“The Warlock’s Hairy Heart.” Now that’s one freaky story. The heart of a man who does not want to love is locked away, and over time, loses its humanity and because the heart of a beast.
The darker elements of fairy stories are the things that Mrs. Bloxam and the Nice People don’t think children should hear, because they might get scared. The monsters become pink fluffy bunny rabbits and apples filled with dark magic become nice old ladies’ apple pies.
An excellent article by Melanie McDonagh appeared in The Telegraph a couple days ago. The whole article well worth your full attention, but mine zeroed in on an interesting paragraph:
One ground-breaking book on the Brothers Grimm, The Owl, the Raven and the Dove, by a Jesuit scholar, G Ronald Murphy, makes clear the extent to which the brothers infused the old pagan tales with their own religious sensibility – they were humane Calvinists.
I’ve heard it said that Rowling must be a Calvinist for many reasons – her being a Presbyterian, though she’s not a Calvinistic one; the seemingly fated and even Deus ex machina moments in the series; Voldemort’s apparent predestined path of evil, etc. But though Rowling herself is certainly not a Calvinist (read once again what Dumbledore believes about prophecies, fate, and free will in chapter 23 of Half-Blood Prince), there are some Calvinistic moments that show up in her writing: the Gothic depiction of human depravity. It’s in Voldemort’s rudimentary distorted-baby body in Goblet of Fire. It’s in the hundreds of the re-animated dead crawling out of the water to drown the hero.
And it’s in the basement of the warlock’s castle, when the beastly, fallen, depraved nature of his heart results in nothing but selfish desire and murder.
I don’t know much about the belief systems of the best of the Gothic writers, but I’m betting there’s more than a few Calvinists among them. (I shot an email off to Amy Sturgis about the idea, and she tells me there’s been some good scholarly work done on the Calvinist-Gothic link, notably Victor Sage, Horror Fiction in the Protestant Tradition.)
Do take a few moments to read the entirety of Ms. McDonagh’s article, which touches on the key themes of the first two chapters of Harry Potter & Imagination (which you can pre-order for an autographed copy!). (And HT to John Granger for emailing me the link to the article.)
Joivre on 
Red Rocker on 
Arabella Figg on 
korg20000bc on 
Travis Prinzi on 
PotterMom05 on 
Loading ...
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 20 comments… read them below or add one }
Yes, Travis knows that Ms. Rowling is not a Presbyterian but a Episcopal Church of Scotland (Anglican); he is referring, I’m sure, to the persistent belief that she is Scotch Presbyterian in fandom, an idea fostered, alas, by things I and others wrote before the BBC special revealed her church home. Ms. Rowling lives in Edinburgh but is English in genetics (Mother half-Scottish, half-French, Father English?), upbringing, and faith.
That being said, she is writing in the Gothic literary tradition — and it, as a pessimistic counter-balance to Romantic positivism in its portrayal of our world as Fallen and man as “depraved” because of an atrophied or denied conscience, is Calvinist to the gills. I’m a little worried, though, that in tagging the Gothic this way, we pigeonhole and dismiss it; the Gothic has its power because man’s spiritual faculty is darkened and the natural world as we know it, neither Eden or New Jerusalem and characterized by decay and death, is fallen. Unfortunately, the word ‘Calvinist’ brings up images of Puritans we despise reflexively rather than traditional truths from St. Paul and others that are universally held by revealed faiths and thoughtful observers.
Anyway, great post, Travis!
John, agreed. The term “Calvinist” carries a lot of baggage with it and is most unfortunately used in most conversations – even academic – as a synonym with all sorts of the odd beliefs of the hyper-Calvinists. (Same with the term “Puritan.”)
Won’t touch the religious implications of the tales, but I agree that
the Hairy Heart is very Gothic. Before committing myself, I decided to check out the definition of Gothic in Wikipedia. There are multiple types (Gothic horror, Gothic Romanticism, Southern Gothic) but fiction which combines elements of horror and romance seems to be the meaning we’re focusing on. Examples of the genre over the years include works by Ann Radcliffe, Lord Byron, Mary Shelley, the Brontes, the Victorian penny-dreadfuls, Poe, Stoker, Daphne DuMaurier and Anne Rice.
I do want to point out, however, that JKR does not typically write Gothic Romantic fiction. She includes a lot of the stock elements and characters of Gothic novels, it’s true :
Prominent features of Gothic fiction include terror (both psychological and physical), mystery, the supernatural, ghosts, haunted houses and Gothic architecture, castles, darkness, death, decay, doubles, madness, secrets and hereditary curses.
The stock characters of Gothic fiction include tyrants, villains, bandits, maniacs, Byronic heroes, persecuted maidens, femmes fatales, madwomen, magicians, vampires, werewolves, monsters, demons, revenants, ghosts, perambulating skeletons, the Wandering Jew and the Devil himself.
However, JKR is not writing a romance (thank God!) The heart of the story is not in the reunion of the hero and heroine after facing a set of travails. Romance there is, but the main focus is on much heavier matters. And she is too sardonic and witty a writer, too much a social activist, too much post-modern and feminist in her views to be a Romantic writer.
As well, her use of the “typical” elements of Gothic fiction is not to horrify her readers. Her magicians, werewolves, giants, and ghosts are not frightening – they are family. The castle is haunted, it’s true, and there’s a dungeon, but it’s not scary – it’s home.
I think that there are a few genuinely Gothic elements in her fiction: Fenrir Greyback, The Grey Lady, Merope and her awful clan, the warlock of the Hairy Heart, and probably Tom Riddle himself. This last is open for debate: was what he did to himself horrible in the Gothic sense of horror? I’d say, yes, if we look at the creature hiding under the bench at King’s Cross.
And Korg: here’s one for you: notice the similarity between the Warlock licking and stroking the maiden’s heart and the critter under the bench with his thumping noises?
You know, I’ve never heard a full explanation of Matthew’s theory about the critter under the bench. I think I have an inkling of what he’s getting at but I must’ve missed the discussion when he fully fleshed it out.
I have to correct myself.
When I said JKR wasn’t a Romantic writer, I meant that she wasn’t writing love stories in the sense of boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy wins girl back again. I think she is a Romantic writer in the sense that she writes about heroes and heroic acts, and the triumph of the human spirit over adversity.
revgeorge: like my hero, Ovechkin, who resisted the temptation to give the puck an extra tap as it was going by him because he knew the goal belonged to his line mate, Backstrom, I will resist the urge to respond to your awfully punny comment. Korg?!?!
Red Rocker, yes – the Gothic elements are woven into the story in a very natural way. I note that in chapter 3 of HPI. There are lots of Gothic elements that contribute significantly to the plot, though, and they’ve yet to be thoroughly explored in commentary on HP.
I’d add inferi, Myrtle, the troll, horcruxes, Voldemort’s re-birth, and dementors to the list of Gothic elements. June Cummins’ essay, “Hermione on the Bathroom” in The Gothic in Children’s Literature explores this very well – and relates it to studies on portrayals of women in Gothic fiction in a way that got my thoughts going and will inspire a lengthy post in the near future. She doesn’t explore the Grey Lady at all, which I thought was the essay’s missing element (though to be fair, her essay was particularly on bathroom imagery and female development).
It’s true that there’s no union of hero and heroine, but Harry does have the Gothic battle with his own darkness, participating in redemption by rejecting the fallen, darkened understanding of the horcrux-within. Dr. Ann Blaisdell Tracy’s dissertation – to which John Granger pointed me and of which I need a full copy – concludes the following:
If Dr. Tracy is right, and I think she is, then HP is Gothic lit.
I took a quick peek at Ann Tracy’s thesis, and I disagree.
There are points of similarity, it’s true. The supernatural (which in the Potterverse is represented by Dark Magic, and specifically Horcruxes) does “thrust” itself into the foreground. The hero is somewhat isolated and alienated. And there is a lot of fear.
On the other hand, some of the assumptions about the Fallen Man and the post-lapsarian world of the Gothic novel are not met. First off, it is a hero, and not a heroine, which while not definitive, is suggestive that we’re not in a Gothic story. The hero starts out in exile from his own kind, but he is quickly and joyfully restored to where he belongs. There is no underlying implict or explicit assumption of mythic expulsion, nor an accompanying awareness of his unavoidable wretechedness. The kids at Hogwarts don’t seem particulary wretched; even Harry, in between bouts of saving the world, has a darn good time at Hogsmeade, and playing Quidditch and snogging and feasting. He has a lot to deal with, it’s true, but his world does not seem without hope with “little intimation of possible redemption”. There is always hope, the belief that Voldemort will be bested – heck, he does it over and over again until old Snake Eyes stays bested. But more importantly, Harry is not a wretched exile in need of redemption. His position is actually a lot closer to that of a Redeemer.
I’m not sure that I’d go as far as calling Potterverse an Edenic world, which the author posits as the opposite of the world of Gothic fiction, but I think it is in fact closer to New Jerusalem, where the “surfaces melt away” to remind us of “the infinite which is hid”, than a “post-lapsarian nightmare of fear and alienation.”
What you’re missing, RedRocker, is that Harry is a gothic heroine, not the Byronic over-reaching anti-hero/villain of the piece.
Wow, that “Related Posts” thing is showing up completely not where I intended.
Red Rocker>, good points, though I think there are some important counter-considerations. Like all the other genres in Rowling’s story soup, no one ingredient dominates. So it’s not just Gothic lit, but it is Gothic lit. Gellardo-C. and Smith (in Reading Harry Potter: Critical Essays were pointing out back in 2004 that most of Harry’s journeys are take in womb-like Gothic environments, and that Harry’s orphan-role is much more Cinderella than Arthur. Despite his male status, there are many ways in which Harry can be read as a Gothic heroine (which is one of the reasons it was so important that Ginny not rise to a higher status than she did; the more Ginny was present, the more “male” Harry would be read, I think).
John, I only read the Conclusion, it’s true, and very lightly skimmed the rest, so I might have missed references to the Gothic anti-hero/villain , but the conclusions I wrote on seemed to clearly apply to the protagonist, whether male or female.
Travis, I agree of course that there’s a mixture of genres. But the point that I was rather clumsily trying to make is that the Potterverse differs essentially from the Gothic world, at least as described by Tracy. Any story which ends with the hero gloriously transcending death and returning to the joys, amongst other things, of a sandwich in bed, doesn’t to me seem to meet the requirements of a nightmare of fear and alienation. The Potterverse is a world of hope and promise. That hope is battered at times (e.g. all that endless, although to you meaningful, loitering about in tents), but it survives intact.
I would say, rather, that there are two sides to Potterverse. The world inhabited by Harry and his friends is Edenic for the reasons outlined. The Gothic world impinges on it sometimes, but is always convincingly pushed back. There is also the world inhabited by the Gaunt family, Merope and her son, and the DeathEaters. I think that the words “exile” and “no other members of his kind” and the victim of “divine punishment” would apply quite well to Tom Riddle. In fact, the idea of Riddle having experienced a “mythic expulsion” and “without hope and with little intimation of possible redemption” really works.
The idea of Harry as a Gothic heroine, or as Cinderalla, on the other hand, does not. The kid’s the captain of his destiny – in fact, that’s the whole point.
I read that part of Tracy’s thesis. I would kind of have to agree with both of you, Travis & Rocker. No, Potter is not pure Gothic Lit, since JKR rolls together all these genres. It’s not romance, but has elements of romanticism. It’s not totally dark & brooding but there is an overall tension in the world. Harry, as happy as he is at Hogwarts, always has some dark & brooding & deadly problem hanging over his head. First year is consumed with what is the Philosopher’s Stone & who’s after it. Second year, the darkness is the Heir of Slytherin & the Monster. This draws the rest of the students into this sensation of fear & uncertainty in the midst of everyday life. 3rd year, Sirius Black is the problem, which to an extent also encompasses the whole school but especially Harry. And so on & so on. So, while the darkness & danger of Voldemort hangs over the wizarding world, especially as we get further into the series, there’s never a sense of hopelessness or of total post-lapsarian (just like saying that word) fallenness.
The idea of Harry as a Gothic heroine, or as Cinderalla, on the other hand, does not. The kid’s the captain of his destiny – in fact, that’s the whole point.
Ah, but Harry’s a Gothic heroine and a Cinderella in the hands of a postmodern, feminist (maybe even post-feminist) author.
Going along with the line of reasoning, a Gothic heroine in the hands of a postmodern and feminist author would lose the sense of helplessness, the need to be rescued by others, would insist on taking the lead and making decisions, even rash decisions, would not be controlled by a sense of destiny but have a clear sense of freedom over choosing her own path, lose the flowing gowns and long hair and the tendency to shriek with horror when confronted with monsters – nay, would probably be best friends with the monsters – wear pants and play Quidditch and whomp the villains and change her name from Harriet to Harry.
If you must for reasons yet unknown to me insist on the feminization of Harry, could you at least pick more likely comparisons than the epitome of helpless, swooning femininity? Heroines like Nancy Blackett of Swallows and Amazons, or Pipi Longstockings, or Munsch’s Paper Bag Princess?
“the epitome of helpless, swooning femininity” – are you referring to Cinderella? Sorry, not sure where you’re going with that.
Your gothic heroine is a Harlequin romance cartoon. The defining characteristics of a real Gothic heroine are her defiance and resistance to the horrible circumstances in which she finds herself trapped. Harry, as DDore points out at King’s Cross, does not seize leadership willfully, but only because it is all but forced on him.
I was referring to Cinderella. Her story line is that she is wronged, does nothing to change her situation, waits until Fairy Godmother comes along and gives her a gown (and manicure and hair cut and style, one would suppose), goes to the ball, loses the slipper, waits some more until the Prince comes along and lives happily ever after. She is completely passive.
Now compare that with the Paper Bag Princess – who is postmodern. She loses her clothes while fighting the dragon, hence the paper bag. She rescues the prince, who demands that she get a better outfit before he’ll marry her. So she summarily dumps the loser and goes forth to lead a happy life.
I’ve been working on the feminized reading of Harry for well over a year now, and I wouldn’t do it if I didn’t think it was in the text. And “feminized” is probably not the right word. I think it all works together in Rowling’s soup as part of the Harry-as-adrogyne/Philosopher’s Stone reading.
I use Cinderella, because Harry basically is a British Cinderella in King Arthur’s Court. Or maybe better, a King Arthur in Cinderella’s court: the orphan who doesn’t realize he’s far more important than he is, suddenly swept into that role, and then out of it, and then into it, and then out of it, in an Aschenputtel cyclical pattern.
Red Rocker, I get what you’re saying now. I wasn’t picking Cinderella out of a hat for comparison. See above comment.
It’s possible for a book to be Gothic and still tell the story of the free will of its characters – for example, free will is always a part of the Gothic mysteries – both criminal and detective are making specific choices. So the allowance for free will might actually be one of the distinctions between the Gothic and the Calvinist writer.
J.P., yes, indeed. I’m not familiar enough with Gothic lit to know how the Calvinistic Gothic writers handle the issue of free will. But part of Dr. Tracy’s thesis is that only those who choose to participate in redemption are freed from the Gothic depiction of the human condition.
No matter how free will is portrayed, though, the key “Calvinist” element is in the Gothic distorted human distortion and depravity.