Wizards and a defense of Gandalf
#41
(10-01-2010, 12:58 PM)Iolanthe Wrote: The latter. I made a point that reading Tolkien can have many of the same objections as reading the Harry Potter books. I don't have any kind of problem with either, personally, but dislike double standards.

That may be possible, but I am only referring to certain aspects, not the big picture. Someone on another thread made a point that Gandalf is a "wizard", therefore, Harry Potter must be acceptable to those who find Lord of the Rings to be acceptable.

Now, what is one to think of fantasy or certain types of fantasy is another question, one I didn't defend or about which I made no threads.

It isn't a double standard; you just don't follow what is actually being written.
Reply
#42
(10-02-2010, 08:59 AM)Herr_Mannelig Wrote:
(10-01-2010, 12:58 PM)Iolanthe Wrote: The latter. I made a point that reading Tolkien can have many of the same objections as reading the Harry Potter books. I don't have any kind of problem with either, personally, but dislike double standards.

That may be possible, but I am only referring to certain aspects, not the big picture. Someone on another thread made a point that Gandalf is a "wizard", therefore, Harry Potter must be acceptable to those who find Lord of the Rings to be acceptable.

Now, what is one to think of fantasy or certain types of fantasy is another question, one I didn't defend or about which I made no threads.

It isn't a double standard; you just don't follow what is actually being written.

It's easy to make something look like it's not a double standard by making arbitrary arguments and splitting hairs. I'm sure I could come up with plenty of evidence as to why HP is wholesome and LOTR is evil if I cared to. It's also easy to accuse someone of not understanding when they don't agree with you. I understand a lot more than you think...or maybe you are aware of it, which is why you keep starting new threads??

What you're doing is first class "missing the forest for the trees."
Reply
#43
Oh and....I did not make the point that Harry Potter must be okay if LOTR is.

My point has been all along that if you condemn HP for its magical content, it makes sense to condemn LOTR and similar books as well, which isn't the same thing. I also stated that I understand people who stay away from all literature with magic or witchcraft in them, although I don't necessarily take that stance myself.
Reply
#44
(10-02-2010, 09:13 AM)Iolanthe Wrote: Oh and....I did not make the point that Harry Potter must be okay if LOTR is.
I did not refer to you in that post. I did not state that you made that point...why do you respond as if I did?

Quote:My point has been all along that if you condemn HP for its magical content, it makes sense to condemn LOTR and similar books as well, which isn't the same thing.
If one finds any sort of magic (magic needing to be defined here or clarify it with "in fiction") to be unacceptable, then yes, this would be logical. However, that is a very broad sweep and I do not think arguments for or against any particular fiction are so broad.

Quote: I also stated that I understand people who stay away from all literature with magic or witchcraft in them, although I don't necessarily take that stance myself.
I wrote that I think certain types are definitely not appropriate for people of the faith to use for entertainment, and did not say any were definitely appropriate. So, I am not sure what your problem with my posts are. These are public posts. Only when I specifically refer to what you stated am I addressing what you wrote.
Reply
#45
(10-02-2010, 09:10 AM)Iolanthe Wrote: It's easy to make something look like it's not a double standard by making arbitrary arguments and splitting hairs.
It is not so easy to make discussions about related, but distinct topics, with precise language, look like anything else but what it is.

Just because I am not focusing on you, that doesn't give a reason to make assumptions that everything I write on a broad topic is specifically addressed to you and intended to be confrontational.

Quote:I'm sure I could come up with plenty of evidence as to why HP is wholesome and LOTR is evil if I cared to.
It isn't a matter of evidence, but of objective morality. I am not showing any particular work to be wholesome or evil.

Quote:It's also easy to accuse someone of not understanding when they don't agree with you.
Actually, I am not sure if you agree or disagree. Most of what you have written is addressed to me personally and not discussing the topic. Since you are the only one I have recently accused of not understanding, because your responses are not remotely logical responses to my posts. I am not sure if you agree with me or not about any issue. I do not even think you know what I think is good or bad, since I HAVEN'T STATED IT YET.

Quote: I understand a lot more than you think...or maybe you are aware of it, which is why you keep starting new threads??
I am different threads for different topics. I know this one directly references a quote on another thread, but it was never intended to be a direct response to that post or that person. It was merely an example of an idea which I was addressing.

For new thread creation, I am not that high on the forum's list I think. I do not start threads that often compared to other people. When I do start them, I often start them in clusters. One can find a bunch of posts made in a relatively short period of time in the Men's forum for example. That is a pattern to remember. When I start new threads, it is often in groups. These are often topics which were on my mind for a while and I just switched from "reading posts and responding" mode to "introduce new topics" mode.

Each thread is more or less intended to stand on its own, although the specific topic can often be based on other discussions, but this isn't as significant as you seem to think.

Quote:What you're doing is first class "missing the forest for the trees."
What you're doing is second class "assuming". Just read the posts as they are written and ignore that little voice which tries to extrapolate meaning which isn't stated.

Yes, I am often very precise in my meaning. This isn't "hair splitting" unless these are direct responses to another topic. If I focused on minute details of a post to attack it, that would be hair splitting. If I specifically responded to parts of a statement, which may not be the broad subject, that is "giving my 2 cents".

For example:

Other> "Dolphins are tasty fish and hunting should be allowed."
Me> "Dolphins are not fish."

That fictional discussion only shows me to say dolphins are not fish, which is true. It does not mean I do not think they are tasty or not or that hunting should be allowed or not.
Reply
#46
(10-02-2010, 08:59 AM)Herr_Mannelig Wrote:
(10-01-2010, 12:58 PM)Iolanthe Wrote: The latter. I made a point that reading Tolkien can have many of the same objections as reading the Harry Potter books. I don't have any kind of problem with either, personally, but dislike double standards.

That may be possible, but I am only referring to certain aspects, not the big picture. Someone on another thread made a point that Gandalf is a "wizard", therefore, Harry Potter must be acceptable to those who find Lord of the Rings to be acceptable.

Now, what is one to think of fantasy or certain types of fantasy is another question, one I didn't defend or about which I made no threads.

It isn't a double standard; you just don't follow what is actually being written.

Herr, I think you started a great thread here and have had some great posts.  And what you have asserted vs. not asserted has been quite clear.

Michael O'Brian wrote a great article comparing Potter to LotR - showing how the two stories and characters are completely different, and asserting that Potter is not compatible with Catholic faith while LotR is.
Reply
#47
I didn't think this thread had anything to do with Harry Potter.

Why are we discussing it here?
Reply
#48
(10-02-2010, 11:44 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: I didn't think this thread had anything to do with Harry Potter.

Why are we discussing it here?

Why did we start discussing LOTR in the Harry Potter thread?
Reply
#49
(10-03-2010, 02:44 AM)piabee Wrote:
(10-02-2010, 11:44 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: I didn't think this thread had anything to do with Harry Potter.

Why are we discussing it here?

Why did we start discussing LOTR in the Harry Potter thread?

Because people who started the thread brought it up (it was the red herring).

The thread starter on that thread responded to people critical of Harry Potter (note, those critics ONLY discussed Harry Potter when posting against it), then that person "defended" Harry Potter with Lord of the Rings, then people (including myself, I had no posted prior to this as I have no interest and very little knowledge of Harry Potter) responded to that. The same person who started the thread brought up Lord of the Rings. http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg33320309

This is the difference. The people against Harry Potter can post about it with only mentioning Harry Potter and ethics. People for Harry Potter can do so only by posting about Harry Potter as little as possible and focusing on another work in an attempt to make them equal (without proving it) in the minds of those in the discussion and then trying to show that those people approve of Lord of the Rings. In this pattern, I posted a little on the equality issue (some of the elements I felt were not equal in presentation in either series) and then I pulled back to address the moral questions in general terms, without focusing on specifics of any work.

In this thread, I posted a support of Gandalf against attacks made based solely on the name "wizard" and his appearance. Calling a person a wizard is not necessarily evil, although by default it would be, and that a person depicted as Gandalf is is not necessarily evil. I did this by analysing the word "wizard", some history of it and the cases where it is used to mean an evil person. Then I focused on the imagery of Gandalf and showed that not to be unique to wizards. I never said Gandalf was entirely wholesome or anything about the entire series.

While all this is inspired by a thread about what people's favourite Harry Potter stories are, I never intended to take part in the main discussions and the reason why I made two threads is because these are about different topics. Like the dolphin reference above, if I were to make a thread on the monarchs of Catholic France and then another on binomial nomenclature, they would be inspired by the thread on the ethics of hunting dolphins, but they would not be direct responses. Just because they are about related concepts in some way does not make them a direct continuation. I am not interested in Harry Potter, but I am interested in facts, the facts being that the concept of "wizard" in Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings are not the same. Whether either is good or not is another question. I am not really interested in judging any particular work, but I am interested in defending the linguistic uses of some words and the concepts of a particular appearance (mainly, because I aspire to look like that one day...I often say in real life that I can't wait for my hair to turn grey or silver because then I'll look like a "wizard"...I'd also look like most depictions of Moses, St. Benedict, God the Father.).
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)