-scale theological battle with Modern Orthodoxy’s rabbinic association (via
> the Synagogue Council of America controversy)
And why would Jewish fundamentalists care about The Lord of the Rings? In fact, why would they care about any novel that’s not overtly about Jewish life? As I understand it, Jewish movements in that period were about unity within Judaism, not about any irrelevant trends in American (or British) life. This was just after the Holocaust and during the early days of the new state of Israel. Why would they care whether an obscure British novel with no clear connection to Judaism might espouse views on magic that might or might not be opposed to any typical Christian or Jewish views on the subject?
Scotland… she was on the **brew **in Edinburgh
[spoiler]
But it was universally condemned. Frodo didn’t use the ring out of a belief that it was good–he was giving in against his will. This is not approval.
Gandalf undeniably had great power. In addition to any innate power, he wore Narya, the ring of fire. Nevertheless, any use of the power available to Gandalf was always downplayed. Any power he used directly in the books seems to be limited to light. There is the episode in the balrog, where it is implied he must have used great power to defeat the demon, but it is not portrayed in the books. The movies portray the fight with the balrog, but that is Peter Jackson’s doing, not Tolkien’s. Use of magic power by the good guys is definitely lacking in the books, whereas it is used widely by the bad guys (ringwraiths/Saruman. [/spoiler]
The problem my fellow fundamentalists have with Harry Potter is that they are afraid it will tempt their children into the occult. The story involves a seemingly ordinary child gaining great power and prestige through the use of sorcery. They are afraid that this will appeal to their children who will start to dabble in magic and the next thing you know the kid has 5 cats, an extra 30 pounds, a sage garden, and a pickup truck with a Blessed Be bumper sticker.
LOTR takes place in another world so different than our own that no one could conceivably be tempted to become a part of it.
QFT! But I suppose, like everything, it’s different when Jesus does it.
With a name like “Puddleglum”, I was really hoping you’d chime in on the Narnia angle. 
I don’t know about Kentucky, but I was in college in 1971 and pretty much everyone had read it. The Ace editions had already been stopped, and the authorized Ballantine editions were selling quite well.
NatLamp thought drug and sex references were the right way to satirize anything. “Bored of the Rings” was a pretty standard job for them.
I don’t remember LOTR being associated with hippies, more with college students in general. I suppose those who’d consider anyone not a white-shirt wearing short haired Nixon voter as a hippie might think this.
As for Harry Potter, I agree that magic using non-Christians living today are much considered as much more offensive to these types than those living long before Jesus.
Just like drinking alcohol. Remember, Jesus was a pusher. 
This being GQ and all that, I assume you have cites out the wazoo for both of these? :dubious:
I always thought the explanation was pretty simple.
LOTR: totally fantastic, unreal, not-Earth world, so presumably sorcery, non-human creatures like Orcs, and a different set of deities would be ok, since it’s obviously fantastic, etc… Kind of like science fiction in that way- real aliens haven’t been shown to exist, so why worry?
Harry Potter: Our world, but with a distinctly magical sub-culture and world underneath. As you can imagine, this runs more afoul of the Fundamentalist’s ideas about witchcraft and sorcery.
I think they must think this sorcery stuff is actually real, because since the Bible condemns it it must be real, so they think a movie about it is a direct affront to their faith and the way they want to raise their children.
Kind of irrational and short-sighted (you’d think you’d want to show it to your kids and explain why it was bad, rather than make it forbidden fruit), but then again, when have rationality and far-sightedness been hallmarks of the Fundamentalist Christians?