(Slight ref. TBAY): Harry Potter and, er, the Philosopher's Stone

[Edblanning at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 38687

David makes a brave attempt to rescue Harry Potter (remember him?) from a 
strange sect who seem to insist that he bears a remarkable resemblance to 
someone known as Stoned!Harry.  ;-)                               

<snip Caroline's original exposition of Harry as living embodiment of 
Philosopher's Stone>

> The above is what started the Stoned!Harry thread (ironically, a response to 
> a now-forgotten topic).  I wanted to snip it to minimise the amount of 
> quoted material, but it's too good: there just isn't anything to snip.
> 
> What I want to do now is pick up on some aspects that have been somewhat 
> obscured in the subsequent discussion.
> 
> The first is that Caroline chose her words very carefully:
> 
> "... he is a living embodiment of the philosopher's stone... Not that he's 
> necessarily immortal, but that he holds within his being the potential for 
> eternal life if properly activated."
> 
> I much prefer this to the simplistic 'Harry is immortal' theory.  After 
> all, the stone itself is not immortal - it merely is the means to 
> immmortality for wizards (and Muggles)  

I have addressed this, or at least, I have tried to, in pointing out that we 
seem to be talking about two different types of immortality and that there 
needs to be some kind of greater outcome than Harry merely being immortal. If 
we run with the Christ parallel, again we see Christ as the *key* to 
immortality for others.


> 
> unconcerned about Harry in danger, various beheadings and the like) the way 
> other list members do.  I also think that the parallel between Christ and 
> Harry is an entirely separate topic: there is no need to focus on 
> immortality, whether actual or latent, to draw that parallel.  (And it's 
> very difficult to draw right: if you take one book chock full of symbols, 
> such as Harry Potter, and line the symbols up against those found in 
> another such book, like the Bible, you are bound to get some 
> correspondences.  IMO, a bit more structure than that is required.)  So I 
> think you TBAY-ers out there may have some sort of catamaran.

Of course you are bound to get these coincidences. As I have said, once you 
start looking for them, you will find them. (And some of us just get innocent 
pleasure from running with these ideas and seeing how far they will take us.) 
I would be interested to know, though, what parallels you would draw between 
Harry and Christ that are unrelated to this thread. One of the things that 
intrigues me is that I see Harry as quite un-Christlike. The living 
philosopher's stone idea appeals because it seems to be in a way a secular 
way of dealing with the ultimate parallel, that of one who gives up his life 
so that others may receive it. That's how *I* understand Stoned!Harry. JKR 
draws from many sources, it is true. And different ideologies may share the 
same symbols. But what seems undeniable is that there are a great many 
symbols surrounding Harry that do relate to death and resurrection and they 
are surely there for a reason.

> 
> Anyway, back to the topic.  At one level, this is neat, because it gives 
> Voldemort a reason to be interested in Harry which does not depend on some 
> hackneyed 'first prophecy':  he is after the immortality which can be 
> unlocked from Harry (this is what Laura said).  It is then an open question 
> whether V was trying to AK Harry as a preliminary towards using his body, 
> or whether he tried some other 'stone-power-extracting' spell, which 
> (because of Lily's love) went wrong, leaving V damaged and Harry with 
> Parseltongue and a V-sensitive scar.  The second option has the very 
> intriguing feature of giving a genuine role to Lily's love in saving Harry 
> and damaging Voldemort, while avoiding the issue of all those other 
> presumed mothers who died for their children.

Well, canon suggests strongly that there *is* a first prophecy, IMHO. 
In CoS, Riddle/Voldemort is also very dismissive of Harry, glad to discover 
that there was nothing special about him. If he does believe he has some key 
to immortality, then I think he might have had some clue as to why he 
survived. And he does actually say that he 'failed to kill' him, which 
suggests to me that that *was* what he was trying to do.

> 
> The theory is also neat because it virtually demands that Harry give up his 
> stone-powers whatever they may be in detail (and note, it may not *require* 
> him to die - it is those who would use him who stand not to live on), 
> unless we are seriously to envisage an ending in which the entire WW will 
> now have ready access to immortality.  

This latter is a weakness in the scenario to me as well. 


Oh, sorry, the reason I think that is neat is because it makes Harry, the 
> renouncer, a foil to Voldemort the immortality-seeker, as 
> Caroline said.  On the understanding that Harry is renouncing immortality 
> in the spirit of Dumbledore, who destroys the stone, rather than Flamel, 
> who renounces his personal immortality.

That's interesting. I hadn't thought of that latter particular contrast. 

> 
> I'm not quite sure that this is quite right as it stands, though.  The 
> Philosopher's Stone, as I understand it, was itself an allegorical object.  
> The alchemists wanted to make it, not to get money and unending physical 
> life, but because understanding its manufacture would help understand how 
> to transmute the base metal of human nature into the gold of a perfect (or 
> divine?) nature, of eternal spiritual value.  It is JKR's genius to 
> introduce the physical stone, and transmute its meaning into temptation for 
> physical gold and life, while possibly allowing the original meaning to 
> stand also.

Yep. I'd go along with that.

> 
> Taking Caroline's symbology (explained in a later post) at face value, the 
> meaning of the stone may be that you need both Gryffindor and Slytherin, 
> both Harry and Voldemort to make something which will allow the WW to face 
> death as the 'next great adventure' with prosperity of spirit.  Harry's 
> role is indeed to renounce the temptations of wealth and longevity (which 
> Dumbledore has already specifically identified as the two things that 
> people would choose - "but people have a knack of choosing what is bad for 
> them": now *there's* a Christian theme for discussion!).  I'm not sure 
> Harry needs any special potential for immortality (or wealth) to fulfil 
> this symbolic role - he just needs to be tempted.

Where I'd differ here is that I wouldn't necessrily equate Slytherin with 
Voldemort. Voldemort is the ultimate corruption of a Slytherin. Dumbledore's 
inclusivity embraces the Slytherins as a group at Hogwarts, but it does not 
embrace Voldemort or Dark Magic. Now whether this is because immature 
Slytherins are still 'redeemable' for want of a better word, or whether it is 
because Slytherin virtues, properly harnessed are necessary to complete the 
whole, I am not sure. One of Harry's tasks seems to be to come to terms with 
his inner Slytherin, but it hasn't yet been presented in a positive light; 
Dumbledore has been keen to emphasise the fact that he *is* a true Gryffindor 
and has downplayed the Slytherin traits as something merely transferred by 
accident from Voldemort. But then he's not omniscient. Not quite.

But I agree on the last point; Harry does need to be tempted.

> 
> On this understanding, there is no particular call for Harry to die at the 
> end - he just has to accept that a normal lifespan for everybody is the 
> best way.  No short cuts: the physical stone is meant to be a symbol; as an 
> actual mechanism it is in essence a delusive short cut.
> 
> Perhaps the message is that to be fully human you have to first desire 
> immortality (Voldemort) and then renounce it (Harry).  You have to 
> recognise that there is more to life than life, and then give it up to get 
> it.

Exactly. But....and I didn't think I would ever hear myself saying 
this...Where's the Bang in that? There has to be a climax. Every book so far 
has had the big  confrontation, the near brush with death. Your version is 
convincing and in another kind of book would be quite satisfying, but given 
the nature of the HP series, Book 7 is surely going to have the biggest, 
Bangiest ending of all. Harry keeps defeating Voldemort. It's old hat. There 
has to be more than that and from a dramatic point of view, Harry defeating 
Voldemort and simply going on to live to a peaceful old age doesn't have any 
more impact. He has at least to offer his life and I think we at least have 
to think that he's lost it.

> 
> So, the bottom line is, not that Harry is an embodiment of the physical 
> stone, but that (possibly in conjunction with Voldemort) he is a better 
> symbol of the same thing that the stone is a symbol for.  Clear?
> 
> 
Yes, although I cannot agree with everything and do not see how any kind of 
conjuction with Voldemort (nasty thought ;-) ) is possible.


Eloise, eyeing the Big Bang wistfully. Permission to re-board?

'He's not the Messiah! He's a very naughty boy!'
                                                       (Monty Python's Life 
of Brian)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]