Ship of Fools: Harry Potter, now the dust has settled

Thread: Harry Potter, now the dust has settled Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024593

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

Seeing as it’s now almost 2 years since the last film and nearly 5 years since the last book, I thought it would be nice to have a thread about the longer lasting views and opinions on the Harry Potter series.

I’ve raised it in Purgatory instead of Heaven because my position is that they are based on Christus Victor. So take your pick of boards; Heaven? Keryg? Dead Horses? I’ll leave that call to the Hosts in the fullness of time.

On to the main premise then…

I think the series taken as a whole is an allegory of Christ’s ministry, with the Passion and Resurection given centre-stage.

I can certainly map HP characters and organisations to NT equivalents. Let start with Harry as Christ of course. Ron would be John – the beloved disciple – who followed Christ in faith. Hermione? I’m torn as to a Mary, either Mother or Magdelene.

Dumbledore? God the Father and possibly The Spirit? A bit hard that one to map, but that’s my view.

Voldemort is of course sin, death, Satan, the fallen one. Cast from Heaven to the Hell of being outside, the lonely one. The orphan rejected by all including his parents, and who tempts Harry/Christ into joining him, and then finally killing him.

The Order of the Phoenix and the DA are the Apostles. Those closest to Harry, and who protect him, help him, and work in His name.

The Ministry? This is the Pharisee’s, the Holy ones who interpret the Law and enforce the Law, in the name of the Minister… Herod perhaps?

We even have a John the Baptist. The isolated wanderer, who preaches of the one to come who will defeat death and sin… Sybil Trellawny!

Books one through to six represent Harry’s/Christ’s ministry. The wandering and preaching, the healing, the miracles. But seven is where it all becomes clear to me.

In seven we have the recognition that Harry is the eighth Horcrux and must die to defeat Voldemort. We have the moment of doubt in the Garden of Gethsemene/Forbidden Forest, when he appeals to his dead parents to be with him because he doesn’t think he can go through with it. He asks to have the cup taken from his lips. But he does face Voldemort, as Christ faces sin and death, in the form of people driven by Satan. Both die. Christ by crucifixion, Harry by the Avada Kadavra curse.

This is where I’m convinced we move firmly into the Christus Victor model of the Atonement. Harry “wakes” in Kings Cross, where the eighth Horcrux lies dying under the seats. He goes back to his Earthly life and is resurrected. Christ, well we don’t truly know where he went after death, but I’m convinced it was to battle and defeat sin and death. He is then returned to his Earthly life and is resurrected.

Christ extends his ministry through the apostles and demands that they go out into the world to make it better. Harry finally defeats Voldemort after his resurrection, and the rest of the wizarding world goes off to do good in the muggle world.

No wonder the fundamentalist, con-evo, PSA advocates hated them! There they were, trying to raise up a new generation of Penal Substitution Atonement loving little con-evo’s, and along comes this Scottish anti-Christ peddling a wonderful explanation of Christus Victor to their children! Popery even!

Anyway, I’m sure opinions will vary, but I though now the dust had settled, it might be nice to re-evaluate the theological issues in the Harry Potter series. Over to the Ship!

[ 06. February 2013, 14:56: Message edited by: Ancient Mariner ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Pretty sure Harry was the 7th Horcrux, not the 8th.

I'm not convinced with HP as allegory, but if we go with it for now I'd say that Ron has more in common with Peter, being a bit daft at times and ultimately chickening out when the going got tough, before returning. If we're going to cast John the Baptist, surely that would be Dumbledore? Dumbledore repeatedly challenged the authorities, and was far from all knowing or all powerful.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Pretty sure Harry was the 7th Horcrux, not the 8th.

I'm not convinced with HP as allegory, but if we go with it for now I'd say that Ron has more in common with Peter, being a bit daft at times and ultimately chickening out when the going got tough, before returning. If we're going to cast John the Baptist, surely that would be Dumbledore? Dumbledore repeatedly challenged the authorities, and was far from all knowing or all powerful.

Fair point on the Horcrux count. Harry was the 8th piece of soul.

Dumbledore as John the Baptist? Well, yes it does fit, as he was killed for "sport". Okay, I can go with that, but given the support and advice Dumbledoor gives before death, and even afterwards as the painting and in the pensieve memories, I'm not quite ready to give up the Father-like analogy. Perhaps an amalgam of the two would work. Maybe JKR thought the efficiency worked better that way.

That still leaves Trellawny as a partial John the Baptist though, given the predictions; "There is one coming who has power that the dark lord knows not" etc.

[ 03. February 2013, 15:20: Message edited by: deano ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

That would make Trelawney more Simeon than John the Baptist. Trelawney makes a prophecy, but Dumbledore "prepares the way".

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

I don't think it fits quite as neatly as you lay out deano (and we must remember that it is written by a non-Christian), but the points about prophecy are interesting and an aspect of the story I hadn't thought about before in relation to the Gospel.

I am gratified to see the nonsense about the magic in it die down though, or at least mostly - the films are banned from our uni CU's weekend away/movie nights [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
we must remember that it is written by a non-Christian

*clears throat*

Jade, I think you may well be mistaken on this. I understand JKR is a communicant in the Church of Scotland.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
and we must remember that it is written by a non-Christian

JK Rowling is a Christian. She's a Presbytarian in the Church of Scotland.

Perhaps if this thread bears fruit, you can use it to point out that HP reinforces the Gospel! They may well see the films in a better light if you can debate the points.

[ 03. February 2013, 15:58: Message edited by: deano ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

She has apparently changed her position since the interview I watched of her saying she thought she believed in God, but that was it. I stand corrected!

Posted by hilaryg (# 11690) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I don't think it fits quite as neatly as you lay out deano (and we must remember that it is written by a non-Christian)

JK Rowling self identifies as a Christian and is a member of the Church of Scotland.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Or she could be like a bunch of people on the Ship- likes church, believes in God, and is still pondering the other details.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

I found this bit on her Wiki page:

quote:
Over the years, some religious people have decried Rowling's books for supposedly promoting witchcraft; however, Rowling identifies as a Christian. She attended a Church of Scotland congregation while writing Harry Potter and her eldest daughter, Jessica, was baptised there.[182] "I go to church myself", she says, "I don't take any responsibility for the lunatic fringes of my own religion."[183] She once said, "I believe in God, not magic."[184] Early on she felt that if readers knew of her Christian beliefs they would be able to "guess what is coming in the books."

That last bit seems pertinent to this discussion. Also in that part of the article she admits to struggling with her beliefs. She sounds like a prime candidate for the Ship all right. [Smile]

Posted by Noodlehead (# 9600) on :

I saw an interview around the time the last book came out where she confirmed that she was a Christian. Asked why she didn't bring it up to counter all the crazy witchcraft allegations, she said something along the lines that she thought that if people knew she was a Christian, it would have been too easy to guess how she was intending to end the story.

ETA Sorry - cross post!

[ 03. February 2013, 16:11: Message edited by: Noodlehead ]

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Or she could be like a bunch of people on the Ship- likes church, believes in God, and is still pondering the other details.

Yes. I think the novels were an outworking of that. A very imaginative way of seeing if her thoughts on faith worked out!

I'm a fanboy as you may well have guessed!

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I think - putting on my Author hat for a moment - that some of the criticism aimed at her has made her wary of self-identifying as a "Christian writer". And frankly, I can't blame her.

No one's going to mistake the stuff I write for Christian fiction, just because. But for things that are written for children, that are also wildly popular and good books to boot (I have my own criticisms, mainly about structure and pacing - but not the plot) - a certain subset of evangelical Christian (sorry, but it's you again) were almost compelled to attack both the books and her.

To the OP, I think that it's a mistake to try and identify any given character with a biblical analogue. The reason that the characters resonate is that many of them are archetypes, and characters in the Bible are also archetypes. But conflating the two involves too much shoe-horning for my liking.

Given a bit more distance, I think they stand a good chance of becoming the next generation's Narnia. And I'd certainly prefer my grandkids to read Potter than, say, Twilight.

Perhaps JKR can join me and Francis Spufford in our Christian-Marxist writers' cabal...

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
She has apparently changed her position since the interview I watched of her saying she thought she believed in God, but that was it. I stand corrected!

I believe at least one shipmate remembers when Jo Rowling was their parish secretary, before the book signing tours became too time-consuming.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Seeing as it’s now almost 2 years since the last film and nearly 5 years since the last book, I thought it would be nice to have a thread about the longer lasting views and opinions on the Harry Potter series.

They are a well written series of children's books with crossover appeal to adults. In the fantasy genre.
Oh, right, you mean the religious nonsense.
ISTM, it is neither demonic nor allegorical, simply entertainment. This cigar is not a penis, sorry.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

To the OP, I think that it's a mistake to try and identify any given character with a biblical analogue. The reason that the characters resonate is that many of them are archetypes, and characters in the Bible are also archetypes. But conflating the two involves too much shoe-horning for my liking.

Even Narnia, I feel it's a bit of a mistake. And Narnia has to be as close as you can get.

Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :

I have always viewed the books as being decent novels. It has never interested me to look for any allegory in them, Biblical or otherwise.

The problem with such allegory that is that every detail of each character's actions and personality has to be considered in the light of the Biblical character they are supposed to represent and if any discrepancies arise they confuse. Allegory can therefore warp our views of the original character.

Besides, why look for Biblical meaning in the books when you can look for Biblical meaning in the Bible?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And I'd certainly prefer my grandkids to read Potter than, say, Twilight.

Twilight is infinitely worse than Harry Potter can be regardless of intent. Twilight is aimed at a vulnerable age group and perpetuates a rubbish view of relationships.
Harry Potter is just fun.

Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on :

There is a theme of redemption - JK Rowling confirmed this herself. There is also a strong theme of the power of a sacrifice made through love.

I think it's inevitable that when a Christian writes on these themes there will be a discernable correlation with Christ's sacrifice, but I'm reluctant to try and pin down direct equivalents. Maybe it's more helpful to recognise significant characteristics and actions rather than to try to define characters from the books as complete representations of people from the gospels.

It's not just con evos who have problems with the series though. I know someone who self-identifies as liberal who won't even open one of the books because they're bad (thereby rejecting them without knowledge). Mind you, she never could be accused of joined-up thinking.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

I don't think jKR set out to put a John The Baptist character in, and a Mary figure in.

I think she had a path to follow though. I think she knew where she wanted to get to right from the start, and some characters fell out naturally from the plot.

I'm pretty sure that her characters took on lives of their own as she was writing and they naturally fell into those moulds.

Posted by hanginginthere (# 17541) on :

I would be wary of going down the allegory route, still less treating it as a sort of roman a cle (how do I get accents?) as if every character had to correspond to an individual in the real world or in another text. (Interestingly, Tolkien hated allegory and always resented attempts to impose it on his writings). However there are many themes that are distinctly Christian, in particular the overarching one of the power of sacrificial love, as has already been mentioned. But in the Potter books the primary loving sacrifice, the one that protects Harry from Voldemort's power, is that of Harry's mother, and I don't think that would fit into the schema in the OP.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hanginginthere:
But in the Potter books the primary loving sacrifice, the one that protects Harry from Voldemort's power, is that of Harry's mother, and I don't think that would fit into the schema in the OP.

Well... Mary said "Yes" to God to carry Christ for the Incarnation, with who knows what sacrifices this entailed for her. This lead to Christ being born fully divine and fully human. That's protection in my book.

As I say, I don't believe she approached the books intending to rewrite the Bible with Potterverse characters, but I do think they are there.

It is an analogy, a metaphore, which breaks downn at the extremes, but I believe it does stretch quite well as a model for Christus Victor.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

There's a difference, it seems to me, between saying that a figure is an allegory for Christ and saying that a figure is an example of Christian ethics and anthropology.
An allegory exists on a different plane from that which it's an allegory of, and parallels it. An example exists on the same plane and flows from what it's an example of. If someone gives up their life for their neighbour and so saves their life, that's not an allegory - that's just an example of what Christians see as a truth about human life. In theology, an allegory falls under Christology. But an example falls under Christian ethics or Christian living or the theology of the Kingdom. And I think Harry Potter counts as the latter, not the former.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

Like (pretty much) I think it's wrong to read the books as allegory, or even as analogy. They are essentially fairy stories in genre.

However, there are incredibly Christian central themes to the books. First, self-giving love, shown supremely in Harry (though in other characters as well). Second, redemption, shown supremely in Snape.

Yes, there are various aspects that have vague analogues in Christianity, but I think focussing on them ends up obscuring the more radical relationship in these two governing themes.

In other words, people who denounce them as "non-Christian" are talking a very special brand of clap-trap.

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Pretty sure Harry was the 7th Horcrux, not the 8th.
Fair point on the Horcrux count. Harry was the 8th piece of soul.

Seventh, actually. There were six Horcruxes; the other piece of soul was inside Voldemort.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Or she could be like a bunch of people on the Ship- likes church, believes in God, and is still pondering the other details.

Hmmm... that's interesting, because I assumed she was an atheist - because of the films portrayal of absolute denial of any life after death. But the films may not be an accurate portrayal of what's written in the books, so maybe I judged her too quickly. She's allowed to change her views as well, of course, just like we all are.

Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I found this bit on her Wiki page:
quote:
Over the years, some religious people have decried Rowling's books for supposedly promoting witchcraft; however, Rowling identifies as a Christian. She attended a Church of Scotland congregation while writing Harry Potter and her eldest daughter, Jessica, was baptised there.[182] "I go to church myself", she says, "I don't take any responsibility for the lunatic fringes of my own religion."[183] She once said, "I believe in God, not magic."[184] Early on she felt that if readers knew of her Christian beliefs they would be able to "guess what is coming in the books."
That last bit seems pertinent to this discussion. Also in that part of the article she admits to struggling with her beliefs. She sounds like a prime candidate for the Ship all right.

Interesting - I thought in interviews she had said she was part of the Scottish Episcopal Church, not the Church of Scotland.

Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Or she could be like a bunch of people on the Ship- likes church, believes in God, and is still pondering the other details.
Hmmm... that's interesting, because I assumed she was an atheist - because of the films portrayal of absolute denial of any life after death. But the films may not be an accurate portrayal of what's written in the books, so maybe I judged her too quickly. She's allowed to change her views as well, of course, just like we all are.

Umm.

The films (and the books) quite explicitly show that there is life after death.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Or she could be like a bunch of people on the Ship- likes church, believes in God, and is still pondering the other details.
Hmmm... that's interesting, because I assumed she was an atheist - because of the films portrayal of absolute denial of any life after death. But the films may not be an accurate portrayal of what's written in the books, so maybe I judged her too quickly. She's allowed to change her views as well, of course, just like we all are.
Umm. The films (and the books) quite explicitly show that there is life after death.

Also, the life-after-death bit for Christians happens after the general resurrection. When we die, we 'fall asleep in the Lord', hence Rest in Peace, Rise in Glory...

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
Umm. The films (and the books) quite explicitly show that there is life after death.
Also, the life-after-death bit for Christians happens after the general resurrection. When we die, we 'fall asleep in the Lord', hence Rest in Peace, Rise in Glory...

Yes, well... I've only seen about three of the films. It looks like I've missed a lot!

I've read all the C. S. Lewis Narnia stuff and J.R.R. Tolkien Middle Earth, just not J. K. Rowling.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

The theme I come back to most is that in a fight between good and evil, the goodies can't do anything to stop the baddies just because they're the goodies, they have to stick to three ideals that make them the goodies. Probably because it is so apposite to our world. Guantanamo and Azkaban.

Carys (who is amused that her tablet knew those two places)

Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
Umm. The films (and the books) quite explicitly show that there is life after death.
Also, the life-after-death bit for Christians happens after the general resurrection. When we die, we 'fall asleep in the Lord', hence Rest in Peace, Rise in Glory...
Yes, well... I've only seen about three of the films. It looks like I've missed a lot!

I've read all the C. S. Lewis Narnia stuff and J.R.R. Tolkien Middle Earth, just not J. K. Rowling.

Well, you're in high profile, if not necessarily good company. Harold Bloom roundly criticised the first four books despite admitting to having only read the first one. [Razz]

Oh, and do read the books. The films are not too bad in terms of faithfulness to the books, but there is soooooo much more depth to the books.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

Indeed. There is reference in the third book onwards, to people having souls. At one point Hermione says that you should be grateful for not losing your soul in a way that appears to me at least, to indicate the soul is an integral part of life after death.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There's a difference, it seems to me, between saying that a figure is an allegory for Christ and saying that a figure is an example of Christian ethics and anthropology.
An allegory exists on a different plane from that which it's an allegory of, and parallels it. An example exists on the same plane and flows from what it's an example of. If someone gives up their life for their neighbour and so saves their life, that's not an allegory - that's just an example of what Christians see as a truth about human life. In theology, an allegory falls under Christology. But an example falls under Christian ethics or Christian living or the theology of the Kingdom. And I think Harry Potter counts as the latter, not the former.

Well my dictionary defines an allegory as “a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another”

So the HP novels are a representation of a spiritual meaning – Christus Victor – through the form of a series of books that show a figurative treatment of Christ’s ministry, passion and resurrection under the guise of the adventures of a boy wizard.

Allegorical? Most certainly, in my view at any rate. But as ever, dictionary definitions are not everyone’s definition, and I certainly don’t discount them as wrong, even if I choose not to hold to them.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
That last bit seems pertinent to this discussion. Also in that part of the article she admits to struggling with her beliefs. She sounds like a prime candidate for the Ship all right.

How do you know she's not a shipmate?!!!
[Paranoid]

Anyways. To see Harry Potter as Allegory and particularly to suggest it's in support of a particular theological position is an extreme stretch.

Of course, the story line is somewhat messianic and the themes of love and self-sacrifice are at the core of the story. In this sense the storyline is authentically Christian. This is particularly clear in the last book where Rowling slips in a couple of biblical quotes.

The kind of Con-Evos who object to HP do so because it depicts witchcraft in a positive light. Nothing else matters.

AFZ

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
JK Rowling is a Christian. She's a Presbyterian in the Church of Scotland.

There is a common theme in her books of free will and predestination, which ISTM is a distinctively Reformed concern, but I might be reading too much into it ...

quote:
So the HP novels are a representation of a spiritual meaning – Christus Victor – through the form of a series of books that show a figurative treatment of Christ’s ministry, passion and resurrection under the guise of the adventures of a boy wizard.

I think the issue is that Harry isn't an analogue for Christ because there's no sense in which he's divine. He could potentially stand for a human being trying to live the Christian life by imitating Christ, though.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think the issue is that Harry isn't an analogue for Christ because there's no sense in which he's divine. He could potentially stand for a human being trying to live the Christian life by imitating Christ, though.

Ah! Okay, I see your point.

Although to counter it, Harry was resurrected. He was killed and came back to life. He also survived the Avada Kedavra curse as a baby. Divinity passed on through his mother, perhaps?

Of course things can get stretched to far. My OP wasn't to suggest that the novels were written with that in mind, just that I could see certain similarities in the characters and their functions, with some NT personalities, and that the CV model of Atonement seems to be prominent in the HP plot in the seventh book.

In my view at least, the books do stand squarely in the "canon" (if there is such a thing) of Christian literature.

As I was typing this, I have just made another connection regarding the witchcraft in the books and the objections to it by con-evo's. Didn't the Pharisee's believe Christ cast out demons by Satanic means? Thus the accusations of Satanism against Harry mirror similar accusations made to Christ.

Oooh! You can read these on so many levels.

[ 04. February 2013, 11:40: Message edited by: deano ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
That last bit seems pertinent to this discussion. Also in that part of the article she admits to struggling with her beliefs. She sounds like a prime candidate for the Ship all right.
How do you know she's not a shipmate?!!!

AFZ

Better things to do with her time?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
...Harry was resurrected. He was killed and came back to life.

It's not that clear-cut. In his conversation with Dumbledore, he asks whether he is dead, and Dumbledore's reply is, "I think not." Just before they part, Harry asks whether this is all real or whether it is happening inside his head. The gist of Dumbledore's answer is that the fact that something happens inside his head doesn't mean it isn't real.

Getting back to the question of life after death, after Sirius dies at the Ministry, Luna asks Harry if he couldn't hear Sirius talking behind the veil.

Moo

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
So the HP novels are a representation of a spiritual meaning – Christus Victor – through the form of a series of books that show a figurative treatment of Christ’s ministry, passion and resurrection under the guise of the adventures of a boy wizard.

I don't think that they're a figurative treatment of Christ's passion and resurrection except to the extent that any human goodness and heroism is a figure of Christ's passion and resurrection.

Harry Potter's story takes the shape it does because he's following Jesus (*), not because he's representing Jesus.

(*) unknowingly, given that Harry the character doesn't seem to have any religious beliefs. But clearly whoever ordered his parents' gravestone did.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Well my dictionary defines an allegory as “a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another”

Your dictionary is right thus the Pilgrim's Progress is a representation of the progress of a soul towards salvation in the guise of an actual physical journey from a city called Destruction to the Celestial City. All or most of the characters 'stand for' something other than themselves, and most of the situations or adventures 'mean' something beyond their ostensible surface meaning.

I'm not aware of a full-blown allegory in modern literature, but elements of Camus's The Plague, I understand, can be read as an allegorical commentary on the German occupation of Paris in 1940, and similarly elements of Arthur Miller's The Crucible can be read allegorically as comment on Macarthyism.

I'm not sure how far the Narnia Chronicles can really be read as an allegory. I would say that there are allegorical elements in them - especially in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, The Magician's Nephew, and The Last Battle. OTOH, I can see the argument for saying these are not allegory as such, but rather Lewis's attempt to work out how things which he believed to be cosmically inescapable realities would work out in the fictional world he had created. He revisits these questions (creation, redemption, judgment) in his SF trilogy as well.

TBH, while there are elements in the Harry Potter books which can be read allegorically (allegorical meanings can be found in many works of literature - it is at once the great strength and the great weakness of allegory), I'm not at all sure that is what JKR intended. I think it is more the case that her Christian perspective and world view permeate her story telling.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
That last bit seems pertinent to this discussion. Also in that part of the article she admits to struggling with her beliefs. She sounds like a prime candidate for the Ship all right.
How do you know she's not a shipmate?!!!

AFZ
Better things to do with her time?

How can anyone have anything better to do with their time? [Eek!]

Oh and what BroJames said.

AFZ

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

No-one has mentioned my favourite character ... Snape. [Biased]

. Alas, poor Severus ... the double agent with a thankless task! Both he and Harry are manipulated a lot by Dumbledore (whom I don't like much, to be honest. Would-be Gandalf type. [Biased]

)

I like the books a lot. [Smile]

. There IS a lot of spirituality and quite overt Christian symbolism in the final book. Harry treads the 'hero sacrificing himself for his world' path ... the Frodo trope, if you will.

But I don't see Harry as a Christ-figure. I like Harry, and do regard him as a genuine hero, but he can be a right little prat at times. (Although he is a huge improvement on his father, whom I dislike.). Admittedly, Harry is not a prat in Deathly Hallows (although he can be self-absorbed) but Rowling the 'trendy leftie' allowing her young hero to use the Torture Curse on one of his enemies really makes me go WHUT.

My favourite characters are Severus, Harry and Hermione (although she can be very annoying, she was pretty awesome in the final book). Oh, and Sirius. He has a dark side. I like him because of it.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I'm not aware of a full-blown allegory in modern literature, but elements of Camus's The Plague, I understand, can be read as an allegorical commentary on the German occupation of Paris in 1940, and similarly elements of Arthur Miller's The Crucible can be read allegorically as comment on Macarthyism.

Surely the outstanding example of allegory in modern fiction is Animal Farm?

Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
Like (pretty much) I think it's wrong to read the books as allegory, or even as analogy. They are essentially fairy stories in genre.

However, there are incredibly Christian central themes to the books. First, self-giving love, shown supremely in Harry (though in other characters as well). Second, redemption, shown supremely in Snape.

I agree with this, and like Laurilyn, Snape's my favourite. And I think this is where your analogy breaks down for me - there's no equivalent for Snape in Christ's ministry. And his is the story arc where Rowling is most original and moving.

Really, the books are all about Snape, but some kid with a scar keeps getting in the way. [Razz]

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

I'm as evangelical as they come, and my former vicar, a conservative evangelical, was a great defender of the HP books. Just throwing that out there: not every single evangelical is silly about Potter.

Oh, and I apologise for saying nobody had mentioned Snape, when Basilica had. [Hot and Hormonal]

quote:
Originally posted by Earwig: [QB]
Really, the books are all about Snape, but some kid with a scar keeps getting in the way.

I do like Harry, actually. [Smile]

But ... LOL. [Big Grin]

Snape is by far one of the most original and moving characters. I prefer him by miles to Dumbledore, who majorly ticks me off on various counts. I would love to know a lot more about Snape's back story.

And, yes, he was awful to Harry. No excuses from me on that count! James Potter was an utter little SHIT, but adult Severus really should know better than to take it out on the son.

Although sometimes he really makes me laugh with the snark. [Big Grin]

And. He still tried to protect Harry, for Lily's sake, and he was horrified to learn that Dumbledore had been raising Harry 'like a pig for the slaughter'. And he was brutally murdered in the line of duty. [Waterworks]

Harry came to know the truth about him, in the end, and said Snape 'was probably the bravest man he ever knew'. [Smile]

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
And. He still tried to protect Harry, for Lily's sake, and he was horrified to learn that Dumbledore had been raising Harry 'like a pig for the slaughter'. And he was brutally murdered in the line of duty. Harry came to know the truth about him, in the end, and said Snape 'was probably the bravest man he ever knew'.

Spot on. Snape is one of the most intriguing and fascinating characters. I sensed at the end of Prince that Snape would be Good in the end and was really pleased with the way Rowling resolved that without having to force it.

I like Dumbledore - he knew his own frailties and felt the weight of his past sins. He never claimed to be the hero he was made out to be by so many. He knew his own clay feet. But he also knew he had to be the leader and great manipulator if you will and the thing that makes him a Good Guy (IMHO) is that he never liked being that person. He hated it but did it anyway.

All of this, I think emphasises how non-allegorical HP really is. Conversely it's a series that unashamedly promotes a world-view that is very Christ-like; emphasising the importance of love, the cost and value of doing the right thing and the value of a soul.

AFZ

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Anyone read The Gospel According to Harry Potter by Connie Neal?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

My greatest problem with Snape is his treatment of Neville Longbottom. Neville is sadly lacking in self-confidence, and Snape delights in sneering at him.

That is bullying pure and simple.

Moo

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Anyone read The Gospel According to Harry Potter by Connie Neal?

Yeah. I thought it was alright. It highlights a lot of the Christian themes in the books, not always spectacularly, but there's enough to provoke thought. I read it when there were only 4 HP books out, and people were fighting over whether JK was God Squad or Satan Spawn (I know the perception here is that dumb evangelicals all thought the latter, but really that was just a vocal minority. Most evangelicals I know liked the books).

I guessed pretty early on that JK was a Christian. Not so much because of any allegory, but the worldview & values behind HP are very Christian indeed. So the 'Gospel according to' is an obvious result of that. It didn't surprise me at all when Jo came out as Christian, and I totally understand why she initially kept it quiet, given the way the series ends.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I guessed pretty early on that JK was a Christian. Not so much because of any allegory, but the worldview & values behind HP are very Christian indeed.

I am sorry, but no. "Christian values" existed before Christians did. You do not hold the patent.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Neither the HP nor Narnia books are allegories.

HP is about Love as the ultimate magic, and living that out in an extremely messed-up world, with all your faults and gifts.

And Narnia is better than an allegory: Aslan isn't a symbol of Christ--he IS Christ, as he is known in that world. The kids are brought to Narnia so they can learn to know Aslan better in their world. And when they've died and are climbing up through Aslan's country, they see him--and he no longer looked like a lion to them. Etc., etc.

{Wanders away, muttering "What DO they teach them in those schools these days???"}

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You do not hold the patent.

I never thought that we do. However, ISedTM that the Harry Potter books were written by someone that holds the same values, and prized with importance the things that Christians do (or should). I have no doubt that those vales and focuses exist outside Christianity, but it was the combination that struck me. And it turned out I was right.

I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned Death as one of the main topics of HP yet. It seems to me that along with Love and Self-sacrifice, death is an incredibly central theme. If nothing else, I think that, for Western societies where death is either taboo, caricatured or sanitised, it's great for young people that is so popular explores the topic of death in such a good way. And even as an adult, I found the books helpful when dealing with death in my own life.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Death is indeed one of the major themes, starting with Voldemort - one who would be thief of death. And Deatheaters, Dementors who leave living dead, the various house ghosts starting to die but not going through the whole process, the death of Sirius as he goes through the curtain. Harry does not die, but goes to the waiting room; if you like, he has a near death experience.

And Moo Snape's treatment of Longbottom - someone who deserves at least as much sympathy as HP himself - simply shows that he is human and has faults just as we do.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Death is indeed one of the major themes, starting with Voldemort - one who would be thief of death. And Deatheaters, Dementors who leave living dead, the various house ghosts starting to die but not going through the whole process, the death of Sirius as he goes through the curtain. Harry does not die, but goes to the waiting room; if you like, he has a near death experience.

Sure. I think as well, the simple fact that Harry had to cope with many of those closest to him dying; his parents, Sirius, Dumbledore, and then the whole bunch in the last book; is really good. Many kids have to deal with parents, friends and grandparents dying, but there's not a whole load of other books out there that help them explore what that means.

There's also the thestrals, suggesting that the experience of seeing death somehow changes us, which ISTM is very true.

Probably my favourite part of all the books is when all the spirits of his friends and family are there walking with Harry when he goes to meet Voldemort/his own death, speaking words of love and encouragement. I wonder whether that's a glimpse of reality, that saints who love us surround us, urging us on all the time, only we can't see them. Either way, it's a great image.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Moo:

quote:
My greatest problem with Snape is his treatment of Neville Longbottom. Neville is sadly lacking in self-confidence, and Snape delights in sneering at him.

Snape is also horrible to Hermione, but secure in the knowledge that she is the cleverest in her year and one of Harry's best friends it mostly bounces off her. Perhaps he gets tired of marking her essays - it must be very irritating to get twice as much as you asked for EVERY TIME. Almost as irritating as having her answer all the questions in class; how are the teachers to find out whether the other students have learnt anything if Hermione always does all the talking?

I like Snape too, even though he has a nasty side - not surprising really, considering his background and the fact that the only person who seemed to like him was Harry's mother, who then went and married the man who conspired to murder him when they were all teenagers. I started liking him in Book 2, because he was the only person who managed to shut up Gilderoy Lockhart.

And if you look at his actions and ignore the sarcasm, he saves Harry's life several times, both directly (by countering the jinx on Harry's broom in Book 1) and indirectly (by teaching him the Expelliarmus charm). He tries to keep Harry out of danger instead of turning a blind eye to his nocturnal wanderings. He's almost the only one of the 'good' characters who dislikes Harry and keeps pointing out his imperfections (Dumbledore certainly doesn't). He's obviously a very powerful wizard if he can fool Voldemort into thinking he's evil when he was working for Dumbledore all the time.

I wonder if Snape was offered a place in Gryffindor and chose to be in Slytherin because of loyalty to his mother?

And in answer to the OP - no. I don't think the Harry Potter books are an allegory, although you could use them as a Rorschach test and see whatever you like in them. Labelling Harry Potter as an allegory implies that the author intended it to be read as a representation of whatever original story you think it's an allegory of, and there is absolutely no evidence of this.

(I am a Potter heretic - I think some of the later books are too long, especially Book 5...)

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

To go back briefly to the death theme - what else is Philosopher's Stone , the very first book in the series, all about but Voldemort's attempt to obtain the elixir of life?

The series is not allegory, though. Animal Farm is, and so is Pilgrim's Progress. This is a series which takes some of the great eternal themes and works through them in a strongly Christian context.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

In the first volume, someone says that death is the next great adventure.

I had a friend who died slowly of a degenerative neurological disorder. She said that she was looking forward to death with curiosity.

Moo

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I guessed pretty early on that JK was a Christian. Not so much because of any allegory, but the worldview & values behind HP are very Christian indeed.
I am sorry, but no. "Christian values" existed before Christians did. You do not hold the patent.

Christian values existed before Christians did?

Huh? That doesn't make any sense. [Confused]

You mean, they offered nothing different from Graeco-Roman values?

Or that Christian values are Universal?

Neither of those are correct.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Christian values existed before Christians did?

Huh? That doesn't make any sense.

Some day you might enjoy reading the Hebrew Testament. Jesus seemed to find it relevant to His values. But maybe you're suggesting that His values aren't Christian values.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Oh I see. lilbuddha was suggesting that Christian values are really Jewish values.?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

You know, the parts about treating ones fellow humans with courtesy, love and respect. Or is my mistake thinking Christians share those?

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Oh I see. lilbuddha was suggesting that Christian values are really Jewish values.?

I think the misunderstanding here is that the values would have existed, and may well have been written down, not just in the Jewish books or the time, but in many other books. The values are timeless and culture-less.

But the values would only have been CALLED Christian values after Christ himself had espused them, and only by Christians.

Anyway, that is tangenital.

I love the theme that has been highlighted about death, yes that is one of the great threads in the books, that death is not always the end. We don't see a heaven directly, but we do see a lot of evidence of life beyond death. Hints perhaps?

Someone mentioned their favourite part of the books. I must admit, mine is a little obscure and probably a little bathetic, but it is the part in Half-Blood Prince, where Harry and Dumbledoor have just escaped the Inferi in the lake in the cave. Dumbledoor is seriously weak and Harry is carrying him. Harry tells him not to be afraid. Dubmbledoor replies that he isn't afraid because "I am with you, Harry".

I just love that line. For me it just sums up all of the previous five and three-quarter books. Wonderful.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
"Christian values" existed before Christians did. You do not hold the patent.

Yes and no. It would I think be equally false to say that Christian values share nothing with Jewish or Graeco-Roman or Hindu or Chineses values, and to say that Christian values have absolutely nothing unique about them.
Treating your fellow humans with love would I think appear just weird to any culture without roots in the Old Testament, and it's not nearly as central in the Old as in the New.
Treating all your fellow humans with respect is I think specifically post-Christian. The word isn't found in any Christian theology pre-enlightenment. It's I think a semi-secular attempt to find a version of love for neighbour that will do duty in a pluralistic mass society.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Neither the HP nor Narnia books are allegories.

HP is about Love as the ultimate magic, and living that out in an extremely messed-up world, with all your faults and gifts.

And Narnia is better than an allegory: Aslan isn't a symbol of Christ--he IS Christ, as he is known in that world. The kids are brought to Narnia so they can learn to know Aslan better in their world. And when they've died and are climbing up through Aslan's country, they see him--and he no longer looked like a lion to them. Etc., etc.

{Wanders away, muttering "What DO they teach them in those schools these days???"}

I don't know if you wrote anything like this in the Narnia thread GK --followed it a bit but may have missed it if you did--but I think this is well put. And love the reference to (IIRC) Diggory's mutterings once he is a grown man, old professor...???

Yes, I tend to agree with those who see the HP series as informed by the Christian story, and by the archetypes that are in that story and others; and yes, the sacrifice and courageous death of Harry does echo that of Jesus--and the creative outcome of his death could be said to be more in the Christ triumphant tradition than in the grimmer penal substitution type approach.

But I do not think the author intended a detailed match-up of characters with those in the story of Jesus, or any kind of detailed allegory at all. It's her own world, and though things in it may echo things in ours, or remind us of things in ours, they are primarily there because they serve her story.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Death is indeed one of the major themes, starting with Voldemort - one who would be thief of death. And Deatheaters, Dementors who leave living dead, the various house ghosts starting to die but not going through the whole process, the death of Sirius as he goes through the curtain. Harry does not die, but goes to the waiting room; if you like, he has a near death experience.
Sure. I think as well, the simple fact that Harry had to cope with many of those closest to him dying; his parents, Sirius, Dumbledore, and then the whole bunch in the last book; is really good. Many kids have to deal with parents, friends and grandparents dying, but there's not a whole load of other books out there that help them explore what that means.

There's also the thestrals, suggesting that the experience of seeing death somehow changes us, which ISTM is very true.

Probably my favourite part of all the books is when all the spirits of his friends and family are there walking with Harry when he goes to meet Voldemort/his own death, speaking words of love and encouragement. I wonder whether that's a glimpse of reality, that saints who love us surround us, urging us on all the time, only we can't see them. Either way, it's a great image.

Just adding that I love this bit too and it reminds me to wonder the same thing. This discussion is making me want to read the books again! They're an amazing achievement, I think.

Like A Wrinkle in Time --a formative book in my childhood--the HP books have been banned by some fundamentalist Christians, and yet, in their message of love, of good and evil, of sacrificing oneself for others, they carry profoundly important values--while telling a gripping story, and telling it well.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

And a quick thought that came after last night's post. The Flamels have had lives much extended by their possession of the Philosopher's Stone, but they are now tired of life - shades of the Struldbrugs in Gulliver's Travels - and long for death. Despite this, Voldemort still seeks to escape death.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
"Christian values" existed before Christians did. You do not hold the patent.
Yes and no. It would I think be equally false to say that Christian values share nothing with Jewish or Graeco-Roman or Hindu or Chineses values, and to say that Christian values have absolutely nothing unique about them.
Treating your fellow humans with love would I think appear just weird to any culture without roots in the Old Testament, and it's not nearly as central in the Old as in the New.
Treating all your fellow humans with respect is I think specifically post-Christian. The word isn't found in any Christian theology pre-enlightenment.

It is found in the tenets of Buddhism, which is pre-Christian. I would wager a little research would find it in other belief systems. IN application, one would be hard pressed to find the actual behaviour in most cultures pre-modern, Christian or not.

Posted by doubtingthomas (# 14498) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

And Moo Snape's treatment of Longbottom - someone who deserves at least as much sympathy as HP himself - simply shows that he is human and has faults just as we do.

I think there is more to it than that - it subverts an archetype in allowing someone who we have been shown to be a very unpleasant person to nevertheless be a hero - all that is gold does not glitter and all that, but taken to extremes.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
... Probably my favourite part of all the books is when all the spirits of his friends and family are there walking with Harry when he goes to meet Voldemort/his own death, speaking words of love and encouragement. I wonder whether that's a glimpse of reality, that saints who love us surround us, urging us on all the time, only we can't see them. Either way, it's a great image.

It is also very different from how Jesus went to his death. "My God, why have you forsaken me?"

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
... Probably my favourite part of all the books is when all the spirits of his friends and family are there walking with Harry when he goes to meet Voldemort/his own death, speaking words of love and encouragement. I wonder whether that's a glimpse of reality, that saints who love us surround us, urging us on all the time, only we can't see them. Either way, it's a great image.
It is also very different from how Jesus went to his death. "My God, why have you forsaken me?"

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Treating your fellow humans with love would I think appear just weird to any culture without roots in the Old Testament, and it's not nearly as central in the Old as in the New.
Treating all your fellow humans with respect is I think specifically post-Christian.
It is found in the tenets of Buddhism, which is pre-Christian. I would wager a little research would find it in other belief systems. IN application, one would be hard pressed to find the actual behaviour in most cultures pre-modern, Christian or not.

What 'it' is found in the tenets of Buddhism? Love? Respect? Benevolence? Compassion? Non-malice? I think the precise nuance is important.
The values of all functioning cultures may have similarities, and the values of the universal religions further similarities still. But the difference in emphasis and nuance are important. One oughtn't to gloss over the doctrinal particularities in order to reduce all cultures to one's own set of preferred universals.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

...except Jesus was quoting the beginning of a psalm (Ps. 26, IIRC), which ends on a note of triumph.

Opinions may vary on whether or not he meant to remind bystanders of the whole psalm; but it's a view I was taught, once upon a time. [/QUOTE]

It's Psalm 22. I am always moved by it, and very much so when we chant in on Maundy Thursday, The visions of being beset by the strong bulls of Bashan and surrounded by dogs are vivid and terrifying. But then it turns to a recitation of God's triumph and mercy.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Christian values existed before Christians did?

Huh? That doesn't make any sense.
Some day you might enjoy reading the Hebrew Testament. Jesus seemed to find it relevant to His values. But maybe you're suggesting that His values aren't Christian values.

--Tom Clune

Just to add to this. 'In the beginning was the Word' and the Word turns out to be Jesus Christ. I'm sure the triune God had values then, as he does now, which, by his nature (in that God cannot deny his own character) are reflected in those who share these values.

Jesus said, I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. Hasn't there always been a Way - hasn't the Truth (relative to God's requirement of his human creation) always been around - and if God has not been inspiring true living, what was he doing all those pre-flesh-Jesus millenia?

Remember, Christ came to fulfil the imperfect revelation of the law, not to set up shop with a new product.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

Anyway, to return to HP ... [Razz]

quote:
I like Snape too, even though he has a nasty side - not surprising really, considering his background and the fact that the only person who seemed to like him was Harry's mother, who then went and married the man who conspired to murder him when they were all teenagers. I started liking him in Book 2, because he was the only person who managed to shut up Gilderoy Lockhart.

Ha, yes. And his putdown of Umbridge is hilarious. "Snape! Do you have the Veritaserum potion ready?" (She wants to use it on Harry.) Snape, smirking: "Unfortunately, I used it all up during your interrogations. It should however be ready again in a few weeks." (I paraphrase.)

quote:
He's obviously a very powerful wizard if he can fool Voldemort into thinking he's evil when he was working for Dumbledore all the time.

Agreed!

quote:
I wonder if Snape was offered a place in Gryffindor and chose to be in Slytherin because of loyalty to his mother?

I can't see Severus in Gryffindor. I do think he's a Slytherin through and through. After all, surely Joanne Rowling doesn't expect us to believe that every single Slytherin kid is destined to be a snob, a racist, a Death Eater or the next Dark Lord/Lady in waiting?! [Ultra confused]

She gets some flak from the fandom for her obvious favouritism towards Gryffindor House. Which I can understand, in a way, although I'm very much a Gryffindor myself. [Biased]

There is a great deal of Slytherin in Dumbledore, IMO, alongside his Gryffindor qualities (e.g. the desire for justice).

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
Yes, I tend to agree with those who see the HP series as informed by the Christian story, and by the archetypes that are in that story and others; and yes, the sacrifice and courageous death of Harry does echo that of Jesus--and the creative outcome of his death could be said to be more in the Christ triumphant tradition than in the grimmer penal substitution type approach.

But I do not think the author intended a detailed match-up of characters with those in the story of Jesus, or any kind of detailed allegory at all. It's her own world, and though things in it may echo things in ours, or remind us of things in ours, they are primarily there because they serve her story.

Agree with this 100%.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Laurelin:

quote:
I can't see Severus in Gryffindor.

Why not? The Slytherins don't have a monopoly on evil*; it's not explicitly stated anywhere, but it seems *likely* that Wormtail was a Gryffindor (all the rest of James Potter's gang were). There are a few hints that Slytherin was the wrong house for Snape - Dumbledore says he thinks the Sorting Ceremony happens too soon, Harry tells his younger son that Snape was the bravest man he ever knew. If suicidal foolhardiness - er, sorry, courage - is the leading characteristic in Gryffindor House he'd have fitted right in. And Gryffindors aren't all Nice - look at the way they pick on Harry for being chosen as a champion in Book 4.

The whole point of the last book (and maybe the sixth as well) is that you aren't defined entirely by which house you're in; each one has its strengths and weaknesses and many people could fit into more than one - Hermione, for example, who could easily have been in Ravenclaw, or Harry himself, who asked not to be put in Slytherin because he didn't like Malfoy.

*Hagrid claims that all Voldemort's supporters were in Slytherin, but he must have been indulging in a spot of hyperbole because at the time he said it he still thought Sirius was a supporter of Voldemort. And Sirius was definitely in Gryffindor.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Why not? The Slytherins don't have a monopoly on evil*;

I agree: in fact, I said so in my post. [Smile]

And Severus certainly isn't evil.

I just get a kick out of him being an ultra-Slytherin. Slytherins are often cunning - which doesn't equate to being evil. Severus is cunning, all right, this is the man who successfully deceived Voldemort for years. And he also can't stand Gryffindor. [Big Grin]

I see his cool, logical mind as belonging more maturally to Slytherin, or even Ravenclaw.

Also, the young Severus was fascinated by the Dark Arts and drawn into the Death Eater cult, which flourished inside Slytherin. This isn't to tarnish every single Slytherin with the same flaw, but it was a disastrous flaw in the misguided teenage Severus ... a character flaw which, of course, he spends his adult life trying to redeem.

Besides, I think the Slytherin colours suit him more. [Biased]

quote:
And Gryffindors aren't all Nice - look at the way they pick on Harry for being chosen as a champion in Book 4.

Well, indeed. I've already stated my deep dislike of James Potter on the thread. [Biased]

quote:
*Hagrid claims that all Voldemort's supporters were in Slytherin, but he must have been indulging in a spot of hyperbole because at the time he said it he still thought Sirius was a supporter of Voldemort. And Sirius was definitely in Gryffindor.

Hagrid is definitely exaggerating! He's not always a reliable narrator, IMO.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Jane R:
Why not? The Slytherins don't have a monopoly on evil*;

I agree: in fact, I said so in my post. [Smile]

I see his cool, logical mind as belonging more naturally to Slytherin, or even Ravenclaw.

Also, the young Severus was fascinated by the Dark Arts and drawn into the Death Eater cult, which flourished inside Slytherin. This isn't to tarnish every single Slytherin with the same flaw, but it was a disastrous flaw in the teenage Severus ... a flaw which, of course, he spends his adult life trying to redeem.

Besides, I think the Slytherin colours suit him better. [Biased]

quote:
And Gryffindors aren't all Nice - look at the way they pick on Harry for being chosen as a champion in Book 4.

Well, indeed. I've already stated my deep dislike of James Potter on the thread. [Devil]

quote:
*Hagrid claims that all Voldemort's supporters were in Slytherin, but he must have been indulging in a spot of hyperbole because at the time he said it he still thought Sirius was a supporter of Voldemort. And Sirius was definitely in Gryffindor.

Hagrid is definitely exaggerating! He's not always a reliable narrator, IMO.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
Anyway, to return to HP ...

Yeah, wouldn't want a tangent on the Logos to get in the way of a serious theological discussion! [Razz]

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
Anyway, to return to HP ...

Yeah, wouldn't want a tangent on the Logos to get in the way of a serious theological discussion!

No we wouldn't! This is about a great literary character, not kids building bricks!

Posted by doubtingthomas (# 14498) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
There is a great deal of Slytherin in Dumbledore, IMO, alongside his Gryffindor qualities (e.g. the desire for justice).

I suspect the emphasis placed on Harry's *choice* not to be in Slytherin may be intended to imply that there was a good deal of Slytherin-ness in him, too.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by doubtingthomas:

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
There is a great deal of Slytherin in Dumbledore, IMO, alongside his Gryffindor qualities (e.g. the desire for justice).

I suspect the emphasis placed on Harry's *choice* not to be in Slytherin may be intended to imply that there was a good deal of Slytherin-ness in him, too.

And the importance of choice. It is Harry's choices which define him more than anything else. Interestingly, JKR does do a very nice job of given Harry a pre-determined destiny that he himself chooses... (conversation with Dumbledore in Prince, IIRC)

AFZ

Posted by doubtingthomas (# 14498) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
And the importance of choice. It is Harry's choices which define him more than anything else. Interestingly, JKR does do a very nice job of given Harry a pre-determined destiny that he himself chooses... (conversation with Dumbledore in Prince, IIRC)

AFZ

Oh yes

But not all of it is Harry's choice, some is Voldemort's (IIRC too...) - which means that the
latter chooses his own downfall by choosing to believe the prophecy in the first place...

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

I loved the books, but I do have some problems with them:

--The kids didn't get even a modicum of adult supervision in the dorms.

--There wasn't an effort to help the kids in Slytherin see the light.

--Kids from bad situations or who were troubled didn't get appropriate help. That might have stopped Tom Riddle from becoming Voldemort.

--When Dumbledore and Harry are sitting with whimpering little being that's the remains of Voldemort, Harry asks if there's anything that can be done, Dumbledore says no, and they leave the being whimpering by itself. At the very least, Harry might have held and tried to comfort the little thing. That would've fit with who Harry was. And might even have helped Voldemort.

--And the worst thing, IMHO: Dumbledore purposely made Harry into an anti-Voldemort. Harry could've gone to a wizarding foster family when he was accepted at Hogwart's, if not before. He could've been raised with love. He could've been much safer. Dumbledore could've hidden his very visible pleasure when he found out how V and H's wands reacted to each other. The other person in D's office then (Sirius??) blanched.

I like many things about D, but someone should've kicked his ass all the way around the UK a few times.

And when, in the last book, D fessed up, H wondered how he could possibly really be angry with D--and lets him off the hook. IMNSHO, it would've been much healthier to get it all out.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

I thought that the baby under the seats was the acutal piece of Voldemorts soul that was in Harry and had now been killed off by Voldermort using the killing curse.

Thus it wasn't something to be allowed to live. It had to be left, not nurtured, as it was inherently evil, as Voldemort is. It was the soul of Voldemort that had just killed Lily and James.

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

I've read and enjoyed all the books and today I noticed he was on TV and so I watched it - it was about him still being a very young boy and he did very well.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Re the Voldemort thingy-- i think the point is that, just as with Harry, what happens from here on out is only fixable ( or not) by Voldemort's own choice. It is a picture of a mangled soul on the point of death, but not quite there yet. As Harry points out during their duel, V has one last hope for himself, and remorse ( and what follows it) are the only things going to do him any good at this juncture. Even Harry's mercy can' t fill the place of V's own repentance. But V of course reject this last hope with his final Avadra kedavra, which kills not Harry but the last remains of his own soul.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
... Harry could've gone to a wizarding foster family when he was accepted at Hogwart's, if not before. He could've been raised with love. He could've been much safer. ...

Dumbledore sent Harry to live with the Dursleys because they were blood relatives. As long as Harry called it home, Voldemort could not find him there. He was protected by living with Aunt Petunia.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0