Evil--Lewis and JKR

[Amy Z]

No: HPFGUIDX 19849

Lisa wrote:

 > Now going back a little to the discussion about good vs. evil.  I 
> paid particular attention to an exchange between Rebecca and I think 
> Susan and Pippin about whether or not evil is bigger than good in 
> JKR, whether or not the Narnia books are formulaic, and whether or 
> not Aslan is the deus ex machina.
> 
> I think what set *my* bells off is when McGonagall says to 
Dumbledore 
> in the first chapter of PS/SS that Voldemort was only afraid of 
Albus 
> Dumbledore.  "You flatter me, my dear...Voldemort had powers I never 
> will."  "Only because you're too *noble* to use them," McGonagall 
> shoots back.  Well, wouldn't this imply that people who break the 
> rules are the ones with the real power?  That even the best among us 
> can't stand up to the potency of those who go outside the pale of 
> humanity?  But Dumbledore himself limits that idea in his several 
> talks with Harry ("if someone resists him again, and again, why he 
> may never come back to power"; and the famous "it's our choices that 
> make us who we are").  Not to mention the famous gleam.  And instead 
> of calling it pragmatic, I'd call it heroic, like the star dying in 
> WRINKLE IN TIME.

Yes, and in that sense it is quite Christian, that is, Christlike.  
The dying star definitely is (and L'Engle no doubt intended it to be 
so), and in a different way, Dumbledore's refusal to use the Dark Arts 
is also.

Evil has power that good will never have; torture and terrorism, for 
example, are undeniably powerful weapons.  Dumbledore cannot use them, 
not because he doesn't know how but because he is too good.

That doesn't mean that evil is ultimately more powerful, however.  
Good has power that evil does not.  "Hatred will never cease by 
hatred, but only by love" (The Dhammapada, a Theravada Buddhist text). 
 If Voldemort is to be truly overcome, it will have to be by those who 
refuse to use his own weapons.  Otherwise he will be crushed, but the 
evil he practices will continue to thrive.  One can't defeat the 
enemy with the enemy's means.  JKR is clearly not writing a novel of 
Gandhian nonviolence, but she does assert that some forms of violence 
cross the line, e.g. Aurors killing when there are less extreme 
measures at their disposal, and she has one of the heroes, Sirius, say 
that this can be just as bad as being a Death Eater--strong words (GF 
27).

Good people often have to sacrifice themselves to remain good; 
Christians (and Buddhists, too, in a different sense) believe that 
this sacrifice itself has a power that will overcome evil.  Thus Aslan 
on the Stone Table (not to mention Jesus going quietly to his 
crucifixion) . . . the Witch is defeated because she believes that 
killing Aslan will bring her victory.  What she doesn't understand is 
that the self-sacrifice of a willing victim will defeat the one who 
kills him.  That, at least, is the Christian belief, as I understand 
it.

> 
> And as for the Narnia books, I wouldn't call them formulaic either. 
 
> Nor would I consider Aslan the deus ex machina of the stories, or 
> even in particular of THE LION, THE WITCH, AND THE WARDROBE.  The 
> stories may appear to be about the children, but they really *are* 
> about Aslan; and the main character of a story can't be deus ex 
> machina. 

Also, let's just step back and look at the big picture for a second.  
Is the Second Coming a deus ex machina?  That's a rather unflattering 
way to look at Christianity.  I don't share the Christian confidence 
that good will triumph over evil for all time,* though it is my hope 
and faith that "the arc of the universe bends toward justice" (MLK), 
but the appearance of Jesus/Aslan is a statement of faith, not a 
convenient plot device.

But back to HP.  Even if good triumphs over evil at the end of book 7, 
I have my doubts as to whether JKR will make it a final triumph, a la 
Lewis.  She isn't working on that scale, for one thing; she isn't 
trying to encompass a world, start to finish, as Lewis did.  She's 
just showing an eventful 20 years in the life of this world, or so it 
appears so far.  And then there's that dictum from Dumbledore, about 
good people struggling against evil whenever it arises.  That suggests 
a view of good and evil as a struggle that continues forever, without 
any end-times to deliver a final victor in the battle.  We'll see . . 
.

Amy Z

*perhaps not all Christians do either?  L'Engle is a Christian writer 
who doesn't pay much mind to the end-times.  She is less interested 
(in her fiction, at least) in whether good will ultimately triumph 
than in people taking a stand for it again and again against the odds, 
and against the principalities and powers.