[7/2/08: It's interesting to be cleaning up the blog and finding my old points of view; currently, I disagree with myself - what I wrote then - a few times in this article.]
Update #2: Time is considering publishing my response to Lev Grossman. This would be cool, of course. The only regret I have is that I wrote it hastily and made reference to “churches,” which I later edited here to “even a quick reference to a church” (which happened in HBP, and is, by no means, the strongest bit of evidence). In any case, I hope the rest of the response (which I truncated just a bit for the purposes of time) is a helpful addition to the discussion about his article.
Update: I’ve gotten two E-Owls, one from the author, about a Mugglenet editorial arguing that Harry is the clear Christ figure of the series. I’ve only skimmed it so far, but I’ll check it out in more detail tonight. Thoughts?
I noted yesterday that the religion debate on the final book is focused more on Christians vs. Atheists than Christians vs. Fundamentalists, thanks to Lev Grossman. Terry Mattingly responded at Get Religion, and then Jeffrey Weiss responded to him at Dallas News, both posts generating some interesting discussion.
Weiss’ points are interesting and have more merit, from a literary perspective, than Grossman’s agenda-laden diatribe, but I still have my disagreements.
Here’s my take; I find it as strange that some Christians claim that Potter is explicitly Christian as I find those Christians who find it explicitly Satanic. At least for the first six books, Rowling has been astonishingly a-religious. Zero mentions of God, Satan, angels, prayer, the Bible, heaven, or hell. Christmas is presented denuded of any religious explanation or ritual. Even Dumbeldore’s funeral included no hint of explicit religion, much less Christianity.
Not mentioning God, Satan, angels, demons, etc. is simply a non-issue. Tolkien’s world didn’t explicitly have direct references to Christianity, either, and Lewis’ world only had them symbolically (LWW is almost allegorical, but it all breaks down, aside from a few other brief moments, after that). On the other hand, as a commenter at Weiss’s article noted, Pullman’s work is chock full of these references, and Pullman is a staunch, religion-hating atheist.
The problem with all of these points is that it’s definingwhat can be called “Christian” literature in very, very narrow terms. If all of these references must be present for literature to be Christian, you’re only going to find Christian literature in the bookstores next to the Jesus junk. As Terry Mattingly has responded:
There is a difference between a book written by a Christian and a “Christian” book, in this age of Christian marketing, Christian heavy metal, Christian coffee, etc., world without end.
No one is arguing that Rowling is writing the kind of “Christian fiction” found exclusively Christian bookstores. We’re arguing that it’s a series written by a Christian with clear Christian themes and references, both thematically and symbolically, to the Christian story. Weiss continues:
But it’s written broadly enough that I wouldn’t argue with someone who finds Christian meaning in there. Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, or Zoroastrian meaning, either. Whatever someone finds between the lines of a text is there for that reader. And Rowling leaves a lot of room between some of her lines.
This is where philosophies of literary criticism come into conflict. Weiss seems to be employing a post-structuralist method of reading, i.e., the meaning is entirely in the hands of the reader. While he does at least give Rowling a nod, asserting that she has left it wide open for interpretation, Rowling’s actual biography doesn’t matter. The meaning of a text is created by the reader, and the author is irrelevant. Here’s an example:
The best argument I can find in the extensive online chat as evidence of explicit religion in HP is a sideways one:
Harry has/had a godfather. And for many readers, that means Harry had a christening. Which means Harry and his family are/were Christians.
In fact, in an interview in 2004, Rowling says Harry had a hurried christening as the first Vodermort war was brewing. But I can find no quote from any of the books that says Harry had a christening or baptism. (Anyone who has a citation, please set me straight!) And I know that many people who are not Christian have godparents these days.
So, you see, while Rowling, outside of canon, has clarified that Harry had a christening (which means he had a baptism), the author’s opinion doesn’t matter. Since it’s nowhere directly stated in the canon, it’s left open for reader interpretation. We can speculate all we want about whether Sirius was a “secular” or “Christian” godfather, because we don’t need to take into account Rowling’s own words, nor what she, as a Christian, would most likely mean by the word “godfather.”
I’m not coming down on every aspect of post-structuralist literary criticism, but when the author has truly become this irrelevant to a reader, I think we’ve gone too far.
Arabella Figg on 
korg20000bc on 
Red Rocker on 
Travis Prinzi on 
PotterMom05 on 
Joivre on 
Loading ...
{ 42 comments… read them below or add one }
I have often found it interesting that the most lasting and loved books for children have a very clear idea of evil vs. good. Rowling has done a remarkable thing in the first 6 books – she has given us a very pure good vs. evil storyline and then gone on to explain why evil has thrived in the heart of the character who epitomizes evil. In some ways, this makes her stories very much of this age – demonstrating our need for explanation of behavior. Roald Dahl never bothered with such rationalizing or justifying, and Tolkein seem to feel that a naked need for power, at whatever price, was explanation enough.
As someone who is not formally religious, but deeply believes in a higher power, I find it encouraging to have an author who has so deftly skirted the religious iconography (and in doing so, kept her enormous appeal) while bringing us a good old-fashioned story of personal choices, belief in something greater than oneself (love in all its many forms), and a high regard for the bonds of friendship and family. I was once an English major and never once did I believe that you could take the author out of the story. If that is how they teach literature these days then clearly not one of the teachers has ever written a story, let alone a series of novels. These books are all about who Rowling is and what she believes and as an adult reader, I find that incredibly heartening.
The question that has bothered me throughout the series is why there hasn’t been a great deal of information about James Potter. We know a good deal about Lily, but James is mostly a mystery. Since Rowling’s personal life has changed a great deal since starting the series, I do wonder if we’ll find out more about James in this final book.
Thanks for the thought-provoking commentary.
Robin
I’m without a doubt biased here, but it is an absolute load to think that things, especially in the creative fields, can be absolutely divorced from the source. This line of thinking–that the creator has absolutely nothing to do with the understanding of the created–pretty much ends the chance for any real exchange of ideas/feelings/beliefs, and this ability is pretty much one of the big things that make humans human. Maybe that is their goal? Not to sound a little nutso here, but in the modern world it seems people want to run away from the responsibilities that come with accepting we are human and not animal/plant/mineral. if we divorce ourselves from the evil that humans can do, however, we divorce ourselves from the good, too. I think that is one of the roots of this whole huge arena of thinking. All these people, as intelligent as they are, are clearly using less of the detached intellect and more of the involved emotional (it’s about me! me! and my understanding because in my world I matter most!). I believe JKR did a great job at making the books as open to all as she can, but there are clear issues coming across–good exists, evil exists. good must fight evil and not sit on its butt and do nothing. concepts such as redemption, love, forgiveness, etc. are powerful, powerful concepts. these ideas are found in many religions, but it is not one religion, and for that i am grateful. taking the author out kills ideas and that is something very, very sad. but who am i? i’m no lev grossman.
I’ll take you over Grossman anyday.
Matthew
I’m shocked that literary critics have to find Bibles and churches in a work before deciding it holds Christian themes. Analyzing literature from a metaphorical perspective is essential, especially in the fantasy genre. I think the main issue is that no one is willing to believe that an author of today’s era would bother writing a story with hidden themes at all, especially one for children. Perhaps they’re too used to mainstream childrens series that contain little to no hidden meaning and they prefer to assume that since Harry Potter is astoundingly popular it belongs in that same category.
Urgh, I don’t even waste my time with such tools. I’m sorry but the series evidently contains religions under/over tones. It’s like saying that Harry has no scar on his forehead.
By that I mean if they say that the series doesn’t have religions under/over tones, they are in some serious denial. I really need to learn to read my posts before I hit the button.
You know, in the time I spent as an English major (before God sent me to study theology), I was trained to interpret literature using a post-structuralist method. My professors called “formal criticism.” And you’re right–the goal is to remove the author’s beliefs, presuppositions, etc, and approach the work on its own terms.
While I find this kind of criticism valuable to a point, it starts to fall apart after a while. Even my professors were occasionally forced to take the writer’s intent into consideration.
To believe that a story needs an overt icon in order to call itself Christian indicates lazy or obtuse thinking. I do not recall Jesus ever employing such iconography in his parables. The woman doesn’t sit to consult the Torah before taking up her search for the lost coin. The book of Esther does not even carry mention of God’s name.
Not that you, Travis, or even most of the commentors here, need to be reminded of this.
You mentioned CS Lewis earlier. I don’t know if this is true (have not found the claim asserted in a book yet), perhaps you, Travis might. I heard once that when Lewis first published the first volumes of the Space Trilogy, most critics of the day still believed he was an atheist. Their early reviews seemed unable to grasp what he was trying to do. Later, after he delivered the radio broadcasts that became Mere Christianity, people started to revisit the Space Trilogy and started to get it. I wonder if some of Rowling’s critics (fundementalist or secularist or whatever)will not face a similar retroactive enlightenment.
okay totally off topic here, but i just read a little diddy written by red hen who is pretty convinced that this whole leaked book thing is a fake fake fake. now, i am just gonna kinda hope that i will be happily surprised (i caved when it came to the spoilers) when i read the book this weekend. but hey, the hen seems to be a bit of a buddah when it comes to HP, and she knows things that other don’t, so maybe she is onto something…
sorry, “diddy” is a diaper. i meant “ditty.” i wouldn’t want anyone to have to read a diaper.
Travis I HOPE this doesn’t put you in a bad mood.
This is from JOdel’s blog… posted by rozanned80
“I’m a librarian and former cataloger, so I just wanted to weigh in about the page number discrepancy. Disclaimer: I have not seen any of the pirated files, nor has my library received its DH copies yet, so I have no direct evidence about the accuracy of the online copies.
However, I did check in OCLC, which is the cataloging utility used by the vast majority of the world’s libraries. While the 1st American edition is cataloged as having 784 pages, there IS an edition with 759 – the reinforced library edition. For most popular titles, publishers will contract with binderies to produce reinforced editions for libraries which will hold up to harder use. They generally differ from the regular retail edition of the same title in number of pages and sometimes in height and width.
I have to say, usually the number of pages’ difference is not that great, but the difference in these two numbers comes suspiciously close to the number of pages in a “signature” (16) which is a unit of pages printed and cut at a time to be bound/stitched together. That would be logical for a pagination difference in a different binding.
My library leases its bestsellers instead of purchasing them, and our copies will be the regular retail versions – being primarily an academic library, rather than a public one, we don’t worry so much about the hard use on fiction titles. However, I do want to note that we had to sign agreements with Scholastic AND with our leased-book vendor to safeguard the DH text. Not only did we have to agree NOT to provide the text to the public prior to the release date, but we had to agree to limit the number of staff given access to the text to the bare minimum necessary to catalog & process it, and we had to agree to keep all copies in a secure, locked environment. These agreements were standard boilerplate distributed to all libraries and retail establishments, so everybody had to sign this agreement. Whoever let their copy out will have legal trouble, since they will have violated the terms of the agreement with Scholastic.”
Michael, yeah, man – she posted that here several days ago.
I often feel as though I’m the lone defender (at least to a degree) of postmodernism/-structuralism here!
First, I want to set something straight: the removal of the author from any interpretive equation begins in the 1920s with High Modernism’s ultra high priest himself, TS Eliot (a staunchly conservative Catholic convert from the American Bible Belt, no less). In his work on religious English poets like John Donne, he posits a literary critical device called the “Objective Correlative”, in which any metaphor or symbol has an objectively defineable idea/concept/emotion which that metaphor should explicitly develop in any piece of art, whether visual or literary. When critics started to read some of Eliot’s more famous poetry through the lens of his biography, he was the first notable artist/scholar of the 20th century to argue that doing so was misleading to the reader.
In the 1950s, at least a decade before Postmodernism, a very formalist/structuralist group of scholars developed Eliot’s idea into the “intentional fallacy”, or the “affective fallacy”, depending on which term you choose. Essentially, all it really means is that an author’s biography/intention for a piece of art is not necessary because the work has an objective state of being beyond the author (or the reader, for that matter) that can be understood through the sum total of its form, or components (literary devices and conventions, language, syntax, genre/mode, etc.). Literary interpretation from Homer to Robert Frost had generally privileged the author, looking at poetry especially as a way of codifying and concretizing moral codes as universal Truths. Then, about 60 years of the 20th century privileged the book or poem itself above both author and reader. Then Postmodernism came to believe that all three couldn’t be trusted, at least not 100%.
Sorry to get super literary for a while, but my point is that the author is first removed from literary theory because of the belief that the text has an objective meaning in spite of the author! An author might intend some things that don’t necessarily come across, while he or she might also unintentionally embed some allusions, references, or metaphors.
Essentially, the idea is that any piece of work also exists beyond the author. Once he/she puts the artwork into the public sphere for consumption, he/she necessarily relinquishes control of its meaning because it is the author who lets others into the work.
Postmodern theory as it is taught today really seeks to understand if the text is an objective artifact itself, especially when it comes to things like those allusions, references, and metahpors. The prevailing premise is that any piece of art must be read, at the very least, through the lens of some context or contexts, which are primarily supplied through the knowledge and cultural constraints of readers, and those can never be totally universal to all readers at all times. The contextual framework shifts over time, from reader to reader, and even with each retelling in different media (like the tensions we’ve been discussing between the books and the films).
Two of Postmodernism’s French high priests, Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida, actually argue that the text an author creates is what destroys the author’s grasp on the meaning of the work in the first place. In Derrida’s terms, the work turning on the author is the essence what Deconstruction does: it’s a moment where the text turns on itself, and its meaning collapses under the weight of its own contradictions.
Travis, to address a point you’ve made in other posts and essays, Postmodernism would argue that the Grand Narratives that collapsed in the 1960s (colonialism, racism and segregation, and imperialism) did so because shifting contexts for understanding them tore asunder their own contradictions. Deconstruction isn’t about systematically tearing anything apart. It’s not a reading process–it’s certainly not a process one can describe. (That’s where John Granger and I diverge on a few things, too.)
It’s simply a critical moment in a text (especially an artistic one relying on figurative language and images) where this kind of intellectual space opens up and meaning can be injected into it, often from multiple sources/directions at one time.
A simple take on this is that Rowling uses symbols and images that, and I agree with everyone here on this, are understood here as Christian in nature. But a context for doing so is fundamentally necessary beforehand. Of the perhaps hundreds of millions of readers of the books across the world, just how many of them truly understand the alchemical structuring at work in the books? or that hippogriffs, phoenixes, or even owls are Christian symbols (with pagan origins, no less)? There are plenty of people (as evidenced by the existence of this discussion) that don’t see them as such, either because the symbols don’t fit their own notions of such things, or because they have no understanding of the symbols in such terms. And I apologize beforehand, but I think simply saying those who don’t see the Christian symbols as such are in denial is a bit reactionary and dismissive.
I disagree with generalized Postmodernism on one point: that there are no universals (truth, morals, etc.). Anthropology and Sociology both demonstrate commonly shared ideas, even across vastly different and mutually isolated cultures. A good, detailed Postmodern theory would hold that there might be universal truths, but the nature of those truths is so illusive that no one has (or maybe, can) cogently argued he/she has the whole truth. Even most revelatory religions (Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, etc.) argue that at least some aspect of the Truth will always be hidden from mankind, at least while we have a material existence.
Shadowquill, literary critics don’t have to find churches and bibles in a piece before it is to be considered Christian. But the Christian allusions and symbolism in the books is not full transparent. And if it isn’t, it necessarily admits some gradation, depending on the reader. For example, the moral code espoused by Dumbledore includes choice, love, and sacrifice. And those are certainly Christian themes. But they aren’t only Christian themes. Understood in relationship to other symbols in the text, their Christian nature is brought forward quite a bit. But, as I said above, plenty of those symbols are only recently Christian in the sense that they were taken from older, sometimes pagan, cultures, as well, and applied to similar Christian ideas. And one certainly doesn’t have to be a Christian to understand the themes at work, or their importance.
To close this thing down before I ramble much further and potentially insult anymore of my SoG friends, I think there are readings and interpretations of Rowling’s books (or anyone’s books) that are better than others. But I’m also well aware that those readings and understandings will shift and change over time due to shifting contexts. In the case of some of my fellow academics, I hope it does. John Granger is right, to a degree, about academia’s rejection of Harry Potteras “serious” literature. But a quick search through databases for literary criticism will turn up a lot more work on the books than I would have imagined (and just so you know, most of us academics think Harold “The Grand Inquisitor” Bloom is an overstuffed, pompous blowhard, too!). My own research in the Spring and early summer into the Mirror of Erised and the Pensieve as mimetic devices turned up hundreds of articles that dealt with Rowling’s work directly in some way. And, as Granger has predicted, there are plenty of doctoral dissertations and master’s theses that are focusing on the books, too.
I’m very sorry if I’ve offended, but I just thought we were laboring under some misconceptions–at least as I understand them…
Dave, thanks for the clarifications. For what it’s worth, I understand all of that, and explanations similar to yours are already at work in a paper I’m doing on postmodernism in HP for Prophecy. I’m fully aware the first person to argue for the irrelevance of the author was Eliot. I love Eliot. I disagree with him here, and I think there are plenty of authors who would argue just the opposite: not taking into account the author’s biography has caused misunderstanding in reading their work.
I just think post-structuralist errs when it says everyone’s voice is allowed to comment on a book’s interpretation except the author’s. This is mind-boggling to me. Sure – understand the author may have written things that he or she didn’t intend, and recognize that she may not have done as well as she wanted on her intentions. But to completely remove authorial biography and intent – to say that we can all discuss a book’s meaning, except the author, who’s not allowed to talk about her intent – just strikes me as odd.
Perhaps I’m still misunderstanding.
Travis again more news…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19816389/?GT1=10150
All that’s new in this article is that a Schoolastic spokesperson won’t confirm or deny whether the leaks are real or fake. She says we will have to find out when it comes out on Saturday.
This tells me both could be fake. I think Schoolastic are taking action to make an example of people. I bout they will find the culprits BUT it’s their way of scaring others off. I doubt that it would have been them who have come up with this then… I honestly don’t know. So confusing. I think it’s best that way.
Travis that too strikes me as ODD. I’d love for Jo to talk about her intent. It may bring into light some things us fans were not so clear on.
More interesting news… will these hoopla ever end?
“Scholastic tracks down Deathly Hallows leak
Scholastic tracks down Deathly Hallows leak The US book publisher has issued a statement this morning which reveals where a leak of Deathly Hallows occurred:
We are taking immediate legal action against DeepDiscount.com and Levy Home Entertainment. The number of copies shipped is around one one-hundredth of one percent of the total U.S. copies to go on sale at 12:01 am on July 21st.
Read the full press release at the link below!
PRESS RELEASE:
Scholastic has recently learned that some individuals have received copies of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows through the mail , beginning on Tuesday, July 17th, as a result of a breach of the on-sale agreement by the distributor, Levy Home Entertainment, and shipments made by DeepDiscount.com, a customer of that distributor. We are taking immediate legal action against DeepDiscount.com and Levy Home Entertainment. The number of copies shipped is around one one-hundredth of one percent of the total U.S. copies to go on sale at 12:01 am on July 21st.
We are also making a direct appeal to the Harry Potter fans who bought their books from DeepDiscount.com and may receive copies early requesting that they keep the packages hidden until midnight on July 21st.
Scholastic is especially grateful to the other retailers and distributors for their careful attention to keeping the books secure until the release time and for planning thousands of spectacular midnight parties where fans will celebrate together. And we ask everyone, especially the media, to preserve the fun and excitement for fans everywhere.
The fans themselves have made it abundantly clear that they are looking forward to going to the midnight parties, receiving their very own copy of the book and finally getting to read the book they have so anxiously awaited.”
And Jo has briefly updated her sight saying:
“We are almost there! As launch night looms, let’s all, please, ignore the misinformation popping up on the web and in the press on the plot of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. I’d like to ask everyone who calls themselves a Potter fan to help preserve the secrecy of the plot for all those who are looking forward to reading the book at the same time on publication day. In a very short time you will know EVERYTHING!”
As far as I have gathered the leaked versions have a lot of inconsistencies… I doubt Jo would let THAT many slip, though apparently a lot of things are answered.
Michael: source?
Yes, reports are now saying that there are lots of contradictions between leaked copies, but that some are legit. I’m not going to link any reports, because they give some details of the contradictions (like chapter titles). I did see a report in which Arthur Levine claims Deathly Hallows is unleakable.
This has conspiracy written all over it.
Well I have FURTHER news on this leak situation…
I have been corresponding with someone all night who has claimed to have read the two incriminating leaked versions AND the book itself. Their best friend is a librarian and both have read it together since it was delivered to them only a day or two ago… Do I believe them? Yes. LONG story short, I do. They seem to be in a prime position where they can gain access to the book. They were also kind enough NOT to leak anything HOWEVER they DID tell me… that whilst both leaks were clever, they don’t compare to the book. There are numerous inconsistencies with not only the plots of the leaked copies, but they contradict one another.
They also said that whilst the leaked versions are smart deceptions, they are just fan-fics. They could care less for them, but loved the REAL BOOK so much that they would buy it over ten fold.
Real or not, for now I am believing this person’s story. I trust them. And it kinda makes sense. The more I those leaked versions the more they reach of FAKE!!! But I an now heading off to bed (it’s now 4.14am in OZ) to rest my head and be at peace knowing that we don’t have much to worry about. Here’s hoping anyway.
Michael, I’m unclear: Are YOU the “I” in this story? You talked to a friend who has read the book?
Travis, I’m a little confused why people think post-structuralism won’t “allow the author to speak” about his/her work. It’s considered grossly extremist in academia to dismiss authors outright and completely. Rowling’s interviews indicate certain things are at work in her books, but a Postmodernist would reject the idea that her statements about the meaning(s) of the books close the door on any other interpretations, even if they offer up some contradictory ideas.
It’s just that figurative symbols and signs in a text are considered an “unstable field of play”, to try and paraphrase several theorists at once. Postmodernists focused on language as a medium for meaning, and they decided that it was never perfect, and often flatly unreliable, especially when discussing concepts with highly abstract components, like love, God, etc.
Michael, you’re absolutely right — I’d love to sit down and talk to Rowling about the books (or any literature for that matter). She’s super-brilliant, and if I could go to one of her readings this fall, it would be one of the highlights of my academic career. I would certainly listen to what she would have to say about her books, and I would probably agree with her more than I would Lev Grossman (or certainly Laura Mallory).
I just think you can interpret figurative expressions in more than one way at one time. And even though I think Grossman’s rejection of her is more about a cultural agenda on his part, I can certainly see how/why some would genuinely find the Christian elements of her work to be “opaque”.
Hi Travis — ex HogPro forum member when the forums were up, you don’t know me but I’m a longtime fan of your site/pubcasts.
Away from the leak and back to religion — read the mugglenet editorial and it’s fairly convincing — esp if you believe in “harry as horcrux”, which seems more plausible to me the longer I have thought about it. If the only way to get rid of LV is a sacrificial death, I have no doubt that HP will muster up the courage to do it. As with Christ incarnate before the crucifixion, he’ll lack knowledge of the final outcome.
But if JKR’s going there, then I’m betting she’ll go all the way, with some slick device that allows him to get rid of the LV soul fragment through some kind of ‘death’ but then come back to life and triumph over the soul-impaired remains of LV. Whether this will involve the veil or another device remains to be seen.
And if she DOES do the sacrificial death/resurrection thing, look for a pop-culture-shaking gasp of recognition, both from fundamentalists long convinced the books are evil and from nonbelievers long convinced they are utterly secular….
Julie H, chicago
Yes, are you the “I”?, that was kind of confusing me when i read the post…
Interesting about Harry being the major Christ figure of the books.
Thinking of the chess game in PS, Harry wins and the opposing king throws his crown at Harry’s feet. Very different from the movie where the king drops his sword.
This really brought images to mind of Christ victorious and the response of the apostles in Revelation. Or do I have all my imagery stuffed up?
Matthew
I’m sort of a newbie at posting comments and stuff like that, so please go easy
I have a really dumb question/comment. I totally value the interpretations of the books that this site, hogpro, and others have. I never had thought of these books as material to “sleuth” or considered the symbolism on my own. After reading all the analysis in these blogs, I do have to agree that the Christian symbolism is unmistakable (if possibly disguised to untrained eyes like mine!).
SO here’s the question: Why why is the religious angle so important as a matter of discussion (is she or isn’t she Christian) etc. I have a hard time understanding why people care if Harry’s parents prayed “if only for a moment” when they christened him and why there are ghosts but no one goes to church.
Sorry I hope the question doesn’t seem rude or anything, just trying to understand a point of view very different from my own
No one here wants to discuss the MuggleNet editorial that argues that the Harry Potter books are a point-to-point allegory with Harry as Christ? I was stunned at it’s length and lack of depth, not to mention that the article mentions not one book or article discussing the Christian content of the series (she discovered this topic herself!), but I’m even more surprised that the SoG gang haven’t said anything about it.
Is Harry the “Heir of the Potter” in the sense of being the sacrificial Messiah and Christ of Wizardry himself (Himself?)? Or is he a spiritual seeker and “Christian Everyman” who becomes “love on legs” as a destiny he is born with and which he must accept and choose to pursue?
I think the latter possibility is much likely than the Christian Allegory theory. Harry Potter novels are symbolist texts but have little to no resemblance to paper cut-out allegories, and, to paraphrase Ms. Rowling, “Obviously, Harry is not Jesus.” If anyone is a Christ stand-in, it’s Dumbledore — and that isn’t obvious.
Excellent discussion of postmodernism in literature here, as always. Sword of Gryffindor rules! I hope the SoG gang will discuss the MuggleNet allegory editorial before Travis moves on to the next fascinating subject…
Dave, I want to thank you again for your helpful thoughts on post-structuralism. I fear that in my grad school experience I’ve been exposed to the much more radical strains of post-structuralism, and that a much more balanced view is probably the norm. After reading your helpful comments and consulting a philosopher friend of mine, I think I used the term “post-structuralist” unfairly in this article.
John, thanks for your comments. I still haven’t read the article in detail, but I do think it’s probably much more likely that Harry serves as the “Christian Everyman.” As I’ve argued recently in a pubcast, up until this point in the series, if there is one clear, allegorical Christ-figure, it’s Lily. First, you’ve got the name “Lily” which is clearly a Christ-name. But the key point is this:
Harry is the “Christian Everyman” because someone died on his behalf and defeated the Dark Lord with that death – Lily. The resurrection, of course, is missing, but I think that has more to do with Rowling’s stated themes and rules about death. It doesn’t work as a one-to-one parallel, but it’s the closest thing we have so far to paralleling the Christ-story.
Deathly Hallows will tell us just how well (or not) this interpretation plays out.
Have I read them? No. See I knew it was all over the shot. Too late to be typing up these things you see. I haven’t seen the book in any form, nor the leak. This is another person. They keep telling me to relax, not worry and put the leaks out of my mind. So that I will.
Dave the Longwinded, your nom de plume is actually quite a good thing! That was long but fantastic. (I love this blog.) Overall I think I agree.
Just to clarify, I never meant that the book was solely based on one theology. Rowling herself has talked of how she has taken from countless mythologies (by which I would hazard a guess she also means religions and spiritual traditions) and spun them into a fantastic tale. I also know that the majority of literary critics don’t look merely for bibles and churches when identifying Christian themes. I should have specified that I meant these particular (self-declared) literary critics.
I’m just shocked Grossman would compare Harry Potter to Narnia on such an obviously faulted basis…churches and Bibles. Ha.
Lily sacrifices herself for her son, and her love and sacrifice protect him from evil, so yes, the allegory fits.
But it also fits Dumbledore who (according to one interpretation) sacrifices himself in order to keep Draco from destroying his soul by murdering him. I personally think it’s extreme – it would have been far easier to take Draco aside sometime during the school year, level with him, and offer options. But Dumbledore never was a man for easy solutions. But regardless of his motive, Dumbledore’s death on the tower is self-sacrifice to save one person or many from evil.
Then we have the sin-forgiveness-repentence pattern of Snape, quite possibly culminating in self-sacrifice in DH.
Not to mention Harry with his pattern of transcending the fear of death through love, which pattern may lead him to cross the veil in order to save the world from evil.
A lot of love and sacrifice going around, And if Harry goes through the veil and returns, we will also have the death and resurrection motif.
The themes are woven through and through and through the books. No getting away from them.
Reyhan, right – Dumbledore is very much a Christ-figure on the tower in his willingness to sacrifice himself for Draco’s redemption (according to what I think is the proper interpretation of that night’s events).
The reason I mention Lily, in particular, as being the Christ figure of the story is that her sacrifice is the overarching theme of the story, and its very crux:
1. In the first place, it happened “back then,” 10 years before the main portion of our story. It’s a historical event that guides the entirety of the plot. In the same way, Christ’s sacrifice is a past historical event that guides the present plot we all find ourselves in.
2. Lily’s sacrifice provided “old magic” that made Harry what he is and gave him his ability to conquer the Dark Lord. In the same way, the “ancient magic” of Christ’s sacrifice gives us the power we need in our own present battle against “Sin and Satan and the grave” (as the old hymn goes).
So in those two ways, I think Lily’s sacrifice, up till this point, is the key Christological moment of the series.
Shadowquill, I’m sorry that I misunderstood what you said. I should have been a bit more charitable in my understanding of your points!
Travis, I’m just glad I didn’t insult the hell out of anyone. I’ve watched discusssions over literary theory turn into (literal) fights that left some really deep rifts between people. And I like this blog and everyone who comments way too much.
John, I linked over to the Mugglenet editorial and read through it a couple of times. And I agree with you: some of the connections the author makes are really superficial. In one way, you’d almost think that Harry was the only character in the book who had loved.
But, as Travis and yourself (and virtually everone else I’ve read on this subject) have pointed out, the best example of sacrificial love is Lily. But there is little or nothing in the book that is allegorical.
Instead, we often talk about “behind-the-scenes” events and characters in this book. One that could be floating just of the page is Christ. Umberto Eco (I feel like I’m dropping way too many names here, today) throws out an idea of “character migration” where some characters become so richly important/embedded into a culture that they take on an existence outside the text that originates their story. As an historical and literal figure, Christ might certainly fit this idea. They function as symbols (in the “revelation of the truth/divine” sense) that operate either as direct characters in other narratives, or as clear influences on stories and characters.
It’s almost as if the essence of Christ as a symbol has been diffused across multiple characters, imbuing many of them (maybe most of them) with some element of Christ and/or God. There’s so much love and sacrifice going around in the books. And, that would certainly be a very good addition to a Christian reading of the texts (I think…).
bluemooonie, different communities focus on different things to discuss. Here, Christianity (and religion in general) are another point of discussion. Plus, there’s so much debate within Christian communities about the books, their popularity, and where they might fit into Christian worldviews.
bluemoonie, a good question! (and, welcome!)
The topic of the Christian content of the Harry Potter series has taken on a life of its own, and there are two primary reasons it’s so prominent right now:
1. The original nature of the discussion was not, “Are the HP books Christian,” but “Should Christians read them.” Connie Neal was the first to say yes, and then along came John Granger who argued that not only can Christians read them, but they contain obvious Christian content! And Rowling herself is a Christian! This debate raged on for some time, and it did so because so many Christians radically challenged the books and the faith of any Christian who would read them.
As this debate hardly exists anymore, except in some rather extreme cases, the discussion has migrated to even more thoughtful analysis of the books’ Christian content, now that we’re not spending most of our time in-fighting about the issue. In fact, the great irony, as I’ve mentioned, is that the debate is no longer Christians vs. Fundamentalist Christians, but Christians vs. Atheists and Agnostics. Keep in mind, this particular round of debate about the Christian content of the books was started by atheist Lev Grossman.
2. Deathly Hallows is about to be released, and predictions are a-flyin’! Since Rowling has clearly said on at least two occasions that her Christian faith is exceedingly relevant to what happens in Book 7, it makes sense that folks are analyzing the Christian content of the books in preparation for and in making predictions about Deathly Hallows.
You’ve got me thinking, Travis.
Dumbledore and Voldemort both speak of the “old” magic which Lily’s sacrifice invoked. By inference then, there is a “new” magic.
Going completely conjectural for a moment, I assume that the magic that the wizards do on a day-to-day basis, the charms, the transfigurations, the potions, the spells, the curses, the use of wands, and even the Dark Arts, are all part of the “new” magic, the view of magic as a substitute for technology.
So what is the “old” magic? Well, we see it through the protection Lily’s sacrifice gives Harry. Where else do we see it?
Here are some suggestions: the Patronus spell, the Priori Incantem, the Veil – quite a few things in the Department of Mysteries, actually – and maybe, too, the elusive gift of prophecy.
What these things have in common is that with one exception, they are not spells or charms or any form of magic which can be deliberately manipulated. With that one exception, they can not be learned or mastered. They can’t be explained. They are mysteries.
I think this is where JKR gets closest to the spiritual, in the sense of forces which are beyond mortal understanding or control, but which follow certain rules, and which are not value-neutral. They appear to be linked to the concepts of good and evil at some very basic level. Murder is wrong not because it harms someone else, but because it fragments your own soul. The underlying assumption is that the soul is meant to be left intact – breaking it up goes against the natural laws. Two wands with the same core can not fight each other because a thing can not fight against itself. Death is not good or evil, but just the other face of life; the fear of death leads to evil, and it’s opposite is love which takes away that fear and leads to goodness.
The only one of the mysteries which can be controlled, it appears, is the Expecto Patronum spell. And as several people have recently pointed out, the Patronus is the closest thing to a prayer that the wizarding community has. And its literal translation ‘I await a protector’ is as close to an abridged version of the Lord’s Prayer as you can get without actually going over to C.S. Lewis style heavy-handed allegory.
So no, Mr. Grossman, you won’t find any churches in these books. There is, however, a moral order which is based on fundamental principles of good and evil which have their origins outside of individuals, their institutions or their laws. There is a sense of connection to something greater which transcends the spells and curses and charms. A sense of meaning. Call it spirituality.
Excellent points, Reyhan. I’d add “life debt” magic to the list as well, based on the way Dumbledore described it at the end of POA.
Can’t Priori Incantatem be manipulated, as well? Am I wrong in thinking that was how Barty Crouch, Sr. and the others figured that Winky had cast the dark mark at the Quidditch WC?
But, Reyhan, I don’t think it changes anything about your observation. The distinction between “old” and “new” magic does seem important — perhaps a commentary on materialism and an overreliance on methods of manipulating one’s environment instead of understanding, or harmonizing, with it? John Granger’s last book pointed out that incantational magic was about trying to strike a harmonious chord with some underlying Truth of the universe.
Well, churches are mentioned in the books. But not elaborated upon.
Harry and Dumbledore pass a church on their way to meet Slughorn for the first time. From memory church steeples are seen by the characters at times.
Matthew
As John Granger said, it is strange that Abigail BeauSeigneur did not reference any of the Harry Potter books that discuss the possible Christian content in the series in her editorial. I highly doubt that the author of the Mugglenet editorial discovered this topic herself. I know of another editorial at Mugglenet titled The Seven Signs of Harry Potter by Lauren DeBueriis. I still found the recent editorial interesting nonetheless in light of those like Lev Grossman who find secularism triumphant in the Potter series.
Oh a review is not out by the New York times… spoils the general outlines, or so people are saying. But it’s a very positive review! I wonder if it is the same as the leak. I’m trying to find responses to the review that say as much.
I wish there was a edit button on our comments so I wouldn’t have to double and tripple post… Oh well. The reviews contradict each other and one of them sounds like they were reviewing one of the leaked versions… WEIRD. So everything is contradicting each other right now. As we have it, no reviewers were given the book, like the NYP claims they were. Again. Weird. I’m loving the confusion. They were both very positive reviews though. One hopes that the real version gets just as positive reviews.
I noticed the two churches in my last read through of Deathly Hallows. If I remember both of them involved Dumbledore stopping near them or level with them.
Carla, you mean your last read-through of HBP?
Yes, it appears there’s more than one church in the series. Johnny of Behold a Phoenix sends along this helpful information:
“church” – OOTP, pages 635, 777; HBP, pages 59, 60, 75
“cathedral” – OOTP, page 727; HBP, page 526
Harry is described as “inwardly praying” in OOTP, page 799 and of course Harry’s thoughts in GOF in the graveyard just before Voldemort came back all look like prayers.
Tom is also looked to be seen as praying when a young Dumbledore meets him for the first time in HBP. I don’t remember the context though.
Thanks for the responses Dave and Travis
Anyways, I did read the Grossman article, and the others you linked to here (think I may have further broken my blog comment cherry over there 
, and like you all here, I do disagree with Grossman’s point in the article.
I totally agree that the Christian symbolism (that I now realize)in the books is key to understanding the books. I guess for a non Christian it feels… well let me say it this way. Being Hindu, when something about Hinduism is pointed out in the books, I get surprised (ie Travis’s article on the Hindu phoenix). But it doesn’t really surprise me when/if Judeo-Christian images are used in a book (I find it interesting, etc.), so I guess it surprises me when people debate whether there are Christian symbols in a book. I don’t know if that makes any sense
However, I don’t know, I wonder what I would have thought (not being CHristian and not realizing that the HP books could be deconstructed and analyzed) if I’d read it before reading your (and all the recent wonderful bloggers I’ve discovered thru your site) site
Ya’ll are doing a great job! I can’t wait to read all the analysis after Saturday
(Duplicate post, without the bold- I forgot to close the tag…)
It occurred to me that Travis Prinzi’s comment that Lily’s sacrifice “gave him his ability to conquer the Dark Lord†reminded me of a Bible verse, “Death has been swallowed up in victory†1 Cor 15:54 (NIV).
If Lily is the Christ symbol, Voldemort (flight from death) is the symbol of death and all things evil… and is the opposite of everything that Lily’s sacrificial love represents. (Not that this is new), I predict it will be because of that “ancient blood magic†and “Lily’s eyes†that Harry will be able to defeat Voldemort, and without them, he would have died an infant.
Interestingly enough, that is what Christ’s sacrifice and redemption means — a second chance, an eternal life, and victory over death.
Good observation, Dave the Longwinded, about how the Christ symbol can be looked at in terms of several other characters in the book, including Dumbledore as John Granger notes. I think that is a fair assessment, however, like with Travis, I believe that Lily is most likely and closely represents the Christ-figure in the series.