Magic and Morality in Tolkien, Lewis and Rowling

[truehobbit]

I hope this will be a controversial topic.

Or maybe it’ll just turn out to be a big misunderstanding on my part.

And I’m hoping the topic is alright in this forum. Even though it’s just a third Tolkien, we can take Tolkien as a reference point.

First off, I had meant to wait till I had read/re-read some more, but this would postpone the topic to kingdom come, and it’s something that's been on my mind for some time.
I’ve recently re-read “The Lion, the Witch and the Warderobe” (and liked it much better than the first time round), but this is still the only Lewis I’ve read. What I can say about Tolkien and Rowling is also based on memory more than any recent re-reading.
But the aspects I’d like to discuss are anyway not just things I noticed from the books, but things I heard from other people about the books – so, here’s what’s been puzzling me.

These authors are often discussed side by side. Fans of one often are fans of one or both of the others. And yet, people seem to consider Lewis more of a relation to Tolkien than Rowling, who sometimes seems to be seen as more of an antagonist to him.

More particularly, the three authors partly receive praise and partly criticism for the morals of their books, and another issue seems to be the fantastic and magic world they create – and most astonishingly simply the use of magic in them. And these are the aspects I've been concerned with.
Whether it’s praise or criticism, I know it depends on the worldview of the people giving it, but what I heard can, roughly generalising, be summed up like this:

• - Tolkien is mostly praised for his morality. He sometimes gets condemned for his use of magic, but often the praise for the morality outweighs the concern about the magic. He is sometimes but not often banned where people are worried about books having some dangerous influence on their kids.
  - Lewis is usually praised for his morality, too. Sometimes he is condemned for it, though. I don’t remember ever hearing a comment on Lewis’s use of magic, which I find particularly astonishing, because it would seem that some of the worldview that praises his morality is the same that generally condemns magic. I’ve never heard of him being banned for having a dangerous influence.
  - Rowling gets a lot of flak for her use of magic, and with some people her books are viewed as morally deficient. I’ve never heard praise for the morality in her books, and they appear to be regularly banned for having a dangerous influence.

Needless to say, I guess (otherwise there would not be a topic ) my take on this is rather different.
I have no problem with magic in general, it depends on how it’s portrayed within the world of the book.

The reason I love Tolkien’s work is because of the morality it propounds. It’s thoughtful, humane and does not gloss over the predicaments a discriminating ethic approach that does not deal in simplistic black-and-white characterisations inevitably creates.
I think there is hardly any magic in his books, what there is in terms of the supernatural hardly ever is of the conscious making of mortals (or even of immortals, for that matter).

I recently re-read “The Lion, the Witch and the Warderobe” and I thought it was a nice book. I could not detect any specific or deep morality. There was quite a lot of magic used by both the good and the evil side, but it’s restricted to the highest creatures.

I like Rowling very much because, for me, she combines a well-written, curious world with sound, thoughtful and humane morality. Magic is of course rampant everywhere, as it’s the subject of the story. It comes as something one is born with, thus dividing the world into those able and those not able to do magic. However, within the world of those having the gene for magic, the general world, with its divisions of friendly and malevolent, is simply repeated.

I guess that from these you can already see my problem:

If someone has a general problem with magic, considering it evil and harmful and something that children should not be confronted with, then I understand their condemnation of Rowling’s books. But in that case, shouldn’t they ban Lewis as well?

If, on the other hand, what you are looking for in a good book for your kids, is instruction in sound morals, it would seem to me that you’d have Rowling ranking right behind Tolkien.

So, basically, what I’m asking is: why do so many people seem to consider Lewis comparable to Tolkien, but not Rowling? What are the criteria they use to come to this evaluation?

And how do you feel about this? In comparative evaluation, who stands where for you, and what criteria do you use?

Or maybe you find I’m completely off with my assessment of any or all of the books or with my perception of how they tend to be received? If so, please explain, too!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Very interesting post, hobby, and certainly appropriate for this forum. I'm not sure how much comparison I can do, because I haven't read Rowling, nor have I read Lewis for many years. But I will try to give some more thought about the questions that you raise particularly as they relate to Tolkien and come back an post some of those thoughts.

[axordil]

For some readers, it boils down to Tolkien and Lewis being not only Christian, but Christian Thinkers--Lewis more professionaly and overtly so (and less skillfully for all that). Rowling's faith or lack thereof is not as apparent or as relevant.

Thus, what is "magic" and thus bad in Rowling is "miraculous" and good in Lewis.

Of course, the REALLY strict types think they are all equally bad. But then, they have their own fantasy series: Left Behind.

[truehobbit]

Thanks, Voronwë - you could just say what you remember of Lewis, which would be gut reaction, and as interesting as reasoned analysis - and what you think of Rowling from what you heard, without having read it - that would be very interesting, too.

Ax, but from just reading their books, would we know about any of their religious outlooks?
I couldn't tell what Rowling thinks of religion at all; if I had only read Tolkien's books, and nothing about him, I don't think I'd know where he stood in terms of established religion, and from just reading "The Lion..." I also wouldn't gather any Christian connections.
Religious outlook isn't apparent in any of these books, I think, but some of the moral statements we find in the Harry Potter books would, I think, have appealed to Tolkien.

But I think the differentiation between magic and miraculous is interesting - it might go a good way to explain why Rowling can be found reprehensible at the same time that Lewis is commended.

And, yes, of course people whose worldview allows for no fiction at all on principle can't really figure in this comparison.

[axordil]

and from just reading "The Lion..." I also wouldn't gather any Christian connections.

It's pretty much a textbook Christian allegory wrapped in a tissue of fantasy material. To be fair, the first time I read it, it slid right by me unnoticed (I was 15 or so at the time and felt the story itself a little juvenile by comparison to LOTR...and that much hasn't changed ). Then I asked a Jewish friend if she had read it...and came to understand that sometimes if you're NOT whom a book was written for, its polemics can be much more transparent.

I personally find that there is a "deeper" and more satisfying moral order to JRRT or Rowling than Lewis, possibly because neither LOTR nor Potter is didactic the way Narnia is...and possibly because Lewis just wasn't that good a writer.

There is one important difference you allude to...the kids in Potter very much have their destinies in their hands. They matter. They can do things good or ill and there are consequences either way. The kids in Narnia also always struck me as being just along for the ride, as opposed to being active agents in their own destiny...they could screw up, but they couldn't do anything on their own (except obey) to aid in their futures. While that may jibe with Lewis's theology, in terms of fiction writing, it's a real buzzkill.

[MithLuin]

From what I understand, Rowling is a Christian and goes to church - though this certainly isn't publicized or even verified. I think because she didn't come right out and mention her religion (Anglican?) some people took her silence to mean something more 'sinister.'

JRRT's religion was certainly important to him, but again, it wasn't something he 'publicized'. In the BBC interview with him, the man asking questions seems very tentative about whether or not you can detect the existence of God in LotR - and Tolkien responds with his "I'm a Roman Catholic - a devout Roman Catholic." But that isn't obvious to everyone just from reading his book .

If someone has a general problem with magic, considering it evil and harmful and something that children should not be confronted with, then I understand their condemnation of Rowling’s books. But in that case, shouldn’t they ban Lewis as well?

Erm....some have. A few cautions about the website I'm about to link. The guy is so strict and closeminded that he thinks everyone is going to hell. His views are so unique that he can't even find a decent Baptist church to go to - he had to start one in his own home. I think that (in his opinion) children should not be allowed to read much of anything, and certainly nothing like 'fantasy'. Basically, the rest of the Christian community considers him a cultish heretic...

But here you have it: C. S. Lewis: the devil's wisest fool

Basically, his thesis is that Lewis was not a Christian, he never had a true conversion, and the Narnia books are evil. You probably don't want to read this - it will make any sane person angry. But anyway, it is a detailed (though ignorant) analysis of the influence of the occult in Narnia.

Many of us have been exposed to The Chronicles of Narnia at some point in our lives either through the books themselves or through one of the many videos, animated and regular movies, games, etc. they have inspired. My own parents read these books to my brother and I when we were young, but over time became less and less pleased with them as the Lord brought various things to their attention. We eventually discarded them, and my dad, having obtained some information on Lewis' heresies and associations, lost respect for him as any kind of a Christian resource. C.S. Lewis has amazing staying power for many, however, and perhaps nowhere more than in his "innocent" fantasies for children.

The Chronicles of Narnia are one of the most powerful tools of Satan that Lewis ever produced. Worst of all, these books are geared toward children. Please go to page 3 to read about this indoctrinating tool of witchcraft.

Not surprisingly, this man shares equally poor views of JKR's Harry Potter and JRRT. But then...there's very little he does approve of . These are the only stories I know of that he approves for children.

I do apologize for this insane post, I just wanted to mention this....

[Primula Baggins]

Whoo!

Favorite Narnia-related quote after a quick look:

The word "ass" appears in 4 of the books. Being British, it did not mean the same to him as it does to Americans (as a swear word), but he could have left it out, especially since he only used it four times and did use "donkey" in other places. However, considering the filthy state of his mind, it is possible that he thought this cute. Certainly, he could have had it editted out when he realized the books were going to sold in America as well.

Plus people drink wine with evident pleasure. Whoo! My eyes have been opened.

This actually relates to a point I wanted to make—that I do find morality in Rowling, and that I think the books have more to say to children than the Narnia books.

I believe I'm like many, or even most, Christians in that I don't think moral education has to be explicitly Christian to be valuable. Harry Potter is not remotely Christian, but the books have plenty to say about honesty, loyalty, courage, and love, and about the adolescent journey from learning whom to trust to learning to trust oneself.

Some of the same lessons are in the Narnia books, but to my taste they rely too much on characters making a simple choice (to be on Aslan's side, or not), after which there is nothing left to think about; one just follows one's chosen leader. When of course life is much more complicated than that; we all, of any faith or none, have choices to make every day of our lives, and it never lets up. Rowling's books are more "useful" in that sense.

[axordil]

they rely too much on characters making a simple choice (to be on Aslan's side, or not), after which there is nothing left to think about; one just follows one's chosen leader. When of course life is much more complicated than that...

Or at least WE think it is. A lot of the world's population historically has opted for the follow-the-leader approach, though.

[Whistler]

I believe that people who object to the magic in Rowling (I have strongly mixed feelings, myself) and not in Lewis or Tolkien usually object on the basis of context.

It isn't that Lewis is given a pass because he is a well-known Christian, while Rowling is denied that pass because she is not (if indeed she is a Christian) a vocal Christian apologist. The same people who object to Harry Potter-style magic have no quarrel with the magic in (for example) The Wizard of Oz or traditional fairy tales. That's because the Potter stories take place in what is ostensibly the real world. (This is also the case with Tolkien, but his "real" world is so far removed from ours that it is easy to ignore the fact.) Because the stories occur in the real word, a world in which Christ and Christianity are present, it is simply too hard (for many) to draw a clear line between Potter's "innocent" magic and the real occultism which is firmly at odds with Christian morality. The morality of one cannot mix with the morality of the other.

The magic in Middle-earth and Narnia is not magic of this nature. It's simply a neutral fact of life, just as television and the internet are to us. It's simply the way things are. In itself, it has no moral dimension at all and does not clash with any formal system of morality. That somebody can turn into a pumpkin means no more, in a fantasy world, than the fact that we can make a telephone call.

There are other reasons why the Potter stories are singled out as "questionable" by those whose morality is rooted in Christianity. It isn't so much that they depict magic, but that they revolve around the acquisition of magic. And those engaged in this quest are not the elderly wizards and fairy godmothers of traditional stories; they are children with whom juvenile readers are expected to identify. This fact, I think, is the thing that troubles people most.

I don't condemn books I haven't read, but I did avoid the Potter stories for a long time because I couldn't reconcile their world with my own. I simply found the notion too jarring. I have since looked into them, and I find nothing specifically objectionable about them: Their magic has almost no parallels with any real-world occultism. But I am still vaguely uncomfortable with them and cannot embrace them as I do Tolkien and Lewis and a score of others, despite their obvious merit. Prim observes correctly that they do indeed contain good moral lessons which are entirely in keeping with Christian beliefs. It's just my personal wish (and only that) that Rowling had written them somewhat differently.

MithLuin:
I have read MUCH worse, and will do everyone a favor by not saying where.

[axordil]

Hmmm. Granted that Narnia per se is definitely Not Our World, the framing of the Narnia series IS in our world, specifically WWII England. That's where the characters are from, and where they return to. In a way, that aspect feels very much like Rowling's, where the kids pass through a hidden portal only they can perceive to arrive at Hogwarts...

While they are in WWII England, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of magic, it's true. Could someone more familiar with the Potter books comment as to how much magic is practiced amongst the muggles? And whether Hogwarts and other "enchanted" environs are "of this world" or not?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

One thing that sets Rowling apart from Tolkien is that she seems to set practitioners of Magic above normal people (or at least that is the sense that I get). Muggles seem to be looked down upon. Whereas in Tolkien, it is a basic premise of LOTR a "normal" person with no special powers can make a difference in the world. Of course, it is my contention that Frodo is not a "normal" person, but he is extraordinary in a moral sense rather then in a magical sense, and perhaps that is where the big difference lies.

[axordil]

In a way, now that you mention it Voronwë, there is an odd medieval morality play ambience to Rowling...the supporting cast's special powers are to an extent their characters as well.

But yes, the main protagonists are very different in conception. Arguably, in the context of the magical realm, where EVERYONE has magic, Harry's moral compass is much more important than even his considerable magical promise.

But it is sort of like a Muggle ending up saving Hogwarts, isn't it?

[Whistler]

Voronwë, I am also a bit uneasy with the (excuse the term) "master race" mentality behind the Potter books. Rowling's world includes certain people who are extraordinary through no merit of their own. Those who are not of their class cannot aspire to it, no matter how hard they work or how virtuous they prove themselves to be.

Tolkien, on the other hand, takes enormous delight in the "exaltation of the humble." The same idea appears in Lewis. I find that much more satisfying.

[axordil]

The same idea appears in Lewis.

Until the humble try to unionize at least.

I think the magical/muggle distinction is the least appealing aspect of the Potter books for myself. Although it's not all that different from, say, the Marvel comic book universe, where superpowers and those who have them are feared and loathed as much as admired. Or the Julian May books on telepathy. Or the entire oeuvre of Marian Zimmer Bradley. Or...the list goes on and on.

But the socio-political structure of SF and fantasy is a bigger topic.

[truehobbit]

and from just reading "The Lion..." I also wouldn't gather any Christian connections.

It's pretty much a textbook Christian allegory wrapped in a tissue of fantasy material. To be fair, the first time I read it, it slid right by me unnoticed

I didn't notice it either (I was in my early twenties when I read it for the first time), and on re-reading now, I felt that, if I hadn't known, I still wouldn't have noticed. In fact, I kept looking for it, and finding hardly anything. (Probably because, to me, a talking lion cannot possibly serve as a metaphor for Jesus, so even in the sacrificial scenes I was glad that I could not see a real equivalent, as that would probably only have seemed somewhat blasphemic to me.)
And from what I've heard, many who read it never notice until they are told.

Then I asked a Jewish friend if she had read it...and came to understand that sometimes if you're NOT whom a book was written for, its polemics can be much more transparent.

So, do you mean she had not read it or read it and been offended?
And if so, did she notice the allegory without being told or was she told it was meant as Christian allegory beforehand?

I personally find that there is a "deeper" and more satisfying moral order to JRRT or Rowling than Lewis, possibly because neither LOTR nor Potter is didactic the way Narnia is...and possibly because Lewis just wasn't that good a writer.

Hmmh, no, I think it's what Prim said: it's because the moral order in Tolkien and Rowling is not that simple. They acknowledge the complexity of our world and that choices are never clearcut, but you have to make them anyway.
But maybe the Narnia series is for younger children? (Though I hear that HP and LOTR is read by very young readers, too.) I've not been in contact with children of any age for very long, so I'm afraid I can't tell at what age you can expect them to deal with what sort of moral dilemma.
I can only talk about what the morality of a book has to say to me.

There is one important difference you allude to...the kids in Potter very much have their destinies in their hands. They matter. They can do things good or ill and there are consequences either way. The kids in Narnia also always struck me as being just along for the ride, as opposed to being active agents in their own destiny...they could screw up, but they couldn't do anything on their own (except obey) to aid in their futures. While that may jibe with Lewis's theology, in terms of fiction writing, it's a real buzzkill.

I'm not sure I understand completely. If the kids in Narnia had screwed up this would have had consequences, too, wouldn't it? Things could only get well by their doing the right thing - much like the characters in Tolkien.
I might go so far as to say that the kids in HP are less important: it's nice that they help, but things might also turn right without them, I think. It's more realistic, in a way: you try to do the right thing, but this doesn't mean that without you everything would fail.
While in Narnia, there's no chance of things going right without the kids, because of the prophecy.
LOTR is more difficult: I think I couldn't tell whether things would have been hopeless without the fellowship. (I just realised that, and must say I'm pretty stunned by that.)

Mith - ROFL, what a find! I think this guy qualifies as one who can't come into the analysis because they just resent everything.
(And, really, as Prim quoted, the inconsiderate neglect of American English meanings is quite intolerable. )

Very interesting about Rowling being a practising Anglican - and even more interesting that, not knowing either way, people would just assume "something sinister" - scary, isn't it?

Harry Potter is not remotely Christian, but the books have plenty to say about honesty, loyalty, courage, and love,

Prim, that's exactly what I think, and why I think it can compare to Tolkien more easily than Lewis.

Some of the same lessons are in the Narnia books, but to my taste they rely too much on characters making a simple choice (to be on Aslan's side, or not), after which there is nothing left to think about; one just follows one's chosen leader. When of course life is much more complicated than that; we all, of any faith or none, have choices to make every day of our lives, and it never lets up. Rowling's books are more "useful" in that sense.

I agree again.
Like I said, maybe the Narnia books are for younger kids, but the choices they, or at least the one I've read, are/is about are much simpler and the moral lessons more obvious.


Whistler, fantastic post! (I was hoping to see you in here, because I remembered from the movie discussion that you liked Narnia. )

The magic in Middle-earth and Narnia is not magic of this nature. It's simply a neutral fact of life, just as television and the internet are to us. It's simply the way things are. In itself, it has no moral dimension at all and does not clash with any formal system of morality. That somebody can turn into a pumpkin means no more, in a fantasy world, than the fact that we can make a telephone call.

That was a very convincing explanation! - I think that must be the difference people see between the Harry Potter books and more fairy tale-like stories!

The funny thing is just that, for me, Harry Potter is not really a real world either. It's the world of a book, and while I read it, I enjoy it - and I might even stand on a platform at King's Cross and enjoy thinking what if there's really a different world hidden between platforms nine and ten (if there are that many platforms, which I don't know) - but it's still not my real world, because in the Harry Potter world, magic is a fact of life, just like the telephone.

It isn't so much that they depict magic, but that they revolve around the acquisition of magic. And those engaged in this quest are not the elderly wizards and fairy godmothers of traditional stories; they are children with whom juvenile readers are expected to identify. This fact, I think, is the thing that troubles people most.

I find that very interesting, but also hard to understand. I'm totally surprised by this, too. Why is it troubling that children learn the magic, when old wizards knowing magic is not? Children identify with the child characters in the book, yes - but I don't understand why that makes it troubling when that child character is learning magic. I thought it would only be amusing that even magic has to be learned like any other subject at school and can be just as annoying as the subjects children have to study in real life.

So, what exactly makes you uncomfortable? Is it what you said first, about them being more rooted in a real world than standard fairy tales or the works of Tolkien and Lewis?

ETA: crossposted with a lot of great new posts

Voronwë, I agree that the distinction between people who can do magic and those who can't is a bit unpleasant at times!
Moral choices are the defining difference within the magic world, as ax says.

As to your question, ax, the "Muggles" are not supposed to know magic exists, so it's strictly forbidden to do magic outside the magic world. But it would be possible to do magic in the real world.

[nerdanel]

I have a different interpretation of Rowling than all three of you, Voronwë, Ax, and Whistler. I see those born with "magic" as simply those of a minority group with a different skill set than the Muggle majority. There is a mutual misunderstanding of each others' ways of life. The Muggles view magical people with a good deal of suspicion and misunderstanding, even when born into the same families. The story is told from the perspective of those with magic, so we see a separate set of suspicions and misunderstandings - which I think we would see from any "Muggle minority" in the real world, as well. I do not see that Rowling has ever made the folks with magic to be superior (except in their own heads). Yes, they have "powers" that others do not, but I do not see that those powers make them better, so much as allow them to have a different lifestyle. (E.g. they have the power to apparate, which Muggles lack, but the wizarding community seems wholly incompetent with cars.)

I do not think they are extraordinary. I think they are born different; some realize they are different from their peers in childhood, when they accidentally do magic, and others realize only after they get a letter from Hogwarts. We see that they are the only ones who can stop the threat from Voldemort (the British authorities seem entirely bemused by the matter), yes, but he is one of them. In much the same way, I would expect the wizarding community to be bemused by the goings-on in the Middle East, which are caused by Muggles and would not likely be solved by wizards and witches.

I don't think that, in showing us the wizarding community's biases, Rowling means to endorse them, any more than she means to endorse the servitude of house-elves (IMO, but this is a controversial one) by depicting it as part of the wizarding way of life.

[MithLuin]

Actually, the two main counts against Harry Potter by concerned Christian parents are not valid.

The first is that the books are about obtaining magical ability (after all, they are about kids going to wizarding school). But actually, magical ability is something you are just born with (or not) in the HP universe. If you aren't born with the ability, you can't learn it through any amount of study. And if you don't go to the school, you will still 'accidentally' perform magic - learning is just honing and perfecting an inate ability.

Secondly, the books are thought to create an unfair division between the magical and the muggles - seeing muggles as worthless. In actuality, how people percieve (and treat) muggles is the main criteria for evaluating the goodness (or badness) of a wizard. Someone like Lucius Malfoy looks down on muggles (and wizards who are born into muggle families) as beneath him - but then, he is a Death Eater, working for Lord Voldemort - hardly a nice person! While wizarding society does accept this prejudice (to some extent), the good guys (notably Dumbledore) are constantly fighting against it. So, rather than encouraging such attitudes, JKR challenges them.

I find those two arguments most often put forward by people who have not read the books. So, I can't fault people for not catching nuance in something they haven't read . But, the arguments are too simplistic.

The third argument is more valid: this is the 'real' world, and the wizards have Christmas holidays, and go home to cousins who have Nintendo. While there is a separation between wizards and muggles (the 'wizarding' areas are usually off-limit to muggles, and there are wizarding laws against performing magic in front of muggles), the separation just can't be perfectly clean. If that is bothersome, it is a valid complaint.

And if you just don't want your kid to be exposed to things like magic spells, then yes, I can see the problem with HP. JKR didn't make it all up, so there are some references to things that fit in with the occult - though no self-respecting witch would treat Harry Potter as real magic .

Prim, funny you should pick that quote - the man's website was entitled Balaam's Ass. Of course, since that was a reference to the King James version of the Bible, it was okay . Not the least bit hypocritical.....

[Queen_Beruthiel]

I think the books of all three writers are suffused with a strong moral sense. Lewis's are the most obviously Christian; I'm tempted to say - the most heavy-handedly Christian. Rowling keeps religion off stage, while the presence of witches in her books has led to ridiculous claims that she promotes withcraft, etc.

How can you promote what doesn't exist?

Wagner wrote a great post once, explaining the moral behaviour of Rowling's characters. If memory serves, he argued that why they do something is what matters. Thus: a lie can be a worthy thing, if the lie is told for a worthy reason.

This is a world away from Tolkien's absolute morality.

[Alatar]

What Mith said.

[Primula Baggins]

Wagner wrote a great post once, explaining the moral behaviour of Rowling's characters. If memory serves, he argued that why they do something is what matters. Thus: a lie can be a worthy thing, if the lie is told for a worthy reason.

This is a world away from Tolkien's absolute morality.

I do feel sure Tolkien would blanch at the idea that the end justifies the means. . . .