56 responses so far ↓

• 1 Penny // Mar 7, 2008 at 11:26 am

  Great episode, Travis!

  To quote Juliette in Lost last night, “It’s very stressful being an Other, Jack.”

  As far as Filch goes, I think you were spot on with your description of why Filch was the way he was and I definitely agree with you that Filch was so centered on being an “other” that to him everything related to that and Harry *had* to be punished for finding out Filch was a squib.

  Just to clarify, I don’t think Filch actually attended Hogwarts. I was under the impression that squibs did not attend as students and sort of had to integrate their non-magical existence with their magical families. I can only imagine it was very difficult for squibs.

• 2 Travis Prinzi // Mar 7, 2008 at 11:52 am

  Penny, you could be right that he didn’t attend Hogwarts. He might also have started attending, and then failed out as a squib. I guess we’d need to know whether squibs are magically identified somehow, or if they’re discovered once they’re at Hogwarts. I always supposed he failed at Hogwarts and Dumbledore, the only one who seems to care much for the outcasts, decided to keep him on as caretaker.

• 3 reyhan // Mar 7, 2008 at 3:14 pm

  King’s Cross a conversation Harry has with himself, along the lines of a near death experience?

  That is a tantalizing thought.

  Like you, Travis, I interpet it as a conversation Harry actually has with Dumbledore, with Tom Riddle crouching nearby.

  I prefer that interpretation because it is more emotionally satisfying. And what is satisfying is the fact that Dumbledore finally comes clean: he takes responsibility for his misdeeds, apologizes, sheds tears, expresses his admiration for the boy he’s held at arm’s length for seven years.

  For the first time, he opens himself up and is honest with Harry.

  How could we not want to see that?

  The other interpretation is that Dumbledore remains an enigma, as he always has been. There is no emotional rapprochement. There is no conversation between two equals. Dumbledore retains his elevated status, Harry retains his slightly lower status: the relationship remains between teacher and student, mentor and disciple, leader and soldier.

  How unsatisfactory is that?

• 4 Travis Prinzi // Mar 7, 2008 at 3:56 pm

  reyhan, I agree! Which is why I was shouting at the podcast. It’s clever, and in re-reading the chapter, one might even say Rowling left room for that interpretation (you’ll notice how often when Harry asks Dumbledore a question, Dumbledore kicks it right back to him…”I think you know the answer to that…think” - though for my money, I’d say that’s the way Dumbledore always taught Harry); but I don’t think it’s the most emotionally satisfying explanation.

  I had a lengthy debate with someone at an LJ site about whether James, Lily, Remus, and Sirius were actually there and walking with Harry, or just projections of his own mind created by the ring; I prefer the former for much the same reasons I prefer to interpret King’s Cross as having actually happened.

• 5 reyhan // Mar 7, 2008 at 4:15 pm

  Oh dear.

  Lily and Lupin and James and Sirius were figments of Harry’s imagination?

  There are philosophers who argue that we are ultimately incapable of knowing anything objectively, that it’s all subjective, that just because we think something has happened doesn’t mean anything except that we think it.

  And JKR herself, devil woman that she is, answers those questions with Dumbledore’s sublime, unanswerable riposte:

  “Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?”

  Do you remember what JKR said about King’s Cross? Am I indulging in wishful thinking when I remember her saying that King’s Cross was a “real” kind of limbo rather than a near-death experience?

  All of you who complained that the author’s post-publication interpretations were cutting into your freedom to interpret the text as you saw fit: I, who can tolerate an awful lot of ambiguity, need certainty and closure on this one!

• 6 reyhan // Mar 7, 2008 at 4:41 pm

  Because the thought that Harry walked to his death alone, comforted only by his own memories is too grimly existentialist, even for a disbeliever like me.

• 7 revgeorge // Mar 7, 2008 at 4:46 pm

  reyhan,

  What is the sound of one hand clapping?

  As for closure & certainty on the King’s Cross scene, there’s an easy way to determine whether it is real or not, even if it might take place in Harry’s head. Does Harry receive any new information in his conversation with DD?

  If he does, then it’s real. If he doesn’t, then all he’s doing is processing information he already possessed & coming up with answers. I have yet to begin a reread of Deathly Hallows, so I can’t remember for sure, but I think he does receive new information, stuff that he wouldn’t have had access to on his own.

• 8 reyhan // Mar 7, 2008 at 4:53 pm

  revgeorge,

  That’s Zen, not Existentialist.

  I have thought about your solution. I don’t think it really works. Harry could have imagined any new information: how would he -or we - ever know if it was real or not?

  No, I think the only answer is to return to the author, with her right of ultimate exegesis. And I’m pretty sure she said King’s Cross was real. And by extension, that Harry did not walk alone to his death, taking comfort in a hallucination.

  That thought is so cold.

• 9 revgeorge // Mar 7, 2008 at 5:37 pm

  reyhan,

  I’m glad you can take comfort in JKR’s exegesis. Whether or not it is ultimate, I would still dispute.

  As for me, I didn’t need JKR’s say so to know that King’s Cross was real. DD’s statement to Harry’s question is almost exactly out of Lewis. Peter: Sir, if things are real, then they’re there all the time, aren’t they? “Are they?” said the Professor; and Peter did not know quite what to say…”But do you really mean, sir,” said Peter, “that there could be other worlds–all over the place, just round the corner–like that?” “Nothing is more probable,” said the Professor…

  I knew the one hand clapping wasn’t existentialist but it was the best I could come up with on short notice.

• 10 revgeorge // Mar 7, 2008 at 6:37 pm

  Another great podcast, Travis. I think the whole idea of otherness, as well as bullying, is inherent in the whole HP series. JKR is always trying to get us to not judge people based on just what we see & always fooling us when we do judge them based on what we see & think we know about them. Of course, I still think she never lives up to her claims that the Slytherins are all bad. Slughorn is about the closest she comes & perhaps also the pity Harry feels for Malfoy at the end of HBP.

  You mentioned the one guy who is claiming that the King’s Cross scene is all imagined in Harry’s head. Where do you find that again? I must’ve missed it on the podcast. Thanks.

  I’m also not sure Dumbledore is a libertarian, but he’s probably kind of close. The politics in HP are definitely anti-statist or anti-establishment while not necessarily being anti-authority. I mean, DD doesn’t hesitate to assert his authority when necessary & Harry realizes the times when he can question DD & when he can’t.

• 11 Travis Prinzi // Mar 8, 2008 at 2:22 pm

  While agreeing with reyhan that Rowling’s comments that Harry’s choice was a real one, I don’t think Rowling’s interpretation of it is of ultimate authority - indeed, Rowling in one place has said that the choice was real, and in another, that the scene at King’s Cross could be taken either way. We don’t need to revisit the author’s exegesis debate again, but I say this in order to note two things:

  1. I do think Rowling left it vague enough for either interpretation, even if I believe one is better than the other.

  2. I treat King’s Cross at length in chapter two of the book-which-needs-a-title, and I don’t rely on Rowling’s exegesis to make the argument that it really happened. In other words, I don’t think her exegesis is needed to make the case. Actually (and seemingly out of nowhere), I think the late L’Engle offers a huge contribution to this discussion, but I’m not giving my argument away just yet

• 12 Travis Prinzi // Mar 8, 2008 at 2:24 pm

  revgeorge, being that there are so many links between Dumbledore and the Fabians, I certainly wouldn’t say Rowling intended to write Dumbledore as a libertarian. But he certainly acts like one!

• 13 reyhan // Mar 8, 2008 at 3:26 pm

  If you can prove that King’s Cross was an objective, shared experience between the three principals, rather than a subjective near-death hallucination, without needing to resort to the author’s authority, then I shall sit at your feet and learn, Travis.

  But the proof can’t be one of reasoning by analogy or similarity. It can’t be based on faith, or a pre-existing faith. It can’t have recourse to facts outside of the books. And it can’t be that one explanation is simply more emotionally satisfying than the other.

  It has to be based on the facts as revealed in the books, and the concept of reality and good and evil and death and the eternal soul as revealed in the books.

  It can’t be based - and I say this very reluctantly - on the inscription on James and Lily’s tombstone. Because for me (and JKR too, I believe) that inscription is pretty near the heart of the story. But still, it’s not conclusive. Nor is the passage from William Penn’s More Fruits of Solitude.

  Both those passages are capable of several interpretations: love can conquer death because our love gives us the strength not to fear death, or love can conquer death because we know that we will be reunited with our loved ones after we die. As you say, Rowling did leave it capable of either interpretation. Although I would challenge your use of the word vague. Marvellously ambiguous is how I would phrase it.

  I await chapter 2.

• 14 reyhan // Mar 8, 2008 at 4:38 pm

  But I think, that in trying to articulate the two interpretations, I’ve re-connected with my Existentialist beliefs. The love we have for each other is one of the main things which does give meaning to our lives. It is a very powerful force, fulfiling and motivating and strengthening. It makes us strong enough to face death without despair, even without any certainty about what lies on the other side.

  Which I think is Rowling’s message too. Harry makes his decision before he knows that his loved ones will walk with him. And at the end, just before he faces death, he drops the stone. Their presence comforts him, but he doesn’t need it. The strength he needs to sacrifice himself is born out of the fact that they loved him and that he loves them, not the fact that they wait for him, somewhere beyond.

  So I think that in the final analysis, it doesn’t matter whether his loved ones actually acoompanied him in his walk in the forest, and whether King’s Cross was an objective or subjective reality. The matters that Dumbledore and Harry speak of are all history. The conversation increases Harry’s understanding. It doesn’t add anything to his conviction about doing the right thing.

  Yes, Harry has a choice. To go on or to go back. But do any of us really believe that he would choose to go on and abandon his loved ones to Voldemort?

• 15 Travis Prinzi // Mar 8, 2008 at 5:22 pm

  If you can prove that King’s Cross was an objective, shared experience between the three principals, rather than a subjective near-death hallucination, without needing to resort to the author’s authority, then I shall sit at your feet and learn, Travis.

  Neah, I don’t think you’ll have much to learn from me, especially since I’ll be doing what you say I can’t do. I don’t think the author’s “authority” is that credible on this of all questions, since she can’t seem to make up her mind from one moment to the next whether or not there’s a life after death…hence, the ambiguity of the passage. I’m simply arguing that both interpretations are viable, but one is better than the other for various reasons.

  Really, I’m putting the whole King’s Cross discussion into the context of an entirely different context.

• 16 Travis Prinzi // Mar 8, 2008 at 6:36 pm

  You mentioned the one guy who is claiming that the King’s Cross scene is all imagined in Harry’s head. Where do you find that again? I must’ve missed it on the podcast. Thanks.

  revgeorge: You have to subscribe to the Portus Preview Podcast in order to hear it. They don’t seem to have it hosted directly at the Portus site.

• 17 revgeorge // Mar 8, 2008 at 11:19 pm

  reyhan,

  I never found much hope in Existentialism. It always seemed to me to be based more on having hope in the face of no hope. And not really having any real hope for the future per se but of only living in the moment. But maybe I’m misremembering. I just know that of existentialism I much preferred Camus over Satre.

• 18 revgeorge // Mar 8, 2008 at 11:38 pm

  reyhan, your statement that Harry’s decisions are based more on the fact that his parents loved him & he loves them & not necessarily that they wait for him somewhere beyond is somewhat troubling, too. I can’t quite put my finger on why yet, but it seems akin to saying that someone is never really gone as long as we remember them. Well, what happens when they are forgotten?

  I guess the typical question to ask is, so what? So what if Harry knew his parents loved him & he loves them. Can’t really love someone who is non-existent anymore. Not truly. You can love what they did for you & love their memory but that’s not the same as loving a real person. And would he not have chosen to do what he did if he never knew his parents loved him?

  I think this is where Harry is helped by Luna at the end of OOTP. Harry always does what is right despite his perhaps weak faith. Luna is a believer through & through & as such can help Harry focus past his weak faith. She has absolutely no doubts that she will see her mom again. And Hermione, too, helps him with her exegesis at Godric’s Hollow. Living beyond death, living past death is not something based solely on what has happened & what is happening. It looks to the future. Existentialism in essence never looks to the future; it always looks to the now.

  Although I love Camus’ The Plague, I always find its conclusions unsatisfying. So, there’s my rambling thoughts. I’m assuming this issue is something we’re going to disagree on again.

• 19 reyhan // Mar 9, 2008 at 1:23 am

  revgeorge,

  I too prefer Camus to Sartre. But that’s because I think Camus is the better writer.

  I am not an expert in Existentialism. The part I remember is where there is no intrinsic meaning to anything, and the only meaning there is what we place in things. And people too, I suppose.

  From that perspective, being loved, and the act of loving - is truly an act of defiance in the face of an indifferent universe. If you believe nothing really matters, but you still love, and as a consequence you act morally and responsibly, and do what you know is right, then you are truly following an internal compass. You are creating your own meaning by saying: this matters, and it matters enough that it will guide my actions.

  And I think there is a sense of future in that kind of decision. If something matters, then it will continue to matter. More specifically, the safety and happiness of the people I love will continue to matter.

  Anyways, back to Harry.

  Because love matters - and perhaps matters the most of all - being loved and loving makes him strong. It gives him more of what makes life purposeful and significant. And since death can’t change the fact that he loves and was loved, death can’t take away the most important thing about his life. In that sense, death has no power over him.

  Now I have interpreted death’s lack of power over Harry differently at different times. Before Deathly Hallows was released, I thought Harry would not fear death because he expected to see the people he loved on the other side. I based this on the fact that in OotP, Voldmort “deposseses” Harry as soon as Harry starts thinking of dying and seeing Sirius Black on the other side.

  I’ve changed my mind about this because as I said, in Deathly Hallows Harry makes the decision to die based on a knowledge of the right thing. The right thing is save the world - his friends, whom he loves - from Voldemort. He no longer thinks: “Well, at least I’ll see my parents and friends on the other side.” He has no expectation of seeing anything on the other side. He starts the walk with no comfort, no expectation except to die, only because it is the right thing. Quite Existentialist, at least in the sense that I understand it. And at that moment the knowledge of the stone’s power comes to him, and he summons his dead - or they come to him, so he no longer walks alone. But it is quite clear what came first.

  Of course the crucial link here is the assumption that it is through love that we know what the right thing is. So there is some kind of intrinsic morality or meaning which is revealed to us through love.

  Someone should write about love as the source of morality in the world of Harry Potter.

  Forgive the meanderings. It’s late, and I know I’m not seeing things clearly.

• 20 reyhan // Mar 9, 2008 at 9:17 am

  About Luna’s faith and Hermione’s exegesis.

  Luna’s faith is comforting to Harry. It doesn’t entirely take away his pain, but it helps.

  Hermione’s interpretation of the inscription on his parents’ grave gives him no comfort, for him the words are “empty”. What does give him comfort is her hand in his, and the wreath of Christmas roses she conjures up for him to place on his parents’ grave.

  But what is really striking about that scene is how it ends:

  “He put his arm around Hermione’s shoulders, and she put hers around his waist, and they turned in silence and walked away through the snow, past Dumbledore’s mother and sister, back towards the dark church and the out-of-sight kissing gate.”

  I interepret this as a presaging of his final walk in the forest. This time he is walking with his living friend, and her presence and her love help make his parents’ death a bit more bearable. After he makes the decision to die, he walks with his dead friends: at that point they are “more real” to him than the living. And their presence helps make his own impending death a bit more bearable.

  The inscription does not comfort him, because he does not believe. But that’s not its purpose. I see it as a harbringer of things to come, an arrow pointed in a certain direction.

  But ultimately Harry does not do what he does because he believes the inscription - or rather Hermione’s interpretation of it - or because he shares Luna’s faith. His way is the way of the doubter. Which I guess makes him a pretty good stand-in for a lot of humanity, as well as the author herself.

• 21 revgeorge // Mar 9, 2008 at 9:34 am

  reyhan,

  Quick comment here before church. One, Daylight Savings Time is of the devil.

  Two, your points on Harry’s walk in DH are well taken. But I think you’re putting in a dichotomy that doesn’t need to be there. Harry’s motivation to do what he does certainly isn’t based on a morbid kind of “Oh well, at least I’ll be with my loved ones after I die” kind of thinking. But I think the fact that he has a hope of it plays a role.

  Certainly he does what he does in the forest out of what is right & for his current love for the people in his life & the wizarding world, but that doesn’t mean he has no desire to be with his loved ones again.

  I think his dropping of the resurrection stone in the forest is more symbolic of his realization that he has to face Voldemort alone. His loved ones have taken him as far as they can but now in this life they can offer him no more answers or protection.

• 22 revgeorge // Mar 9, 2008 at 8:54 pm

  Plus, I don’t think it’s very helpful to think of Harry facing death with no hope, with only despair. Even if it is the right thing. This where I think existentialism fails; it cannot look to the future, it is only of the now.

  Any time we put meaning or certainly in our actions & try to find a basis for meaning in them as being right, we’re always bound to be disappointed. One, because human beings are fallible, & two, if there is no expectation for the future, then everything is ultimately meaningless. Harry sets out to die because it’s the right thing to do. So what? The idea that human beings can set ourselves against the absurd, meaningless, & callous world & somehow impart meaning to it by our choices is simply hubris on our part.

  This is the problem with romanticism, existentialism, & postmodernism, which are kind of leaves of the same branch. They try to impart meaning to life & they try to make distinctions between right choices & wrong choices but they have no foundation to do so. Which is why they so often devolve into relativism. Why is Harry’s choice to die, without any expectation of whether there’s a future life or even whether or not this will defeat LV & save the wizarding world, right?

• 23 reyhan // Mar 9, 2008 at 9:12 pm

  revgeorge,

  I think that Harry did have hope for the future when he faced death: a future where his friends would live free of fear. He did not just walk away from the world: he left instructions on what needed to be done (kill the snake), so Voldemort would not survive his own death.

  I don’t really want to get into a dicussion about the foundations of morality. We would disagree. All I was really trying to do is come to terms with how Harry’s conversations with the dead could be subjective experiences without feeling that the whole thing was a tragic farce. And I think I found my answer: the right thing is the right thing, regardless of whether one’s journey into death is cushioned by the presence of loved ones, or it’s a solitary journey, warmed only by memories of those loved ones.

• 24 revgeorge // Mar 9, 2008 at 9:40 pm

  reyhan,

  I’m sure we would disagree on the foundations of morality. But I think we also disagree on the foundations of meaning. Without something beyond this life, then life is ultimately a farce.

  Macbeth says it best:
  “Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
  That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
  And then is heard no more. It is a tale
  Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
  Signifying nothing. ”

  Not that I agree with him, but the point is clear: Without a meaning outside of ourselves, a meaning beyond ourselves & this life, then life is a farce. Vanity, as King Solomon says, a chasing after the wind.

  Harry may have died to end the threat of Voldemort but that did not save the wizarding world. It only saved it from LV. All the other problems, tragedies, & losses in life were still out there.

  I believe you’re right when you say that Harry is a doubter & in that he reflects his creator. But the way of the doubter is a pretty miserable way. There is no certainty about anything; only doubt. And I guess the question could be raised if doubt is the issue, how can we ever be sure anything is right? How can Harry be sure the right thing is the right thing?

  But, as you said, it’s best probably not to go there, since we will disagree & in my explanation I would have to get a lot more theological than Travis generally likes to have on the site.

  I will await Travis’ book to see his answer. Unless he’s willing to give us a sneak peek. I’ll still buy the book.

• 25 Travis Prinzi // Mar 9, 2008 at 9:45 pm

  You two have already gone more in-depth, with better analysis, than my book at this point. This is why I don’t say much about my book; you’ll all out-do me before it’s even published.

• 26 reyhan // Mar 9, 2008 at 11:55 pm

  Travis,

  I wish you would publish soon, if only for the sake of being able to comment freely once more.

  revgeorge,

  You ask an important question: how can we ever be sure anything is right?

  We can’t. And we shouldn’t be. We can only know the balance of the evidence available to us, knowing that most of the evidence is not available to us. We need to keep our minds open to what else is out there.

  I am reminded of the words of a song I love:

  God only knows,
  God makes his plan.
  That information is unavailable to the mortal man.

• 27 korg20000bc // Mar 10, 2008 at 12:05 am

  Hey!
  I didn’t know we could bring Paul Simon into this discussion.

  Now I can really cut loose!

• 28 revgeorge // Mar 10, 2008 at 12:33 am

  reyhan,

  Not too surprisingly, I disagree. I think it is possible to know what is right, or to put it into the words of Jesus, that it is possible to know truth. To be sure we can’t know everything, but we can know what has been revealed to us. Just because we may argue about it or not fully understand doesn’t make truth less knowable.

  Otherwise, we fall into the trap of saying, we can’t know truth or what is right, so what is right for you is right for you & what is right for me is right for me. Not very satisfying & not true either. And it can lead to monstrous despair & uncertainty as well.

  Out of Christian love, I will refrain from criticizing the song you love.

• 29 reyhan // Mar 10, 2008 at 1:23 am

  Moral relativism, eh?

  How about this: If I have one part of the truth, and you have another, then couldn’t we be equally right - or equally wrong?

  Try this one: a boy steals an apple. You, the observer, find this reprehensible,and insist that he or his parents pay a fine. I know that his parents are dead and he stole the apple to feed his starving younger sister. I think his action commendable and I think your insistence on the fine is barbaric.

  Or try this: I know that if people are allowed to steal from food merchants, then pretty soon the food merchants will go out of business, and there will be no one to bring produce to the markets, and pretty soon we who live in the city will starve. You know that the boy who steals the apples does so so that the 7 siblings he’s taking care of won’t starve.

  What’s right? Who’s right?

  In my experience, the more we know, the harder it becomes to draw clear lines between who’s right and who’s wrong. That’s why I read fiction, by the way, to find a reliable source of clearly delineated right and wrong.

• 30 revgeorge // Mar 10, 2008 at 1:55 am

  reyhan,

  I told you we wouldn’t agree. Plus, you’re drawing false dichotomies & using lifeboat examples.

  Three people are in a lifeboat. There’s enough food for two. What do you do? One, it’s a hypothetical situation & two, people may do wrong things that lead to beneficial outcomes for others. That neither makes it right nor moral.

  Is my only option to either allow the boy to steal, even for a good cause, or to fine him harshly no matter why he’s doing it? I think it’s a false argument. Either stealing is wrong or it is not wrong. Plus, nobody said we can’t have compassion & mercy when someone does something wrong & there are extenuating circumstances.

  I’m treading dangerously close to where I’m tempted to get more theological. But suffice it to say, if we’re both equally right, which I don’t think is possible, then what happens when what I think is right interferes with what you think is right? I tend to say that if we’re both equally right, then we’re by default equally wrong because other there is a contradiction going on somewhere.

• 31 revgeorge // Mar 10, 2008 at 10:18 am

  I’ll withdraw from this conversation for the moment, for two reasons. One, we are not going to agree, which is fine, since we don’t have to. And two, I’ve got way too much stuff to get done the next two weeks.

  But I’m not conceding any points nor am I saying I don’t enjoy these conversations, since I really do. They’re very intellectually stimulating. I appreciate all the thought that goes into them.

• 32 Eeyore // Mar 10, 2008 at 2:25 pm

  I always love reading the conversations between the two of you. I won’t go much into my opinions, except to say that I definitely fall in line with revgeorge on the right/wrong issues. In my Women’s Bible Study we have been going through the Old Testament, which I’d not paid enough attention to before, and that concept of everyone doing what they thought was right came up over and over, and always with disastrous consequences.

  But reyhan, with the examples that you gave of reacting to the boy stealing to feed his family, my initial thought was that upon learning that there were extenuating circumstances, I would still want to see him have some sort of consequence for his wrong-doing, but at the same time, I would be trying to find a way to help his starving family. Life just isn’t as simple as saying there are only two choices or two ways to react.

  One of the things that bothers me the most about the way people now view right and wrong is the tendency to find a way to place the blame, the responsibility, on something or someone else.

  If I choose to do something that is legally wrong in the society in which I live, even if it is for the right reason and will benefit someone else, then I need to be prepared to accept the consequence for my choice. In terms of right and wrong, that is the right thing to do, even though I might end up having to pay a fine or worse. I shouldn’t expect to be excused from my responsibilty just because my intentions are noble. And I think that’s what your examples of the boy stealing to feed his family show. His intent is proper–taking care of his family–but his method is still wrong because his actions of stealing then affect the lives of others in a negative way.

  And that gets back to the issue of everyone doing what they thought was right. It just doesn’t work when we live in community with others. There has to be some sort of established way of conduct for there to be any sort of order in society.

  The other thing, which goes back more to Harry Potter and the Walk in the Forest and even King’s Cross, is that when I look back on my own life, I see all sorts of choices that I made, but in every one there were things that happened that influenced the path I chose. And none of those were random. There were people who came into my life at times when I needed to hear a particular point of view that directly related to my own crisis; there were magazines or news articles that, for some reason, caught my eye before I knew that I would need the information; there were experiences I had in life that later helped me to help someone else. And the times that I ignored those things were the times that I was like Harry in Order of the Phoenix–making disastrous mistakes because I was intent on doing it my own way without regard to all the warnings and guidance that “someone” was trying to give me.

  As revgeorge has said, I need to stop there, because I am definitely going into that theologicial area that Travis likes us to avoid. But I do find that very hard, when it was so evident in the books and I could very easily relate them to things in my own life.

  Pat

• 33 Victoria // Mar 10, 2008 at 7:46 pm

  Pat -

  like you I observed the discussion between Reyhan and RevGeorge for a while, interesting what comes out.

  I do not want to go into the whole societal debate of morals, because I think that might be too big of a side track, but I would like to respond to some of the other things mentioned.

  You say ‘… And none of [my choices] were random. There were people who came into my life at times when I needed to hear a particular point of view that directly related to my own crisis; there were magazines or news articles that, for some reason, caught my eye before I knew that I would need the information; there were experiences I had in life that later helped me to help someone else.’

  To me that sounds like retrospect reasoning. I could see that as a believer you believe in ‘the greater purpose’ of all cross roads, but couldn’t it have just been heightened subconscious sensitivity to topics in media due to personal circumstance and mere sequence of chosen events ?

  To me it seems logical that you would want to help out someone else with guidance, especially when you can speak from personal experience and in my humble opinion that has nothing to do with anything else than human psychology….

  That’s the way I see the walk through the forest and to a certain extent King’s Cross too. To me Harry was strengthened in his conviction to walk to his death by the support of his loved ones (whether they were actually apparitions or a figment that does not matter that much imo). But to me he made his moral decision long before this because he wanted a better future for the ones left behind and society at large. Whether Harry believed in an afterworld and whether he thought to see his deceased loved ones again, I think, did not have much to do with that decision.

  And then King’s Cross, I believe this was not a real event. When I read the chapter, Dumbledore does not give any actual new information, the things he does say are things that Harry either already knew or things he could have concluded, surmised or invented without much trouble. I rather think that the chapter as we read it is more of what Harry wants to believe. I think Harry wanted nothing more than to have a heart-to-heart with Dumbledore in which the could be completely open and honest and they can work out the holes and any existing animosity. And his laps from consciousness made that possible.

  I also think that the episode at King’s Cross did strengthen Harry afterward in his confrontation with Voldemort. I think it didn’t matter to Harry whether the experience was ‘true’ or not at the time. And that is also basic human nature. A person can draw strength from something whether it was true or not, but just because one thinks it was true, doesn’t make it so.

• 34 reyhan // Mar 10, 2008 at 8:55 pm

  Victoria,

  I agree very much with your point that the conversation with Dumbledore was very much what Harry wanted from Dumbledore: an honest, heart to heart. And it is distressing to me to think that there might have been no resolution to the tension between them created by Dumbledore’s secretiveness and inability to trust.

  But you know what, I just realized that there is proof that King’s Cross was an actual conversation. The exchange with Dumbledore’s portrait in the Headmaster’s study at the end confirms it:

  “But Harry had eyes only for the man who stood in the largest portrait directly behind the Headmaster’s chair. Tears were sliding down from behind the half-moon spectacles into the long silver beard, and the pride and the gratitude emanating from him filled Harry with the same balm as phoenix song.”

  and

  “‘I’m putting the Elder Wand,’ he told Dumbledore, who was watching him with enormous affection and admiration, ‘back where it came from. It can stay there. If I die a natural death like Ignotus, its power will be broken, won’t it? The previous master will never have been defeated. That’ll be the end of it.’

  Dumbledore nodded They smiled at each other.”

  Doesn’t sound like a hallucination or a near-death experience to me. Sounds like the real thing.

  Pat,

  The example of the boy stealing the apple was meant to illustrate the fact that our decision about what is right and what is wrong can change with the knowledge that we have. If we didn’t know the boy was trying to feed his family, we wouldn’t be as understanding. If we didn’t know merchants need to make a profit so they stay in business so they can feed the city, we would think them petty and ungenerous.

  revgeorge,

  I would never think you would concede the point. But before I let this particular conversation go, I want to try to explain one thing. I think that we are united in seeking to know where the truth lies. My way is not as clear as yours. But one thing I think I know, for me the way to the truth seems more likely to result from doubt and asking questions, than unquestioning certainty.

  We will not agree.

• 35 revgeorge // Mar 10, 2008 at 9:49 pm

  reyhan,

  I don’t think I ever said anything about ‘unquestioning’ certainty. If I gave that impression, I apologize. I firmly assert that we can have certainty in this life & the life to come, but it certainly doesn’t come without questioning & wrestling & grappling with the verities of life. Luther called this oratio, meditatio, & tentatio (anfechtungen). And it involves finding true truth & certainty outside of ourselves or others or in things of this world, but in God’s revealed Word to us.

  But certainly I never meant to say certainty came without out any questions or struggle.

  I could make a reference to the old Airplane movie but just replace certainly with surely.

• 36 reyhan // Mar 10, 2008 at 10:01 pm

  revgeorge,

  Please don’t call me Shirley.

• 37 Victoria // Mar 10, 2008 at 10:51 pm

  Reyhan -

  Very good that you bring up the portrait, however I must still disagree.

  I think that as far as the functioning of portraits the encounters with the portraits throughout the series speak for themselves. We know for a fact that portraits are more than quint echo’s or ghosts. The portraits hold genuine conversations and seem able of learning curve, analysis, deconstruction, contemplation, anything that goes with intelligence.

  But having said that I think that the fact that portraits exist and behave the way they do hardly says anything on whether or not Harry’s encounter with Dumbledore at King’s Cross was true or a mere wishful unconscious gathering. Unless… the Portrait Dumbledore makes a direct reference to something said in the King’s Cross conversation after it occurred. Which as far as I can see, he doesn’t.

• 38 reyhan // Mar 10, 2008 at 11:12 pm

  Victoria,

  The tears on DD’s face, and the enormous pride and gratitude seem to me to be the continuation of the tears and pride and gratitude exhibited a few hours ago at King’s Cross. Strongly suggesting that the conversation was real.

  To ask for greater certainty than that seems slightly demanding to me. Life itself doesn’t offer that many stronger certainties.

• 39 Victoria // Mar 10, 2008 at 11:44 pm

  Well, it’s not that I want more certainty (baring in mind that I am a scientist, so I might be harder to convince than others). I would just say that when the King’s Cross did not happen, Portrait Dumbledore reacted exactly how, during King’s Cross, Harry imagined he would, with emotion and pride.

• 40 korg20000bc // Mar 11, 2008 at 5:20 am

  I’m finding it pretty humerous that we can read a story about magic, grindylows, pixies, horcruxes, intelligent snakes, goblin-run banks, and magical chess sets without our disbelief alarms going off and some of us not be able to suspend disbelief as to the reality of a near-death experience or the presence of dead loved-ones providing comfort.

  It seems like the magical is in but the miraculous is out.

  Is this because there are some aspects of these fantastical tales that we are more willing to accept in our real world or is it that there are implications for the real world if we accept/interpret certain aspects of the story along a given line? Or some other reason?

  Matthew

• 41 Victoria // Mar 11, 2008 at 9:29 am

  Matthew -

  ‘…not be able to suspend disbelief as to the reality of a near-death experience…’

  That’s just the point. I do not have to suspend the disbelief, as I know full heartedly near-death experiences are real and occur. It just that I see them as a physical reaction of hallucination brought on by oxygen-deprivation in the brain and not an actual tangible experience. Rowling has mastered weaving reality, magic and the metaphysic. And to me the edges of the weave are the most interesting. What is metaphysic and what is reality ?

  I do not need to discuss grindylows, pixies, horcruxes, intelligent snakes, goblins and magical chess because I do not believe they part of reality. And that makes them to me as a discussion point less interesting.

  What I find interesting is that Rowling has taken a real life occurrence, stuck to what we know can happen in such cases and woven it into a magical world. Now the question is which of the two does is belong to ?

• 42 korg20000bc // Mar 11, 2008 at 3:46 pm

  I don’t know what near-death experiences really are but there’s more going on than the nonsensical ravings of an oxygen-starved brain. Surely those experiences would not be lucid and have a kind of sense if it was just random brain activity.

  King’s Cross is a real happening for Harry, I am sure. Its the presence of horrible, self-slapping Voldemort. Victoria, you base your opinion that it was not a real event on Harry’s discussion with Dumbledore and there wasn’t anything new in it and full of things Harry wants to believe. I think the presence of the flayed baby Voldemort is anything but what Harry wants to believe. It troubles him greatly, he wants to help its suffering. Dumbledore tells Harry information about it that he has had no access to ie. new stuff.

  Matthew

• 43 reyhan // Mar 11, 2008 at 6:48 pm

  Matthew,

  One of the questions I’d like to ask the author is what the heck the child with the flayed skin was doing to generate the thumping noise.

  You ask an interesting question, why we can accept pixies and not conversing with one’s loved ones. The magical versus the miraculous, as you put it.

  Several thoughts come to me.

  First of all, even fantasy has to be consistent with its own rules. JKR gives us contradictory rules about the dead. She tells us (via Headless Nick) that the dead can’t come back. But the portraits of the Headmasters speak. Harry sees his parents in the Miror of Erised. He talks with them via Priori Incantem. And they are with him in the forest as he walks to his death. I think that the balance of the evidence is that even if the dead can’t come back, they can converse with the living. But that still doesn’t unequivocally answer the question whether the mostly-dead Harry spoke with the completely dead Dumbledore.

  And I think that is intentional on the author’s part. She wants to maintain the mystery.

  But I think there is another reason why some of us have difficulty accepting the miracle.

  It is an incredibly important question, and so much depends on it. Not just the bigger question of whether there is a heaven and hell and an eternal soul, but also the smaller but no less vital question of the resolution of Harry’s problematic relationship with Dumbledore.

  The ending we are given is miraculous - if we can but believe in it. The boy is reunited with the parents and the friends he lost, he sacrifices himself but is resurrected through the power of love, he has a reunion with his teacher, and his teacher cries tears of regret at his mistakes and acknowledges that the boy is the better man.

  It’s the kind of perfect resolution we never get in real life. If true, it would be the source of such joy on so many fronts.

  A lot, if not everything, depends on whether King’s Cross was real or not.

  I am not, as I’ve mentioned, religious. But I believe in King’s Cross.

• 44 korg20000bc // Mar 12, 2008 at 1:19 am

  reyhan,
  I think you’ve pointed out the correct distinction ie. the dead don’t come back. I’d add only this - the dead cannot be brought back BY MAGIC. I think Rowling has given the game away by showing something happening that is beyond the power of magic to do. I think she has been consistant, its just that there are other powers at work, besides magic, in her stories.

  And who knows what these powers are capable of?

  Matthew

• 45 Victoria // Mar 12, 2008 at 1:05 pm

  Matthew -

  I was interested when you said that Dumbledore gave new information on the soul piece of Voldemort that Harry and Dumbledore had with them in King’s Cross - because I think we can safely assume that’s what the baby is and represents. I have reread the chapter just now and the ending of the book in Dumbledore’s study, but I cannot find anything that you might be refering to. I would be glad to hear it though.

  And what you said about the scene in Dumbledore’s study strengthening the case that it was an actual occurrence, I took as the opposite. To me Dumbledore had done his bit of repentance, grieving, whooping and praising Harry in King’s Cross. When the Portrait Dumbledore went through that all over again in the study to me that showed that King’s Cross was actually not an actual occurrence. Because I think we all know that if a person has had a good, hard, long cry about something that is troubling usually a person can cope with it better the next time. Dumbledore certainly is a person that can compose himself, I do not see why Dumbledore would lose his composure and pure joy for emotion if he already had done in King’s Cross ?

  And another thing I noticed in the King’s Cross chapter is this curious passage:

  ‘I feel great at the moment though,’ said Harry [...]. ‘Where are we exactly?’
  ‘Well, I was going to ask you that,’ said Dumbledore, looking around. ‘Where would you say that we are?’
  Until Dumbledore had asked, Harry had not known. Now, however, he found that he had an answer ready to give.
  ‘It looks,’ he said slowly, ‘like King’s Cross station. Except a lot cleaner and empty, and there are no trains as far as I can see.’
  ‘King’s Cross station !’ Dumbledore was chuckling immoderately. ‘Good gracious, really ?’
  ‘Well, where do you think we are?’ asked Harry, a little defensively.
  ‘My dear boy, I have no idea. This is, as they say, your party.’
  Harry had no idea what this meant; Dumbledore was being infuriating.

  So although Dumbledore had been at King’s Cross station numerable times in his life, he did not recognise it until Harry named it. Seems curious to me if the scene is actual, does not seem so curious if you think that it is all Harry’s making.

  Reyhan -

  interesting point. I think to me it is all a question of consistency. I have never seen the ghosts, the portraits and even the priori incantatem and stone-resurrected loved ones as real people - I think the books tell us that much. But the Dumbledore in King’s Cross is much more so. Harry even touches him to comfort Dumbledore in that scene.

  To me that would not be consistent with what we have known so far. And maybe it’s not supposed to be because we have not encountered anything like this scene before. But to me accepting the scene to be real just goes in against my perception of the books and my opinion of consistency.

  And of course, maybe I just think that there is no happy ending in the real world. Admittedly, I have always been misanthropic like that !

• 46 korg20000bc // Mar 12, 2008 at 6:45 pm

  Victoria,
  I have not mentioned the portraits.

  I have taken the King’s Cross scene to be Dumbledore’s spirit coming to meet with Harry’s. Dumbledore doesn’t know where they are meeting because Harry is providing the sorroundings. King’s Cross Station is where Harry “moved on” into the wizarding world, a kind of crossing over point between the muggle and wizarding worlds. I think this is a subconcious representation of the spiritual equivalent ie. a meeting point between the material and the spiritual.

  From what I see from your comment you don’t agree that there is any sort of spiritual dimension to the books- its all explainable by magic or mental activity. Is that right? Anyway, I think its going to be hard to discuss the possibility of spiritual things in the story with you when the denial of these things is so intrinsically linked to your perceptions. You write you don’t even believe Nearly-Headless Nick’s claim that he is the spirit of the former warlock -
  “I have never seen the ghosts, the portraits and even the priori incantatem and stone-resurrected loved ones as real people.”

  I’d take this as pretty good evidence.

  If I’ve got you wrong, please put me right.

  Matthew

• 47 reyhan // Mar 12, 2008 at 8:02 pm

  Victoria,

  The notion of heaven or hell - or limbo - reflecting the person’s own experience is not a new one in fiction. I’ve even seen conversations with God where the deity was portrayed by the same actor as the protagonist. Rather than seeming sacreligious, this kind of makes sense to me: how could we know what heaven (or hell or limbo) truly looks like? Wouldn’t it be natural to put our own familiar images on those “places”? And to the face of God, as well? Because as talented as they are, neither George Burns nor Morgan Freeman (nor yet Alanis Morisette) quite fill those boots.

  So it makes eminent sense to me that limbo would look like King’s Cross - a waystation in Harry’s experience. A metaphor for a temporary stop in the next world pulled from Harry’s own experience.

  But I would go further; placing limbo at King’s Cross seems like an act of genius to me. There are so many layers of interpretation there: it has been the crossing point from the world of mortals to the world of magic since the first book; it was JKR’s destination on the day she first conceived of Harry, so in a way that’s where he was born; it is a famous waystation in our real world: to anyone from Britain it would have immense resonance as that; and of course there is the name itself, fraught with references to Christ the King and the crucifiction.

  I don’t think there is another place she could have picked that would have been a more powerful metaphor than that.

  Your point about why Dumbledore would keep crying in his portrait if he’d already had a good cry at King’s Cross isn’t very compelling to me. I think it would take a lot of tears to cry away the sins and sorrows Dumbledore had to cry over. Not to mention the fact that since they’d last met, Harry had fulfilled his destiny and destroyed Voldemort. Worth a few tears of pride and gratitude, don’t you think?

  I disagree that King’s Cross is not consistent with the rest of the books. I think it’s both consistent and transcends the books. That - and the walk in the forest - are what the books were building up to.

• 48 Victoria // Mar 12, 2008 at 10:30 pm

  Matthew, Reyhan -

  Before we go into much more confusion, please let me make clear that I certainly believe in a spiritual realm in the Potter books (or anywhere else for that matter). Where else do all the spirits reside after death. Take the veil for instance, great example of the physical world bordering on the spiritual. And maybe superfluous, but you are not talking to a non-believer here. I am certainly not trying to reason anything away !

  What I should have said in the ‘real people’ comment, was that ghosts, the portraits and priori incantatem and stone-resurrected loved ones are not tangible people. I am convinced that the summoned loved ones are not a figment, but that does not make them the same as wizards. And I don’t know this for certain, but I can’t recall any physical interaction between the summoned ones and Harry as he had with Dumbledore in King’s Cross. That just strikes me as odd and makes me question whether it is not rather something that Harry wants.

  As for Reyhan’s elaboration on the King’s Cross station itself, I agree with you completely ! First of all, I am European and lived in Britain for an extented period of time. I love King’s Cross, you don’t need to tell me what London and that station means in Britain.

  And JKR couldn’t have chosen a more perfect place for Harry to meet Dumbledore. A station is a perfect allegory for arrival and departure. But I personally still believe that it was Harry’s choice to go there subconsciously and not spiritually. Harry obviously has a huge connection to the place as you said, Matthew, because it was his first entry into the wizarding world so it is only fitting that it is also his first point of departure.

  I would like to continue the discussion if there is anything further to discuss and I shall read my comments thrice in future to avoid you reading anything I didn’t mean to say, but let’s not distill.

• 49 reyhan // Mar 12, 2008 at 10:43 pm

  Victoria,

  I agree that much of what happened at King’s Cross was a realization of Harry’s hopes. But as Matthew pointed out, it wasn’t all positive: he witnessed and was quite distressed by the purgatory that Tom Riddle had made for himself. But to paraphrase Dumbledore, just because it was what Harry wanted doesn’t mean that it wasn’t real.

  You’re right that this was the first instance of a living person touching a dead person. But Harry wasn’t exactly a living person at that point: he was mostly dead, or dead enough that had he chosen he could have gone on to be completely dead. So perhaps the rules governing contact between the living and the dead were relaxed for him.

• 50 Victoria // Mar 12, 2008 at 11:07 pm

  Couldn’t Harry haven’t been already distressed about Voldemort and the state Voldemort was in ? It seems to me that Harry didn’t need much of a limb to go out there.

  And granted, this might have been a novel situation (if it really happened ;p ).

• 51 reyhan // Mar 12, 2008 at 11:26 pm

  I suppose it’s possible that Harry was a little sorry for Voldemort. But I don’t remember any such feelings during DH - more during HBP, when Harry was upset at Merope’s abandonment of her son. Pity for an infant abandoned through no fault of its own is quite different from pity (and horror) at a man who’s stunted his soul through repeated acts of murder and cruelty.

  But that wasn’t my point. My point was that the flayed child strikes a discordant note with the idea that King’s Cross was all wish fulfillment.

  As well, I don’t think that King’s Cross is an actual place as much as a state of being - I mean, if it was an actual place, where would that place be? Not on this physical plane, I think. So even if we accept that it actually happened, where it happened is open to conjecture.

  But accepting that King’s Cross doesn’t happen in any location known to man nor wizard, i.e. not on the physical plane, what would touching mean at that place? Perhaps I can touch you if I think about touching you. Perhaps I only imagine I’m touching you while our souls converse. Point being, regardless of whether King’s Cross was a real “out there” experience, any touching that happened almost certainly did not involve the skin as the organ of touch.

  Vulcan mind meld, anyone?

• 52 revgeorge // Mar 13, 2008 at 1:18 am

  Flayed child at King’s Cross? Yes! How could Harry have imagined a fragment of LV’s soul being in his hallucination or whatever else we want to call it? How can he imagine Dumbledore telling him that he’s the 7th horcrux? Or had Harry been reading Mugglenet’s What Will Happen in Harry Potter Book 7? When Harry walked into the woods he expected to die; he had no knowledge that a fragment of LV’s soul was in him, tethering him to life. He does receive new information at King’ s Cross!

  Reyhan, thanks for mentioning that discordant note thing. That kind of clicked. It also reminded me of a Married with Children episode. Bud Bundy thinks he’s having a dream but he notes in it, Odd, I don’t normally make fun of myself in my dreams. The fact that little discordant notes helps makes the case that King’s Cross is real not just a near death experience. It’s like when police take eyewitness testimony. It’s the little variations in people’s stories that give more credence to things, not the exact same version told by several people for that indicates collusion.

• 53 korg20000bc // Mar 13, 2008 at 2:08 am

  Top reasoning, reyhan. Harry was mostly dead. Not all dead. When somone’s all dead there’s usually only one thing you can do… go through his pockets for loose change. Boom boom.

  Hasn’t someone written about the similarities between DH and The Princess Bride? You’ve just prooved it.

  Victoria,
  Thanks for clarifying you position. I was looking at your website and noted the overtly athiestic bent and assumed you were interpreting the novels through that paradigm, as I do through mine. Sorry about making some blind assumptions.

  Matthew

• 54 reyhan // Mar 13, 2008 at 2:39 am

  I watch the Princess Bride over and over again just to hear Mandy Patinkin say:

  “Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.”

  I thought for years that Patinkin was actually Spanish speaking.

• 55 korg20000bc // Mar 13, 2008 at 4:30 am

  I love that movie. I love Goldman’s book more.
  I remember seeing Patinkin in Alien Nation and not realising it was him. He’s certainly a versitile player. I found Andre the Giant’s performance almost indecipherable until I read the book. And Peter Faulk is always great.

• 56 Victoria // Mar 13, 2008 at 7:43 am

  Matthew -

  funny you should mention that. You were in the Dax section, which is not my website. That’s my fiance’s. Who for the record, refuses to touch a Harry Potter book because it’s magic…

  Got to get to work, sorry will have to talk later.

Leave a Comment