![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
My boss just came back from a conference. She'd promised to look for good free stuff to bring back (last year's "Prayer of Jabez" pens being a big favorite).
Today she came in and said, "There just wasn't a lot of good free stuff. Only one thing, and it was for you." She hands me two books: HARRY POTTER AND THE BIBLE and FANTASY AND YOUR FAMILY (A closer look at HP and LOTR). The Harry Potter says above the title, "Harmless fantasy or dangerous fascination?" She says, "I'll bet I know which one it is!" and points to the second one. I am so amused that she brought these back for me. She apparently briefly complained that they were kind of heavy for her suitcase but the other person she was with said there was just no way she could leave without bringing these books to me.
I started flipping through them. A quick glance shows that Tolkien=good and JKR=bad. Yes, the Pagans are taking over, insidiously giving children magical practices that can be copied by children (um, they can?), and even worse, a world where there's moral ambiguity and a friend might turn out to be an enemy, an enemy an ally. (Apparently the author hasn't taken a good look at the current Slytherin house lately--there's orcs galore in there!)
Well, I'm not going to be so stupid as to reject something I think is right because it comes from an unexpected source! I mean, how many times have I complained that that Harry and his friends do bad things without the slightest hint of remorse but that their bad deeds are cleverly obscured by the really bad deeds of the bad guys and so seen as good? Isn't that basically what obsesses me about these books? I particularly liked this passage about Harry being congratulated for showing strong moral fiber after saving all three people from the lake in GoF: "How so? By attempting to save three "good" students from their underwater captivity, although he only needed save his friend, Ron Weasley. But is this feat truly extraordinary? And would he have made the extra effort for Malfoy or Professor Snape? That is doubtful because not once in all four books (me:let's make that five now) does Harry display any concern for characters other than those that show concern for him. To paraphrase Jesus' words: 'If you only love those who love you, what special credit is that to you? Even evil people love those who love them. And if you only do good to those who do good to you, so what? Evil people do the same thing.' Rowling downplays Harry's other moral issues by elevating two virtuous characteristics above all others: bravery and courage. As she herself has stated, 'If the characters are brave and courageous, that is what is rewarded.'"
What is this woman's obsession with bravery and courage?
Though many people seem to share this obsession. I notice the secondary definition of bravery says "magnificence; show." The "show" part seems to be incredibly important in these books. I think that's a lot of why Frodo gets slagged off by so many people who only respect him for the two times he raises a sword or yells (thus his character is "dimished" beyond recall in the movies, even though he's still the ringbearer). His real triumphs of compassion, sacrifice and insight are completely dismissed or sometimes characterized as weakness. Mr. Abanes would probably have a hard time understanding how Frodo, who was obviously written to be a Christian hero and indeed loves even those who don't love him, resonates so much more with me than the "lesser evil" Pagan Harry.
Not that I completely agree with him on Harry--his own lack of understanding of course keeps him from showing any compassion towards the "good" characters in the book. If he took the time to figure out why Harry might not like rules or why it is sometimes a good thing for rules to be broken he might start slipping into ::shudder: moral relativism which he thinks is so evil and of course the territory of Pagans--like Christians have never been known to dabble in it. I mean, yeah, I know it's frustrating when the good guys have done something awful and it's applauded. Or even worse where Hermione hollowly references some moral idea without showing any real understanding of it or doing anything about it and from that we're supposed to consider her a good person. Unfortunately the author refuses to really look at the motivations of the Trio for anything they do and instead relies on a list of rules like Percy that are broken so I can't trust his judgement on anyone. I mean, it's rather funny how he's apparently unconcerned at the good guys hurting anyone while being offended by a character drinking or someone taking the Lord's name in vain.
Iow, he himself is just as misguidedly interested, imo, in labelling the characters as "good kids" or "bad kids" as the characters are and like them he glosses over real ethical problems in doing so. As far as he's concerned, all that matters is that the good guys not use the same "power source" and "methods" as the bad guys. This is true to a certain extent, but in the real world I think it's ridiculous to think there's that much of a separation. We are all just people running on many of the same "power sources."
Unfortunately the author naturally associates any ability to come to a sound moral conclusion with being Christian, all non-Christians being hopelessly motivated by self-interest. His blaming these problems on a lack of Christianity or a leaning towards Paganism, imo, completely misses the point. Followers are more important than any real thinking about morality. Just like the books he claims to dislike, for Richard Abanes it's all about which house you're sorted into.
He then amusingly finds ways to excuse Biblical characters in the same ways he objects to anyone in the books being excused. I think if he'd just think his ethics through instead of relying on a list of "never do this or that" he'd find a moral consistency that wouldn't even contradict his religion. But no, more important to just get those Pagans! ::sigh::
The only real surprise so far is that someone who seems to love Tolkien's ideas so much can not spell Gimli. Is it that hard a name, really? Hmmmm...
ETA: It's kind of annoying that I have like nothing to say regarding this guy's views on LOTR but since he's basically just saying, "Good. Tolkien Catholic. Good," there's just nothing to say, except that my reaction is much the same as it is to his other opinions: we sometimes arrive at the same conclusions for totally different reasons, but most of the time I think he wastes his time focusing on whether the book fits his personal agenda rather than taking it as a story unto itself.
Today she came in and said, "There just wasn't a lot of good free stuff. Only one thing, and it was for you." She hands me two books: HARRY POTTER AND THE BIBLE and FANTASY AND YOUR FAMILY (A closer look at HP and LOTR). The Harry Potter says above the title, "Harmless fantasy or dangerous fascination?" She says, "I'll bet I know which one it is!" and points to the second one. I am so amused that she brought these back for me. She apparently briefly complained that they were kind of heavy for her suitcase but the other person she was with said there was just no way she could leave without bringing these books to me.
I started flipping through them. A quick glance shows that Tolkien=good and JKR=bad. Yes, the Pagans are taking over, insidiously giving children magical practices that can be copied by children (um, they can?), and even worse, a world where there's moral ambiguity and a friend might turn out to be an enemy, an enemy an ally. (Apparently the author hasn't taken a good look at the current Slytherin house lately--there's orcs galore in there!)
Well, I'm not going to be so stupid as to reject something I think is right because it comes from an unexpected source! I mean, how many times have I complained that that Harry and his friends do bad things without the slightest hint of remorse but that their bad deeds are cleverly obscured by the really bad deeds of the bad guys and so seen as good? Isn't that basically what obsesses me about these books? I particularly liked this passage about Harry being congratulated for showing strong moral fiber after saving all three people from the lake in GoF: "How so? By attempting to save three "good" students from their underwater captivity, although he only needed save his friend, Ron Weasley. But is this feat truly extraordinary? And would he have made the extra effort for Malfoy or Professor Snape? That is doubtful because not once in all four books (me:let's make that five now) does Harry display any concern for characters other than those that show concern for him. To paraphrase Jesus' words: 'If you only love those who love you, what special credit is that to you? Even evil people love those who love them. And if you only do good to those who do good to you, so what? Evil people do the same thing.' Rowling downplays Harry's other moral issues by elevating two virtuous characteristics above all others: bravery and courage. As she herself has stated, 'If the characters are brave and courageous, that is what is rewarded.'"
What is this woman's obsession with bravery and courage?
Though many people seem to share this obsession. I notice the secondary definition of bravery says "magnificence; show." The "show" part seems to be incredibly important in these books. I think that's a lot of why Frodo gets slagged off by so many people who only respect him for the two times he raises a sword or yells (thus his character is "dimished" beyond recall in the movies, even though he's still the ringbearer). His real triumphs of compassion, sacrifice and insight are completely dismissed or sometimes characterized as weakness. Mr. Abanes would probably have a hard time understanding how Frodo, who was obviously written to be a Christian hero and indeed loves even those who don't love him, resonates so much more with me than the "lesser evil" Pagan Harry.
Not that I completely agree with him on Harry--his own lack of understanding of course keeps him from showing any compassion towards the "good" characters in the book. If he took the time to figure out why Harry might not like rules or why it is sometimes a good thing for rules to be broken he might start slipping into ::shudder: moral relativism which he thinks is so evil and of course the territory of Pagans--like Christians have never been known to dabble in it. I mean, yeah, I know it's frustrating when the good guys have done something awful and it's applauded. Or even worse where Hermione hollowly references some moral idea without showing any real understanding of it or doing anything about it and from that we're supposed to consider her a good person. Unfortunately the author refuses to really look at the motivations of the Trio for anything they do and instead relies on a list of rules like Percy that are broken so I can't trust his judgement on anyone. I mean, it's rather funny how he's apparently unconcerned at the good guys hurting anyone while being offended by a character drinking or someone taking the Lord's name in vain.
Iow, he himself is just as misguidedly interested, imo, in labelling the characters as "good kids" or "bad kids" as the characters are and like them he glosses over real ethical problems in doing so. As far as he's concerned, all that matters is that the good guys not use the same "power source" and "methods" as the bad guys. This is true to a certain extent, but in the real world I think it's ridiculous to think there's that much of a separation. We are all just people running on many of the same "power sources."
Unfortunately the author naturally associates any ability to come to a sound moral conclusion with being Christian, all non-Christians being hopelessly motivated by self-interest. His blaming these problems on a lack of Christianity or a leaning towards Paganism, imo, completely misses the point. Followers are more important than any real thinking about morality. Just like the books he claims to dislike, for Richard Abanes it's all about which house you're sorted into.
He then amusingly finds ways to excuse Biblical characters in the same ways he objects to anyone in the books being excused. I think if he'd just think his ethics through instead of relying on a list of "never do this or that" he'd find a moral consistency that wouldn't even contradict his religion. But no, more important to just get those Pagans! ::sigh::
The only real surprise so far is that someone who seems to love Tolkien's ideas so much can not spell Gimli. Is it that hard a name, really? Hmmmm...
ETA: It's kind of annoying that I have like nothing to say regarding this guy's views on LOTR but since he's basically just saying, "Good. Tolkien Catholic. Good," there's just nothing to say, except that my reaction is much the same as it is to his other opinions: we sometimes arrive at the same conclusions for totally different reasons, but most of the time I think he wastes his time focusing on whether the book fits his personal agenda rather than taking it as a story unto itself.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
*covets Prayer of Jabez pen*
From:
no subject
It's an excellent pen, though. You click it and it goes through the whole prayer one line at a time!