Magic and Morality in Tolkien, Lewis and Rowling

[superwizard]

I never even thought that Muggles were supposed to be viewed downward upon in HP. Rather the way I saw it was Rowling talking to the readers about predjudice and discrimination. I believe that after reading HP the reader would become nicer and more sympathetic towards those that are simply 'different'.

[Primula Baggins]

"Mudblood" is a term used by some wizards (the bad guys) to describe other wizards born to one or more Muggle parents, and it's clear from the reaction of adult wizards and obvious role models that it's supposed to carry the same weight of repugnant old prejudice as the "n" word (which can't be typed at HoF).

That alone makes it pretty clear that it is wrong, in Rowling's world, to look down on Muggles.

[truehobbit]

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.

Can you remember the example given for that? I can't think of one for now, but that would definitely be a world away from Tolkien (and my own views, too, I must say).

And could you explain some more what you mean by "absolute morality"?

Re, the Muggles question: yes, the idea is definitely that only evil people look down on Muggles.
I've still always felt it to be an unpleasant differentiation, because I've always thought that I'd probably be one in the Harry-Potter-world. Weird, I know - I guess most readers take it for granted that in this world they'd be wizards.

But the point I was going to make refers to what Prim says here:

it's clear from the reaction of adult wizards and obvious role models that it's supposed to carry the same weight of repugnant old prejudice as the "n" word (which can't be typed at HoF).

That alone makes it pretty clear that it is wrong, in Rowling's world, to look down on Muggles.

Indeed, but the problem is that Muggles really are different! The reason we don't like prejudices against people of different skin colour is that apart from skin colour, there is no real difference, people are just people, with all the same potential qualities or lack thereof, no matter what they look like outside.
So, I'm wondering what kind of tolerance is promoted here. I can't quite make up my mind whether this difference is of a really qualitative kind (you can't do what we can do, but we're not going to look down on you for that because we're good) or whether it's more just having different abilities (wizards tend not to understand how the Muggle world works), so it's a bit like men and women (you can't do this but, then, we can't do that, so we're different, but even). (This latter corresponds with what nel argued so well that I'm about to lean toward that interpretation.)


And I've never had a thread of mine run to the second page in one evening!

[TheWagner]

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.

Can you remember the example given for that? I can't think of one for now, but that would definitely be a world away from Tolkien (and my own views, too, I must say).

There are numerous examples of the same thing having very different "moral" (really, ethical) implications in Rowling's world that are invariant in Tolkienverse. Let us consider loyalty and disloyalty. In Tolkienverse, loyalty is good, disloyalty is bad. The bad guys do not really have an loyalties: "this is the spirit of Mordor," Frodo tells Sam, so it is not as if they do a "right" by being disloyal to each other: they are loyal only to themselves. Boromir's and Denethor's failures to accept that they should be

In Potterverse, it is very different. Loyalty must be merited, and if it is not merited, then disloyalty is right. Winky is very loyal to the Crouches: and because of her blind loyalty, she never tells Harry or Dumbledore with a vital piece of information: Barty Crouch Jr. did NOT die in Azkaban. Why? Because it is "right" for a house-elf to keep her family's secrets. This is house-elf morality. However, it was very wrong ethically, as many people wound up hurt as a result.

Dobby, on the other hand, is disloyal to his family, the Malfoys. It does not have the positive effects that Dobby wants, but it ultimately contributes to Harry defeating the shade of Voldemort.

Lest it appear that Rowling has just reversed the absolutes, Harry's loyalty to Dumbledore saves his bacon, and it seems clear that his continued loyalty to Dumbledore even beyond the grave is the “right” thing. Ron's loyalty to his friend Hermione, as well as to an ethical view that does not judge someone on his/her heritage, probably is what won him Hermione's heart. Pettigrew's disloyalty killed James and Lily and was clearly wrong. Black tormented himself by feeling that he had been unintentionally disloyal to Potter and Evans because he switched places with Pettigrew. It was not a wrong in itself, but Black felt that he still had to atone for it.

So, is loyalty right and disloyalty wrong? In Tolkienverse, yes. Loyalty is a virtue only of the good, and the evil are fundamentally incapable of it. Blind loyalty to a good cause is rewarded and expected. In Potterverse, no: blind loyalty is wrong or disloyalty to wrong causes is right. Right and wrong is entirely context dependent.

And this is where Rowling and Tolkien jump ship: Tolkien did not like to accept that there were circumstances where disloyalty (or lying or any other simplistic “wrong”) was merited, and they certainly did not belong in the idealized world of story-telling, where right and wrong should be plainly shown. Rowling wants people to think about the implications of all of their choices.

And could you explain some more what you mean by "absolute morality"?

Sure. Magic is evil. Lying is wrong. Disloyalty is wrong. The "thing" itself is evil, without regard to what one is doing with it or why they are doing it. In other words, there is no context. Katherine Kurtz, in her Deryni series, addressed the issue of magic and morality very explicitly. The Church condemns it as wrong: it can do no good because God would never allow a situation where one can do good with it. One of the Deryni counters to a captive churchman with a fiery brand. Is fire evil? Fire can be used to warm, to cook, to survive, to cauterize: and it can be used to maim, to torture, to blind, to kill. The churchman's response: "that's different!" But, of course, it is not: fire has no ethical status. Arson does. Burning heretics does. Sterilizing a knife does. Fire does not. (I am sure that fire has a moral status in some belief systems, of course!)

This is very different from Tolkienverse. “How shall a man judge what to do in such times?'” “'As he ever has judged,' said Aragorn. 'Good and ill have not changed
since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men.” So, loyalty cannot be right in some cases and wrong in others: things are right or wrong, regardless of when or where or who.


(Ethics and morality are, I should note, different things: ethics have objective standards based on the human rights of individuals and are a completely secular concept; morality is highly variable, with one morality's sin being another morality's duty or sacrament, and are completely in the context of belief systems.)

That alone makes it pretty clear that it is wrong, in Rowling's world, to look down on Muggles.

This is part of the reason that Potterverse is considered immoral, even though it is considered ethical by others: intolerance is an unethical vice in Potterverse, whether it is the Dursley's intolerance of wizards or the Malfoy's intolerance of anybody with Muggle ancestry. However, intolerance is moral of those who hate Harry Potter: it is wrong to tolerate homosexuals, liberated women, intellectuals, etc. So, if bigotry is moral, then anti-bigotry must be immoral.

Indeed, but the problem is that Muggles really are different!

And all Muggles really are different from one another. One of the truths of Potterverse is that it is our choices, not our abilities, that tell us who we are. Some of us are geniuses. Most people are not. Now, the ability to do differential equations or rapidly discern the ins and outs of rules might just as well be magic as far as most people are concerned. The only real difference between a genius and a normal person is that a genius, like a wizard, has many more ways in which he/she can use his/her abilities to benefit him/herself at the expense of others.

Conversely, ethics dictate that non-geniuses are entitled to the same rights are geniuses.

So, I'm wondering what kind of tolerance is promoted here.

All kinds. Many gays see Harry Potter as an allegory for homosexuals. JKR has said that this is not the case, as Harry represents all people are victims of irrational bigotry and hatreds: to say that Harry is "gay" might imply that it is bigotry against gays is wrong, when JKR is saying that bigotry is wrong. This includes but is not exclusive to gays.


There is a remarkably sensible editorial at Mugglenet (where most of the editorials assume that everything we have read is wrong and a healthy imagination is considered "evidence"!) by a theology student that addresses the theological flaws with those who criticize HP for using magic. Rowling herself is pretty explicit about the differences between dark magic (sometimes callled sorcery) and other magics: Dumbledore goes so far as to imply that the very bases are different. Tolkien did the same thing: as Galadriel noted, hobbits had a weird habit of calling what Elves did and what Sauron did "magic," even though they were (to her) nothing alike. However, there are plenty of examples of magical powers used for good in Biblical myths: however, in English translations, only evil examples are called magic, whereas "good" examples are called miracles or something else. What is lost is that the ancient Hebrews (like the ancient Greeks, whom Tolkien cites) supposedly had two different words for these things, a distinction that has been lost in subsequent translations of the Bible.


There are a lot of other drastic differences between "right" and "wrong" in Tolkienverse (and Lewisverse: the "mountains" that the two saw separating themselves look like ant-hills to me!) and Potterverse, which reflect radically different sociopolitical philosophies. They have similar roots: aspiring to things that were not your parents is universally wrong in Tolkienverse, whereas denying the aspirations and talents of others because their parents did not have them is wrong in Potterverse. Magic is part of being an elf: ergo, it is right. Sauron engages in Sorcery, powers that were not properly due to him. Interestingly, this is how Draco feels about Hermione doing magic!


Wow. That was longwinded even for ME!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Great post, Wagner (I was hoping you would post here). However, I think you analysis of Tolkien's moral universe is a bit skewed. Just off the top of my head, I can think of two instances where good characters are not blindly loyal. One is Huan in the tale of Beren and Lúthien, who despite his deep loyalty to Celegorm eventually turns against Celegorm in order to protect Beren and Lúthien. The other is somewhat more abstract, but perhaps more important. Ulmo says to Tuor:

Therefore, though in the days of this darkness I seem to oppose the will of my brethren, the Lords of the West, that is my my part among, to which I was appointed ere the making of the World

I don't think that things are quite as simple and straightforward in Tolkien's universe as you make it out to be.

[MithLuin]

Though both those examples are from the Silmarillion, the same is also true in LotR.

Blind loyalty is condemned because individual choices about what is right (and what is wrong) always trump following orders.

• Hama allows Gandalf an audience with King Théoden while armed with his staff, because he thinks Gandalf means well. This is after Grima specifically ordered that the visitors be disarmed of all weapons, including staffs.
  
  Éomer rides out to chase down orcs even though Théoden, his king, has ordered him not to. He is imprisoned for his disobedience. Éomer is obeying the more 'ancient' law that orcs shouldn't be in Rohan.
  
  Faramir allows Frodo (and his companions) freedom to walk about the realm of Gondor, even though law dictates that only the Steward may grant that right. Faramir realizes that Frodo's quest is too important to delay and that an exception must be made; he knows he will earn his father's wrath (and it almost costs him his life).

What makes these choices good (while orcs who think for themselves are evil) is that they disobeyed orders (broke loyalty) at personal cost for a greater good, not for greed or personal gain. Ie, good motives made the action good. What is (perhaps) different in Tolkien is that evil characters are often incapable of good actions, because of their persistent evil. (LV's inability to understand the power of love is akin to this).

Truehobbit's TORc thread on this topic

Tolkien's view does involve absolute morality, which means that there is a standard of 'good' against which actions are judged, and that good and evil can not be redefined at will. But absolute moral (or ethical) systems can be very nuanced; there is no need for them to by simplistic.

Tolkien translated the late medieval poem 'Sir Gawain and the Green Knight' (and wrote an essay on it). The main point of that poem is that the main character (shockingly, that's Sir Gawain ) is trapped between several different moral systems that he must resolve - he gave his word to do something that will almost certainly get him killed, and he must be 'chivalrous' towards a married woman who makes it clear that her intention is to seduce him. He also has an agreement with her husband that he wants to honor. So....how does he do all of this? Tolkien's essay suggests that he needs to give priority to the more fundamental morals (chivalry loses ), and once those are satisfied, he can worry about the lesser ones. The reason I mention all this is that it is a different way of resolving moral (ethical) conflict while maintaining an absolute system. "Loyalty" is good, but is it the greatest good?

A relative moral (ethical) system relies on the situation - in a particular set of circumstances, is this action right or wrong? This is not done in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.

As for lying, Tolkien has Faramir say "I would not trap even an orc with a falsehood," so there you have it . Lying is bad for the person who does it, and should be avoided for that reason.




I think that Rowling's 'problem' has a bit to do with presentation. Her original idea was 'boy who is a wizard but doesn't know it' - which is brilliant. Harry got to learn about the wizarding world with the reader. So, in the first book, everything is new, and he's impressed with magical doors . By book six, he's gotten used to his world and is very comfortable in it; the reader doesn't need to be 'reintroduced' to the basics. So, we gradually learn more and more about the world over the course of each book - books 2 deals with some history, book 3 introduces the prison more prominently, book 4 introduces the press, book 5 the courts and hospital, etc. This is all great, actually, but it does create a possibility for confusion (if, say, you only read book 1 ). When Harry first meets wizards, he meets all types - good, bad, creepy, mean, nice, silly, old, young, rich, poor, etc. And since these are all walking about in society, they all have a place, and there is no one jumping out and telling you "look! this guy is pretty evil" I mean, the books are written for children, so it's not like there aren't hints. Any adult reading it should catch on instantly that Draco is bad news...but if you are a kid, and this is one of the first other 'kid' wizards Harry meets...he might seem like a potential friend. Obviously, part of the point of the story is that Harry figures out (and thus, so does the reader) that it is best to stay away from Draco.

But no one jumps out and says that Ollivander is evil, even though he is rather creepy, and of course Snape is downright cruel and unjust, but Dumbledore lets him teach there? As the story unfolds, we start to learn more about wizarding society, and the pieces fall into place. In book 2, Lucius Malfoy is a villain, but he's also on the Board of Governors for Hogwarts (and thus in a position of power and respect in society). In book 4, we learn that he is really a former Death Eater (follower of Lord Voldemort) who got out of jail using his wealth and influence (he pled innocent, and it worked). But before we could label him a "Death Eater," it was harder to 'place' him, if that makes any sense.

The fact that society (in the form of the Ministry) accepts some people who are clearly bad apples may be realistic, but can also be misleading or confusing to (young) readers - it seems that since these people (like Umbridge) get away with it, they are not seen as 'bad'.

But the source of the confusion is the fact that the voice of the author is not found in the Ministry or society - it is the voice of Dumbledore that we are meant to listen to to determine what is 'right' - getting away with it doesn't mean it is condoned. House Elf slavery exists, but that doesn't mean it is right.

I suspect that anyone reading all 7 books would be able to iron this out without suspecting that JKR is condoning evil actions. But since some reviewers take the words of the villain and repeat that as an idea from her book ("there is no good or evil - only power, and those too weak to use it"), I am perhaps giving readers too much credit .

Sarah's editorial deals with the idea 'Is 'Magic' in the Bible always evil?' and I agree that you have to be careful how you use the word - surely there are many condemnations of sorcery, fortune telling and summoning spirits. But those who try to explain the parting of the Red Sea by natural causes usually come out looking silly - it was certainly described as a miracle, performed by God....but with a role played by Moses (he had to raise his staff for it to happen).

So, what is the (fundamental) difference between evil sorcery and miracles? It can't just be that 'the bad guys do sorcery'. (That difference is incidental). Sarah argues that it is the desire to change your nature...but that ends up being that sorcery means rebeling against God, while the miraculous involves cooperating with God. I think the issue is really control. Moses knew "I'm supposed to lift my staff/drop my staff/hit a rock with my staff" - but he had to always operate in faith that God would do something. There was no 'guarantee' to the magic (other than trusting God). He had to wait for God to say 'hey, do this.' It also was different every time - there wasn't some esoteric staff-move that would always do the same thing. Raising his staff could part the Red Sea or win a battle. A prophet received messages from God, but there wasn't a way for the prophet to 'order' a prediction. They just happened. This is very different from someone who was studying the stars seeking to discover the secrets of the future...they were trying to learn a method that they could use on their terms. The girl who was 'prophetic on demand' in the New Testament lost her ability once they cast out the demon.

I am not sure how any of our fantasy writers compare on this count . Gandalf certainly knew 'spells' and words of command. He was pretty confident they would work when he used them - it was an innate ability (or knowledge?). But then, he was an angel . So, it's perfectly natural for him to have supernatural powers . Likewise, the elves are not human, so they can get away with what they do....so long as they don't put too much effort into control. The Three Rings skirted dangerously close to the edge - they were no longer Art, but were meant for domination. (But not as bad as the One Ring, which was meant to dominate others' wills). And that is the criteria Tolkien used for magic being good or evil.

We meet the White Witch in Narnia, who can make it always winter for 100 years and can make Turkish Delight on demand. But....where did she get her powers? The Magician's Nephew makes it clear that she is from another world, one in which she rose to the pinnacle of power by gaining magical abilities. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe suggests that she is a descendant of Lilith, who was of course a demoness. So, again, she is not human, but her powers are put to evil uses, and she is clearly condemned.
Uncle Andrew is human, but he is considered a false magician. He has 'inherited' some magical tradition that is far beyond him. He is also condemned in the book.
The Green Lady is much like the White Witch - and she shows how evil she is by killing the Queen and enslaving the Prince. Again, a theme of power and domination.
But what of Aslan? What of the magic that brings the children to Narnia in the first place? In Prince Caspian, the Narnians are able to summon the four children and yank them right out of England. In The Last Battle, the last king of Narnia is able to appear as a ghostly vision in England when he pleas for help. In The Silver Chair, Eustace and Jill decide they want to go to Narnia, and should do magic to get there.
And that scene is important - Eustace knows that Aslan would not approve of their trying to 'make' it happen, so he decides their chant should be a request, asking it to happen. And it does .
So, Lewis does differentiate between a prayer and the occult, not surprisingly .

And now JKR....what to say of her wizards? They have the ability naturally, but the magic they learn is very 'scientific' - it always works if you say the word the right way, if you add the correct ingredients, etc. The Unforgivables are off-bounds for the good wizards, and the Dark Arts in general are as well. But spells are not in themselves good or evil (usually) - it's how you use them. Using the killing curse to swat down flies (looking at teenage Snape) is not any worse than using a flyswatter would be. Using it on a person is a different matter. But overall, JKR does not take her magic 'seriously' - she's doing it for fun. What becomes evil and twisted in her world is the search for immortaliy - which is the ultimate 'cheat' of human nature. So, in the fundamentals, her views line up okay with Biblical idea of it being wrong to try to wrest control from God.

[Frelga]

Personally, Lewis never captured my imagination. I read The Lion, etc. at about 12 and didn't remember anything about it except the Fawn's library with titles such as "Is Man a Myth?" As a grown up I was disappointed by the quality of the writing, which I found flat and didactic, with vaguely sketched characters.

As far as the religiosity, I hope I won't offend anybody if I say that the greatest value I see in Lewis for a Christian parent is to use it as a way to bring young children into the Christian story. Without that backdrop, my son liked it fine, but I suspect that was because he saw the movie first and enjoyed the swordfights. Actually, I enjoyed the movie more than the book, too.

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 actually consider a relationship between Muggles and wizards one of the most nuanced and realistic aspects of Rowling's writing. There is mistrust and even fear on both sides; a hint of past persecution of wizards by Muggles explains some of it, perhaps.

Muggles and wizards are qualitatively different, just as Elves and Men are different in Tolkien-verse. Like Tolkien's Elves, some wizards look down on "mere mortals," feeling that the powers that differentiate the two races make them inherently superior. Others are filled with respect and fascination for the non-magical folk, amazed at how resourceful they are, how bravely the face the world in absense of those powers.

In Tolkienverse, loyalty is good, disloyalty is bad. The bad guys do not really have an loyalties: "this is the spirit of Mordor," Frodo tells Sam, so it is not as if they do a "right" by being disloyal to each other: they are loyal only to themselves. Boromir's and Denethor's failures to accept that they should be

Speaking of loyalty specifically - Mithluin already mentioned Faramir, Hama and Éomer. I would add to that list Éowyn, who defies explicit orders by Théoden and a stern speech by Aragorn. And of course Beregond.

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.

I don't know, Whistler. The Wizard of Oz begins in the "real world", and most of the traditional fairy tales take place in the world that is meant to be real yet full of magic. I wonder if the secret here is that the objectors enjoyed fairy tales and Oz books when they themselves were children and therefore don't think them as evil as something just now being introduced into the world. Oz, Narnia, and Potter books all share the same premise - that there is a different, magical world separated by only a thin veil from the mundane reality.

[Whistler]

I don't know, Whistler. The Wizard of Oz begins in the "real world", and most of the traditional fairy tales take place in the world that is meant to be real yet full of magic. I wonder if the secret here is that the objectors enjoyed fairy tales and Oz books when they themselves were children and therefore don't think them as evil as something just now being introduced into the world.

Well, it goes without saying that the things we grew up with were harmless and healthful. It's the darn kids today that don't know what's good for 'em.

[superwizard]

Really I fail to see why people would spend their time complaining about Harry Potter and games such as Grand Theft Auto (which I must admit I actually play but don't think 10 year old should) are around. If anything is going to mess up these kid's minds its going to be games like that!

As a side note I would like to point out this isn't just one game, there are plenty similar to it its just that this one is the most popular.

[Primula Baggins]

I've never pulled a book out of one of my kids' hands, but games like Grand Theft Auto have been and still are forbidden in my house. My older son is legally an adult now and can rent any game he likes, but he understands the rules—he can't play them under my roof.

I think he's honestly not interested. I know my other son said he played such a game at another kid's house and thought it was "too gross to be fun."

[superwizard]

I've made a new thread about violent video games so that I won't interrupt this thread right here: http://www.thehalloffire.net/forum/view ... 0313#40313

PS: I don't know if I put it in the right forum so please move it if its not

[MithLuin]

Well, to make this topic as broad as possible, I do think it is the job of parents to teach their children what is good, true and beautiful in the world. It is natural that some things will be lauded while others will be condemned. And I don't think something must be the ultimate evil to be condemned - 'too much TV' or 'lousy movies' can certainly be harmful, even if they aren't going to turn us all into axe-murderers . One of my friends from high school later complained that his parents did not stress the value of physical activity (exercise/working out) when he was growing up, and he felt that was a deficit. (But then, he also thought it weird that his parents wouldn't let him lock his bedroom door on a regular basis )

In that sense, I can see how parents would condemn some books as not good enough. My Mom didn't forbid me to read anything, but she certainly let me know that she thought Sweet Valley Twins was trash . (Actually, I think it was the Bobbsey Twins...) As I got older, she expected me to use good judgement in what I chose to read, and she always encouraged me to read better things. (To her, better meant biographies, because they were about real people....she considered fiction to be a bit of a waste of time). In high school, I had a steady diet of sci-fi and fantasy, and surely some of that was pretty lousy . But I also read some good stuff too (like Verne or LotR), and I could tell the difference.

I guess I appreciate that my mother was vocal about her opinion, but that she didn't censor what I read. She gave me a good example (by taking me to the library all the time when I was little), and then let me choose my own books. If she saw me veering off the path (how many Star Trek/Star Wars novels are you checking out this time?!) she would say something, or maybe give me limitations. But it wasn't forbidden. I'm sure that some things would have been forbidden, but I was never interested in anything she hated that much .

The 'under my roof' rule still applies. I'm not allowed to bring home R-rated movies any more. [Some are okay, but it only takes one really lousy one for me to loose that priveledge ]

From this perspective, I can understand parents who do not allow their 10-yr-olds to read Harry Potter (a 'wait til you're older' rule) or parents who don't let their children read the books until they've read them first. [My 10-year-old baby brother read The Silmarillion, and I read Hamlet to him, but I realise not all 10-yr-olds are ready for that.] I just don't think that the Harry Potter books are a bad influence, so it seems odd to pick on them when there's so much worse trash out there. [They are, admittedly, very popular.]

I just hope that these same parents are teaching their children what is good to read, and providing positive guidance, not just condemnation. I know of one parent who allowed her teenage daughter to read The DaVinci Code as long as she also read one of those 'Decoding the DaVinci Code' books. That, to me, is a lot healthier than saying 'no!' And if they are young children, read the book to them and answer their questions as you read. You can always stop and ask 'do you think it is fair of Draco to look down on Hermione just because her parents are dentists, not wizards?' Or that there's a lot more to being 'good' than being on the side of the good guys .

The most significant difference between Harry Potter and Oz or Narnia is that, at this point, the Harry Potter story isn't finished. We do not know how she is going to end it. Surely, the ending will fit in with the rest of the story, but some people like to reserve judgement until they see the finished product. (Obviously, there are stylistic differences as well.)

If people are worried that Harry Potter takes place in the real world and that kids will want to go to London to find Platform 9 3/4, then they are forgetting that the natural reaction for a child to reading Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is to try climbing into closets to find the world of Narnia . It is no accident that Lewis included two warnings about how you should never close yourself in a wardrobe in the book . And my reaction upon reading LotR at the age of 12 was to close my eyes and picture a forest, in the hopes that when I opened them, I would be in Middle Earth . [I must have looked very intent, because my 7th grade teacher asked if I were meditating ] Oz might not have that effect (who goes looking for a tornado?), but the desire is likely there. [I wouldn't know; I haven't read those books.]

[TheWagner]

I don't think that things are quite as simple and straightforward in Tolkien's universe as you make it out to be.

Thanks for the compliment! And you are correct: Tolkien is not completely black-and-white. I think even the most hardcore moral absolutist recognizes that there are shades of gray sometimes. By the same token, any relativist needs to have some basic premises to make other things relative. Relativity comes into play when two ideals come into conflict: you cannot satisfy them both. (Again, absolutists try to deny that these things ever happen, but even people like Tolkien provided a few examples.)

The difference is that there is a lot more gray in Rowling's world than in Tolkien's. Loyalty is usually a good thing in Tolkienverse, and it really is very rare among the bad guys. However, it is not non-existant: Shagrat was loyal to the Black Tower rather to himself (resulting in the dispute with Gorbag), and Ugluk was loyal to Saruman rather than to himself. However, in both cases the loyalty was needed to emphasize the disloyalty that is the spirit of Mordor.

In Potterverse, it seems that there are people who are truly loyal to wrong things and wrong people. Bellatrix and Barty Crouch Jr. can only be described as fanatically loyal to Voldemort. Bellatrix at least will nobly sacrifice self and kin: she tells her sister that, if she (Bellatrix) had a son, then she'd be proud to see him sacrificed for the Dark Lord's cause. One gets the feeling that she really means it!

Draco certainly is very loyal to the "toujours pur" credo, and he seems to have honest affections for some other purebloods. He genuinely loves and reveres his parents. This is something that we really do not see in Tolkienverse (or Lewisverse, for that matter): bad people can love. Now, Voldemort cannot, but this only increases his weakness: he cannot appreciate the fact that some of his supporters are truly loyal to him.

I don't see this in Tolkienverse: one never gets the impression that any of Sauron's followers really love the guy. Lewisverse is a little more complicated: the White Witch is pretty evil, but its hard to say whether she is revered by her followers.


Now, Mithluin mentions the actions of Faramir and Éomer. These are cases where the right choice was morally ambiguous as two loyalties were in conflict. In Faramir's case, was it loyalty to his father, or loyalty to the natural "truth" that there were powers above his station? Similarly, was Éomer to be loyal to the King or the person controlling the King? In his case, the choice was easier: he recognized that his King was not in his right mind.

So, there was ambiguity here: knee-jerk loyalty to one thing conflicted with knee-jerk loyalty to the other. The real difference between Potterverse and Tolkienverse is that in Potterverse, we often read people explain exactly why they did things, whereas we do not in Tolkeinverse. Indeed, in the case of Faramir, we are offered a very simplistic explanation: his Númenórean blood ran true!

Conversely, Boromir and Denethor fall here. Both covet the power of Kings. It's not due to them, and they are moral failures for wanting it. Now, neither is really a bad person: but the are (in Tolkien's mind) doing something wrong. Only those descended from a King are capable of handling the powers of a King.

Here, again, we come to a major difference between Potterverse and Tolkienverse that includes magic. Elves can do magic, as opposed to sorcery, because it is their birthright. The Numenoreans also could. However, other men could not: they could only perform sorcery, which is evil. (Tolkien used Greek terms for these.)

In Potterverse, Hermione is not a Dark Wizard for using spells even though she did not inherit the right. Quite the opposite: Hermione is a very good character within the ethics of Potterverse. (Tolkien would have cringed at Hermione trying to "liberate" house-elves: servants shoudl be servants, and that is that.) Hermione is not evil for aspiring to something "better" (or just plain different) from what her parents were. Instead, it is Malfoy who is evil for trying to deny Hermione the right to do fulfil her potentials.

Moreover, the "right" and "wrong" of magic is not whether you inherited it: it is the emotional basis of it. You have to really hate and really want to hurt to properly perform Dark Magic. On the other hand, Dumbledore insists that Love is the basis for the most powerful magics.

So, in Tolkienverse, whether the spell you cast is right or wrong is one of inheritance: did you inherit the authority to do this? In Potterverse, it is first one of ability, but then one of why you are doing it: Love, Hate or something in between?


So, really, this is the classic Tory vs. Whig dichotomy. We all know what Tolkien thought of Whigs. And, if you read much about Rowling, you know what she thinks of Tories!

[Frelga]

From this perspective, I can understand parents who do not allow their 10-yr-olds to read Harry Potter (a 'wait til you're older' rule) or parents who don't let their children read the books until they've read them first.

I certainly don't allow my 7-year old to read HP, though I have nothing against the book.

To me, when judging a moral value of the book, it is important to see what behavior is rewarded by the author. In HP-verse, it is knowledge, discipline, loyalty, courage and kindness. I'm OK with it.

Bellatrix at least will nobly sacrifice self and kin: she tells her sister that, if she (Bellatrix) had a son, then she'd be proud to see him sacrificed for the Dark Lord's cause. One gets the feeling that she really means it!

Nobly? You can't "nobly" sacrifice somebody else. Besides, she doesn't HAVE a son. If she did, she may well have felt different.

In fact, most Death Eaters did NOT stay loyal, once they thought their lord was knocked out. They denounced Voldemort, claimed to have been imperiused, and tried to went on with their lives. Bellatrix didn't, admittedly, but she didn't have the chance in Azkaban.

This is in contrast with the Order of Phoenix, all of whom stay loyal to Dumbledore. In what perhaps was a singularly Tolkienesque moment, Lupin states that he trusts Snape because Dumbledore trusts him. That's good enough for him.

So I'd say in this sense, T & R -verses are pretty consistent.

Draco certainly is very loyal to the "toujours pur" credo, and he seems to have honest affections for some other purebloods. He genuinely loves and reveres his parents.

I am not sure about that. There were hints of frosty disapproval of his son by Lucius and fear by Draco. And he is rude to his mother.

Lewisverse is a little more complicated: the White Witch is pretty evil, but its hard to say whether she is revered by her followers.

The term I'd use is "less developed".

So, there was ambiguity here: knee-jerk loyalty to one thing conflicted with knee-jerk loyalty to the other.

I don't know about knee-jerk, either. IMO, to Tolkien some things are just plain wrong. Lying is one. Another is claiming dominion by force, something that Ring is all about. Faramir would not do it, no matter the cost.

I agree about Hama and Éomer - they didn't really show disloyalty to Théoden, they were loyal to him inspite himself. Faramir and Beregond, however, came square against the choice where staying "loyal" meant that they were to commit one of those inherently wrong actions. Both chose to do what's right, even if it meant defying the Steward's orders.

The real difference between Potterverse and Tolkienverse is that in Potterverse, we often read people explain exactly why they did things, whereas we do not in Tolkeinverse

That's true, although I think the difference is more in the writer's style and the intended audience.

[Jnyusa]

... the difference is that there is a lot more gray in Rowling's world than in Tolkien's ... <snip> .. in Potterverse, we often read people explain exactly why they did things, whereas we do not in Tolkeinverse

That's true, although I think the difference is more in the writer's style and the intended audience.

And the social context. Rowling is writing three decades after Situation Ethics and Tolkien was writing four decades before.

I also agree with Frelga that the Muggle-Wizard tension is the most interesting aspect of the book. From the very first page I received it as metaphor, and a very clever metaphor indeed for acquainting young adults with the nuances of prejudice.

Jn

[MithLuin]

I think you misunderstand moral absolutists, The Wagner. While it is true that (in absolute terms) some things are good, and others are evil, that does not mean that the system cannot be vigorous enough to deal with the real world. But rather than dealing in shades of grey, it deals in prioritizing those values. Tolkien wrote an essay on this (which I don't have, though I did read it once). HERE is the 14th century poem, at any rate....
His 1953 lecture 'Sir Gawain and the Green Knight' can be found in The Monsters and Critics and other essays.

Éomer determines that the good of Rohan (protecting it from orcs) is more important than obeying his king. And so, he decides to ride out against orders. The fact that his king is being controlled by the enemy may mitigate his disloyalty, but even in the absense of Wormtongue his disobedience is the 'right' thing to do. He knows he will be punished for disobedience, but he still does what he believes is right. We know this because Tolkien shows us what happens to Beregond - he abandons his post to save a man's life...fair enough. But then he also kills other soldiers of Gondor, in the tombs (which are a hallowed place where fighting is disallowed) - because he loves Faramir. Leaving his post alone was bad enough (recall Pippin's oath - to obey his lord's orders until he is released, or he dies, or the world ends).

While we may not hear Beregond's 'thoughts' - we just see that he took Pippin's advice and abandoned his post - we do hear Aragorn's judgement of his actions:

• 'Beregond, by your sword blood was spilled in the Hallows, where that is forbidden. Also you left your post without leave of Lord or of Captain. For these things, of old, death was the penalty. Now therefore I must pronounce your doom.
  All penalty is remitted for your valour in battle, and still more because all that you did was for the love of the Lord Faramir. Nonetheless you must leave the Guard of the Citadel, and you must go forth from the City of Minas Tirith ...
  So it must be, for you are appointed to the White Company, the Guard of Faramir, Prince of Ithilien, and you shall be its captain and dwell in Emyn Arnen in honour and peace, and in the service of him for whom you risked all, to save him from death.'

Aragorn's judgement acknowledges the different issues at hand. The law of the land matters, but it cannot trump more fundamental issues such as saving a man's life.
That is why Aragorn tells Éomer that good and evil are the same, whether you are dealing with strange beings you've never met before or not. It is our responsibility to recognize what is good, and then choose good over evil.
Incidentally, one reason Tolkien does not dwell on the thoughts is because he sees the actions themselves as more eloquent. Strange, for a man who was so enthralled by language and the written word That being said, we get 2 chapters of monologue from Faramir on what matters to him and how he views the world.

So, what are the most fundamental, core values at the heart of the 'good' guys in Middle Earth?

• Love. People have complained often enough that Sam is idealized for his dedicated love for Frodo. But as I pointed out in the example of Beregond, love (when it genuinely calls someone to sacrifice) is seen as the greatest power on earth, trumping all the rules. In Tolkien's world, love is most often seen in friendship.
  Freedom. Each person has the freedom and responsibility to make their own decisions. This means that a genuinely good person will work very hard to avoid controlling or manipulating others. The elves even refrain from giving advice for this reason.
  Humility. Pride (not nobility) is evil, and closes hearts and minds to others. The humility of the good guys allows them to communicate with others, but also to understand that they are only one piece of a picture (not the whole picture). Check out the thread about Frodo's refusal to fight for more on this abnegation.
  Hope. Continuing to hold on to hope in the face of very bleak circumstances is what makes the good guys strong - it is their humanity at its best.
  Pity/Mercy. I cannot talk enough about this, but it is hugely important to the story (and a sign of wisdom).
  Truth. I could think of no better word to represent what is untouched by the Shadow. But the value of speaking the truth is repeated several times.

So, what happens when these values conflict? Even the fundamental values have a priority (though not the one I've given here). Someone's life (Freedom) should not be sacrificed to the keeping of an oath (Truth).
(As Maglor understands, but Maedhros is unwilling to risk.)
There is a debate of the Valar concerning the decision to allow Finwë to remarry after Míriel's untimely death. There, they are weighing different 'good's to determine what is right. It is very nuanced, but none of them suggest anything evil, merely different combinations of love, humility and mercy.

What often impresses me about Tolkien's characters is that the good guys are not merely on the 'right side' fighting the 'bad guys.' He takes care to make sure that they are actually good. No one wrests control from Théoden or Denethor ('for the good of the people'), Aragorn et al do not abandon Merry and Pippin, but try to rescue them (rather than pragmatically cutting their losses)....and the Mouth of Sauron is not decapitated . Galadriel cannot use the Ring and remain Galadriel.

The idea here is that evil has clear consequences. Did Gollum have any 'choice' on the Stairs of Cirith Ungol? No, not really. He was incapable of choosing to warn Frodo (about Shelob) and abandon his own quest for the Precious. But he did have a chance. Frodo had begun to show him some humanity (and pity) when they met, and had he cultivated that budding 'goodness' in himself, he may have had the power to choose good rather than evil on the Stairs. But...he squandered that chance. He remained petty, and held Frodo's 'duplicity' at the Forbidden Pool against him. He could not take the (well-earned) name of 'sneak' that Sam gave him (Sam's most grievous error, perhaps). And so he was lost.

The reason 'good' traits are often lacking in 'evil' characters is that they lack the ability to do good. You will not find a Faramir-like orc anywhere . Surely, no one expects Sauron to understand mercy. But...his followers become less and less capable of it the more they continue in their path of destruction.

Denethor's failure is not in his wish to be King. Indeed, he has been content to be a steward his whole life. He is unwilling to recognize the legitimacy of this new King who would usurp him, that is true. But he is also unwilling to see that Gandalf may also care about the good of Gondor, or that his own life is not all that matters. His vision has become too narrow. "I sent my son forth, unthanked, unblessed, out into needless peril, and here he lies with poison in his veins. Nay, nay, whatever may now betiide in war, my line too is ending, even the House of the Stewards has failed. Mean folk shall rule the last remnant of the Kings of Men, lurking in the hills until all are hounded out."
Here, he acknowledges that others may rule after he is gone, but it won't be him and it won't be his son, so he gives up. His crime is not ambition (wanting to be king), but rather pride (seeing himself as all that matters) and despair (giving up on both Faramir and the war before it all ends).

What are JKR's key values that determine whether a character is good or bad?

• Love - Dumbledore's pronouncements on the subject aside, she has taken pains to emphasize the importance of love and friendship on people's lives - the poor but loving Weasleys being the 'ideal' family (though not without problems).
  Loyalty - a way of showing love, of course, though she associates it closely with Trust.
  Courage - Harry must be strong and stand up to his fears, and for what he believes in. People who give in to fear ultimately play into the hands of the bad guys.
  Which leads to Good Choices - the importance of choice runs all through the books, with the understanding that you can certainly make bad choices
  and, her litmus test, Disregard for Heredity. Those wizards who are prejudiced against non-purebloods are evil, and those who recognize the value of all wizards (or better yet, all people) are good.

Cho is wrong to be loyal to Marietta when Marietta's actions were wrong. Loyalty should not be used to defend the indefensible. (But she just does that to make it easier to understand the split between Cho and Harry ).

Draco has very few redeeming qualities. He does fear for his life, and that of his parents. So, yes, he loves them enough not to stand by and watch his mother be killed. But we've mostly seen him manipulate them into spoiling him - not a very 'good' parent-child relationship.

While JKR makes acceptance of marginilized peoples (house-elves, centaurs, muggle-borns, and even muggles) a goal of the best of the good guys, JRRT makes peace and reconciliation between those who are naturally suspicious and fearful of each other just as important. Elves and Dwarves do not get along, yet Legolas and Gimli become friends. The Men of the south fear elves, yet a whole troop of them shows up for Aragorn and Arwen's wedding leading to better understanding. The Ents (who had been isolated in their wood) come out and join the fight, aiding their neighbors (as do the Druadan). There is a cohesion and unity that is formed between all those who oppose Sauron that is not simplistic, nor is it cynical (like, say, FDR and Stalin vs. Hitler). And even though these forces join together, there is respect for autonomy. Aragorn rules all the lands that Sauron wanted at the end of the War, but he makes efforts to allow each people to rule themselves, so that he is not a tyrant.

To suggest that Tolkien subscribed to slavery because Sam is a servant is...well, not very well considered. I have no doubt that he would have disapproved of Hermione's methods (well, doesn't everyone? ), but not because he would think slavery okay. He would think it wrong to 'trick' the house-elves into accepting freedom [her campaign of hiding clothes for them to pick up by accident], and JKR certainly makes it sound as if the elves themselves do not approve of this under-handed tactic. Tolkien would advocate a scenario that helps the elves to win their freedom (or even maintain it for them without their knowledge), but he would not force it on them. To ever succeed, Hermione is going to have to learn that they have to want freedom before she can grant it to them. Why do you think her campaign has been a dismal failure thus far?

[axordil]

TH--
She spotted it on her own. That's why the episode was instructive for me. When the core narrative of a larger culture you are attached to is just another story to you, I think it's easier to see the pattern in other stories.

So, what happens when these values conflict?

This is really the central question of a lot of literature, because it is the central question in a civilized society. Most conflicts in such are not between good and evil, but between this good and that good, or more to the point, between my good and your good. In that respect Voldemort, while central to the plot of HP, can never be as interesting a character as someone like Snape, just as Sauron is not as interesting as Gollum or Denethor or Boromir.

[MithLuin]

Yes, I agree. And if anything, it is a question that is dealt with more systematically by absolute morality than by a relativistic approach. The debate of the Valar identifies the highest good, but realizes that they cannot impose this choice (which, of course, involves some sacrifice) on another. Thus, their edict determines what is allowed, and then leaves the choices up to the people involved. Neither Finwë nor Míriel choose what the Valar had deemed would be best for them. While their choices are not wrong, they do lead to some regrets. (And some opportunities for good that would not have existed otherwise).

While no one can be told to make a heroic sacrifice out of love, most people would recognize that doing so is admirable. That is why we all for Finrod, but are rather more cool towards some of the other Noldor who may have accomplished more. Same with Lily sacrificing herself, even though she had to know that LV's next move would be to kill her son anyway. Her husband James is just as dead, but he is merely a brave murder victim, because he had no opportunity to save himself. (Though, he was trying to buy Lily time to escape).

Edit: Also, the distinction between morality and ethics probably doesn't matter for this discussion, but I thought I would put it out there. Ethics is a branch of Philosophy; Morality is a branch of Theology. Thus, not all ethics are secular (just as not all philosophies are), but morality naturally involves a particular understanding about God (even if that understanding is secular humanism). Before he was Pope, John Paul II was a professor of Ethics in the philosophy department at a Catholic University in Communist Poland. Puzzle that one out .