The Living Philosopher's Stone (Was: Re: The Spiritual Symbolism of HP)

[mongo62aa]

No: HPFGUIDX 56099

After posting about the previous posts about Harry as the `Living 
Philosopher's Stone, I went back and read all of them.  The following 
is a condensed version of the main points raised in that discussion.  
Many of these posts have been shortened from the originals, but the 
gist is included.

I hope that this is useful in this discussion.

Bill

******

#38511 - cmf_usc

I am one of the few (heck, maybe I'm the *only* one) who believes 
that Harry's Big Bangy secret is that he is a living embodiment of 
the philosopher's stone. (This is all based on an alchemical 
interpretation of the symbols that surround Harry; stag, phoenix, 
lion, serpent, color green, red, etc. I could go into great detail 
but I'll restrain myself :--) Not that he's necessarily immortal, but 
that he holds within his being the potential for eternal life if 
properly activated.

Anyway, if I'm right, I think that Harry will be making the choice to 
renounce at least this part of his powers. I think this whole plot 
idea would really tie the series together; Harry would have grown to 
understand life & death to the point that he would choose to make the 
same decision (we assume) Flamel made in SS.

I think I remember JKR saying somewhere (sorry can't remember 
citation) that you could sum up the theme of the series as facing up 
to death.

And my theory would *really* make Harry the anti-Voldemort; he would 
choose to freely give up that which V. has spent his life seeking in 
terribly evil ways.

Caroline 

#38515 - cindysphynx 
  
Oooh! My inner Bang is seriously warming to this idea! Caroline, I 
think you could well be on to something with this. "Stoned Harry" -- 
it works for me! I think I want in on the ground floor of this 
burgeoning movement.

Actually, the idea that Harry has the potential for eternal life 
explains a lot of canon mysteries. It explains why Dumbledore seems 
not to be troubled by Harry's rule-breaking. It explains why the DEs 
couldn't curse fleeing Harry. It explains why Harry was stronger than 
Voldemort in the duel. It explains why Harry was able to survive his 
duel with the Basilisk. I've never been entirely comfortable with the 
wobbly explanation for Harry's unique ability to survive AK -- that 
his mothers' love was so unique that it protected him, and 
AbsentMinded!Voldemort forgot all about this.

It also goes a ways toward explaining why Dumbledore is so secretive 
about Harry's past. After all, Dumbledore can hardly walk up to Harry 
and tell him that the good news is that Harry is immortal, but the 
bad news is that he has to sacrifice this to save the wizarding 
world. That would be a bit of a bummer, to say the least.

Answer me this, though. Where did Stoned Harry's potential for 
eternal life come from? Is it embodied in his scar? Does it have 
something to do with parseltongue, do you think? Is it related to the 
analysis of alchemy you mentioned (which I don't remember so you 
might have to repeat)?

Hmmm. If we figure this one out, we can practically write the end of 
Book 7, now can't we? Um, or at least, I think we can. I know one 
thing for sure, though. There is going to have to be a *seriously* 
Big catalyst for Harry to make this huge sacrifice; no way is he just 
going to slowly mull it and quietly screw up his nerve to to lay down 
his life. 

Cindy (who thinks Caroline is well on the way to figuring out the Big 
and Bangy Climactic Book 7 scene in which Harry chooses to make the 
ultimate sacrifice like a certain famous Biblical figure) 

#38542 - cmf_usc 

Stoned Harry! I love it!

::rustles papers importantly::

Ok, here goes. The proof behind the theory. I've got charts. (shame 
they aren't on disk, it's easier to follow that way.) I've got 
citations to a reference book. And, oh yeah, some canon too.

*All interpretations of symbols taken from The Dictionary of Symbols, 
pub. by Penguin, 1994*

First, the alchemists started the whole idea of a person *becoming* a 
philosopher's stone, through some spiritual process; it was one of 
the things they were into, along with turning metal into gold & 
developing an elixir of immortality. I don't think it's too far-
fetched that JKR might take this fact & twist it into her story; 
she's done that with other stuff, right?

So. The alchemists believed that Mercury + Sulphur = Philosopher's 
stone. 

JKR's planted *lots* of symbols around Harry that relate to these two 
elements. 

Things associated, alchemically, with sulphur: stag, phoenix, color 
red, lion

With mercury: color green, serpent, unicorn

In art, the alchemists showed the creation of the philosopher's stone 
as a stag & unicorn coming together in a forest.

So, I figure James + Lily = living Philosopher's stone

(I, for one, will be looking for hints that Harry was conceived in 
the forbidden forest :--)

We know *as canonical fact* that the stag is related to James. If 
you'd like to go with the heir of Gryffindor combo meal, you can add 
the color red & the lion.

We know *as canonical fact* that the color green is related to Lily 
(and that it'll be important.) I don't think adding the unicorn is 
too much of a stretch: unicorn = purity; lily = purity; willow (like 
in her wand) = purity.

And if you want to super-size that combo, you can add that Lily was 
an heir of Slytherin (remember the wording in CoS was a "deliberate 
error," JKR says), and that Harry inherited the Parseltongue (serpent 
connection) through her.

There. Bangy enough for you? Complicated enough? That's why I really 
like this theory, actually. I think it's JKR's style. Plus it would 
provide the series with a real sense of continuity.

Cindy wrote:

>>I've never been entirely comfortable with the wobbly explanation 
for Harry's unique ability to survive AK -- that his mothers' love 
was so unique that it protected him, and AbsentMinded!Voldemort 
forgot all about this.<<

Me, too. In fact, I went through SS & CoS pretty carefully to see 
where that whole theory came from. And it's not Dumbledore that tells 
us this: it's Harry, when he's talking to Riddle in the chamber.

Dumbledore only says "Your mother died to save you." And this is in 
answer to the question "Why couldn't Quirrell touch me?", (SS p. 299) 
not `how did I survive?' I figure this can be interpreted as, Lily 
died in the attempt to save Harry, but that's not necessarily why he 
lived. (And I also am quite suspicious that we only have 
Crouch/Moody's word for it that Harry has survived AK. Maybe V. was 
up to something completely different that night?)

Caroline (Bonus tidbit: Another word for the Philosopher's stone is 
cinnabar: this means dragon's blood in Persian. Remind anyone of a 
certain chocolate frog card??)  

#38543 - Katze 

I'm also a believer that there's more to Harry surviving the AK curse 
than the excuse that Lily saved him with her love. Why would it only 
work for her, and never anyone else? It's ancient magic, that 
apparently one of the most ruthless wizards has forgotten. Wouldn't 
you think that with all of V's killing people would do anything to 
protect their loved ones - like learning ancient magic? I just think 
that if this were really the case, many more people would've survived 
the AK curse.

I love this theory that Harry's the living stone. He also wouldn't 
actually have to die an early death defeating V either - just give up 
his immortality, like Flamel did by destroying the stone. Flamel gave 
up his immortality, because it was the right thing to do to destroy 
the stone. This way no one else would have the chance to use it to 
become immortal. If Harry is the living stone, then V will need him 
to become immortal, and if Harry gave up his immortality, than V will 
have lost out in that particular venture.  

#38546 - cindysphynx 

Katze wrote:

>>I love this theory that Harry's the living stone. He also wouldn't 
actually have to die an early death defeating V either - just give up 
his immortality, like Flamel did by destroying the stone.<<

Oh. 

Oh my. 

Oh, I don't *like* having Harry just surrender his immortality. I 
mean, where's the Bang there? He just kind of nods when he realizes 
the sacrifice he must make, maybe with his eyes tearing up a bit? Ron 
and Hermione just kind of shrug back at him, because, hey, he gets to 
live out the rest of his life just like they do, so where's the 
tragedy in his forfeiture of immortality? It also allows Hagrid (who 
will die in OoP) and Lupin (who will die in Book 7) to steal Harry's 
thunder and seriously upstage him.

Also, and lean in close for this bit, but I didn't care much when 
Flammel forfeited immortality. It was kind of dull. I mean, he wasn't 
really entitled to immortality, and I didn't get the sense that 
Flammel was doing anything special with it, after all. I mean, I 
hardly miss the guy. So when Harry forfeits immortality, he can't be 
around to live a normal wizarding lifespan. He has to Meet His Maker 
*right then.*

Ah, come on. Wouldn't it be better (with "better" being defined as 
infinitely more Big) to have Harry make the Ultimate Sacrifice and 
take Voldemort out with him?

Cindy (who wants Harry to tangle with Voldemort on a rickety catwalk 
high over a river of molten lava or something else really, really 
visual) 

#38547 - Laura Huntley 

In response to Caroline's Stoned theory and all her marvelous 
information aboutmercury, sulfur, etc in the role of alchemy:

Oh, yes, yes, YES!! I love it. Perfect. Why didn't I think of it?

*is quite cross with herself*

Cindy said:

>>It also goes a ways toward explaining why Dumbledore is so 
secretive about Harry's past. [...] Answer me this, though. Where did 
Stoned Harry's potential for eternal life come from? Is it embodied 
in his scar? Does it have something to do with parseltongue, do you 
think? Is it related to the analysis of alchemy you mentioned (which 
I don't remember so you might have to repeat)?<<

And Caroline said:

>>In art, the alchemists showed the creation of the philosopher's 
stone as a stag & unicorn coming together in a forest. So, I figure 
James + Lily = living Philosopher's stone

<snip>

(Bonus tidbit: Another word for the Philosopher's stone is cinnabar: 
this means dragon's blood in Persian. Remind anyone of a certain 
chocolate frog card??)<<

*nearly fall out of her chair in excitement* Meep! Dumbledore, 
discovering the (12) uses of dragon's blood! What if there's really a 
13th use, in which Dumbledore discovered a procedure to create a 
living philosopher's stone!! Perhaps Trelawney's first prediction was 
that a Dark Lord with the power of immortality would rise, and a 
Light Lord with the same power would be needed to defeat him?? So 
*viola*! Dumbledore helps *create* baby Harry (perhaps magically 
altering him during Lily's pregnancy or arranging some kind of ritual 
at his conception -- I don't know) to fight the coming Dark Lord. 
Perhaps this is why he first started looking into alchemy and 
dragon's blood to begin with.

Oooo...what if Dumbledore created TOM RIDDLE with the potential for 
immortality because of the prediction about a Dark Lord Trelawney or 
whomever made (thinking that *Tom* would be the Light Lord), and then 
was forced to create Harry to fulfill the prophecy and undo the 
damage he had caused. You know -- a younger Dumbledore, not yet the 
all-wise, benevolent leader we know today -- but a headstrong man 
with a buckload of power. He had good *intentions* in creating 
Riddle -- he wanted to stop this "Dark Lord" from taking over. But he 
tinkered with the balance of the universe in doing so, and was 
therefore punished and obligated to perform the terrible magic that 
made Tom once more -- in order to prevent the fruits of his stupidity 
and vanity from taking over the world.

It was the evil he could inherently see in his creation, young Tom -- 
even before Tom actually realized it himself, that made him wary of 
Tom when all the other Hogwarts teachers loved him -- he was 
suspicious of the hatred he sensed in the boy he made to be a 
*savior* (wow, that sounds really Star Wars). It's why he goes to so 
much trouble to help those directly harmed by Tom (Hagrid) and 
forgive those who let themselves be led into evil by Tom (Snape). 
It's why he takes such an interest in James and Lily, because he sees 
in them the potential that he saw in Riddle's parents to create a 
Living Stone (geez..sort of sounds like a Living 
Horus..falcon..phoenix..nah.). My guess is that you need the right 
people and then you need all sort of potions, charms, and the like 
(some of which use dragon's blood). A very complicated, difficult 
procedure, anyway. Probably with lots of sacrifice on the parts of 
all involved.

And don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to propose an Evil!Dumbledore 
here.  What I'm proposing is a Dumbledore who made a grave mistake 
when he was younger and is now desperately trying to make up for it. 
It's *why* he's the amazingly kind, beneficent person we know today. 
He's had more of his share of the kind of wrong-doing that turns one 
into an older, wiser person.

Anyway. Do you like it? *grins enthusiastically* I've got all my can
(n)ons at the ready -- fire at your own risk. ^_~

laura 

#38558 - ltg3asu 

Katze wrote: 

>>If Harry is the living stone, then V will need him to become 
immortal, and if Harry gave up his immortality, than V will have lost 
out in that particular venture.<<

*Yikes!* If Harry is the living stone, a prospect which is becoming 
more and more plausible with each new wonderfully researched post, 
then what will Voldemort using his (Harry's) blood in the spell to 
create himself a new body? As the living stone, is Harry's blood 
comparable to the elixir of life?

This, if viable, could put a whole new spin on Dumbledore's hint of a 
triumphant smile at the end of GoF.To me, it makes sense that by 
using Harry's blood, if he (Harry) is the living stone, then 
Voldemort may have attained immortality again. 

BUT! If the state Voldemort was in when he worked the spell was 
merely a living death, a half life as described to be possessed by 
those who drink unicorn's blood, then maybe Harry's life giving blood 
(a very Christian metaphor) canceled out the half life of Voldemort, 
giving him his humanity, therefore his mortality again, not simply by 
virtue of Harry being a mortal, but because Harry is the living 
stone! 

#38560 - Soprano Ham 

Hi,

Katze wrote:

>>If Harry is the living stone, then V will need him to become 
immortal, and if Harry gave up his immortality, than V will have lost 
out in that particular venture. 

My only problem with this is: how could harry give up/renounce this 
part of himself? How could this be done other than through death? If 
he died, Voldemort would still have his blood in him. It seems to me 
that renouncing aspects of your magical being is just as impossible 
as me renouncing my skin, or my lungs. Thoughts?

Sop 

#38561 - dicentra63

Cindy responds to Katze: 

>>Oh, I don't *like* having Harry just surrender his immortality. I 
mean, where's the Bang there? He just kind of nods when he realizes 
the sacrifice he must make, maybe with his eyes tearing up a bit? Ron 
and Hermione just kind of shrug back at him, because, hey, he gets to 
live out the rest of his life just like they do, so where's the 
tragedy in his forfeiture of immortality? So when Harry forfeits 
immortality, he can't be around to live a normal wizarding lifespan. 
He has to Meet His Maker *right then.*<<

Dicentra responds:

Oh yes, he most definately has to die at the end. And JKR has 
alreadly told us how it's going down (at least I think she has).  
Remember when Harry and Ron were making up predictions in GoF and how 
Harry inadvertently predicted the three tasks? Well, the last 
prediction Harry made was his own beheading. And, as someone pointed 
out last time I pointed this out, Ron and Harry were later playing 
with a couple of the twins' trick wands in McGonagall's class: 
Harry's had turned into a rubber fish and Ron's was a tin parrot. Ron 
beheaded Harry's fish with his parrot.

Is that Bangy or what? Not only does Harry have to die to take 
Voldemort out, but it will end up being by Ron's hand. (Whether it's 
good!Ron or evil!Ron I cannot say at this time.) And his head comes 
off, too! BANG!

#38571 - cindysphynx 

OK, you guys are starting to *scare* me just a bit. I mean, it's one 
thing to just imagine having Harry die. Anyone can do that. I've done 
it many times, although not as often as I've imagined Hagrid's 
demise. ;-)

But now you guys have found actual *canons* for Stoned!Harry! 

If you look closely, however, there are two additional canons for 
Stoned!Harry. And I promise you, once the roar of the crowd dies 
down, we'll need something *much* bigger than a two-man kayak to 
house the legions of rabid Stoned!Harry believers.

Immortal Stoned!Harry, according to Dicentra, can walk on water. And, 
pray tell, what was the very first thing Harry saw in the teacup in 
his very first Divination Class? *A Cross*! It was a crooked (some 
might even say Old Rugged) Cross!

<waits patiently for the disturbed murmer of the assembled masses to 
die down>

And, my friends, what did Ron see when he looked into Harry's cup? 
Ah, you don't remember, do you? Let me refresh your recollection: "[T]
hat looks like an animal . . . yeah, if that was its head . . . it 
looks like a hippo . . . no, a sheep."

A sheep? A young sheep? A *lamb*, I daresay? 

<waits patiently for the roar of the crowd to die down, along with a 
few muffled Amens>

Yes, it all adds up. Stoned!Harry is destined to die a death as a 
sacrifical lamb to spare others from an awful fate. A death by . . . 
uh . . . by decapitation.

Um, maybe JKR will think better of that particular means of Harry's 
demise. There's still time for something a little less gruesome, I 
think.

Caroline wrote (about Ron and Harry rising from the table together):

>>And remember in PoA, when Harry and Ron got up together from the 
table of 13? Yep, I can see Ron bringing about Harry's death & dying 
right after
<<

Well, we want to stay right on canon here, so Ron and Harry have to 
die *together*, not, er, sequentially. So how on earth can Ron and 
Harry die together, have Harry be beheaded, and have Voldemort wind 
up in the soup with them?

Ya got me. Anyone?

Cindy 

#38583 - abigailnus 

Katze wrote:

>>I'm also a believer that there's more to Harry surviving the AK 
curse than the excuse that Lily saved him with her love. Why would it 
only work for her, and never anyone else? It's ancient magic, that 
apparently one of the most ruthless wizards has forgotten. Wouldn't 
you think that with all of V's killing people would do anything to 
protect their love ones - like learning ancient magic? I just think 
that if this were really the case, many more people would've survived 
the AK curse.<<

My understanding was that it wasn't exactly the fact that Lily died 
shielding Harry from Voldemort, but the fact that she had a choice in 
the matter that protects Harry. We know that Voldemort specifically 
offerred Lily her life if she stepped away and let him kill the 
child. I don't imagine he often offered that kind of "mercy", so 
while there might have been many people who died shielding their 
children or other loved ones, they were only hastening the 
inevitable, as they were going to die anyway. None of them actively 
chose death rather than standing aside and watching their loved ones 
die. It's this extra level of sacrifise that protected Harry from AK, 
not simply the fact that his mother died before him. After all, if 
that were the case, Harry would also be protected by his father's 
death - James stayed behind and died in order to try and give Lily 
time to escape with Harry. However, since Voldemort was apparently 
going to kill James anyway (remember, he was there to kill "the last 
Potter"), his sacrifise doesn't protect Harry.

I'm not sure exactly where I stand on Stoned!Harry (apart from the 
fact that it's a cool name - who needs an acronym?) I agree with, I 
think it was Cindy, who said that in this case the only possible 
resolution would be for Harry to die at the end of the series, and I 
just don't see that happening - it's not even a matter of JKR being 
lynched by fans, I just don't think she'd be so cruel to the children 
who love her books. I personally have always wondered if at the end 
of the series Harry would find himself unable to live in the WW - 
he's too famous, or maybe he'll step on the wrong toes at the MoM. I 
see him going off to see the elephant, maybe with Ron and Hermione at 
his side. Yes, I know, how LOTR can you get, but there's something 
very satisfying in the hero who saves the world but not for himself, 
and Tolkein managed to do it without killing Frodo off.

Abigail 

#38589 - errolowl

Quote Caroline:

>>In art, the alchemists showed the creation of the philosopher's 
stone as a stag & unicorn coming together in a forest. So, I figure 
James + Lily = living Philosopher's stone

<snip, snip>

If Harry is the living stone, then V will need him to become 
immortal, and if Harry gave up his immortality, than V will have lost 
out in that particular venture.<<


OOOOHH
Yes!

Stoned! Harry is really cool, and accepting Caroline's mastery of 
Alchemy, the symbols are hard to refute. He *has* been consciously 
surrounded by the relevant elements.Harry being the living stone also 
gives him a viable alternative claim to `special' status, as opposed 
to the Heir of Gryffindor theory. (I never quite bought the bit about 
the [yet unheard of] prophesy of the battle of the Heirs ;-))
.but
 

:tries to put uneasy feeling into words: 

why would Voldmort try to kill Harry again & again if he knew he was 
immortal, and thus unkillable? If one argues that he didn't know 
about the living stone part, then there would be no reason to go 
after Harry, would there?

Quote Laura:

>>what if Dumbledore created TOM RIDDLE with the potential for 
immortality because of the prediction about a Dark Lord Trelawney or 
whomever made(thinking that *Tom* would be the Light Lord), and then 
was forced to create Harry to fulfill the prophecy and undo the 
damage he had caused.<<

but this still doesn't help in untangling anything. Even IF 
Dumbledore helped `create' Tom (*What* was he thinking of, mixing 
with the Slytherin line anyway? And why leave Tom to grow up in a 
muggle orphanage?), why would Tom merely have the *potential* for 
immortality, while Harry has it inherent at birth?

Now if Harry also just has the *potential* to be immortal, he would 
have to go through some sort of process to gain that immortality.

Quote Caroline:

>>First, the alchemists started the whole idea of a person *becoming* 
a philosopher's stone, through some spiritual process<<

Ok, so far so good. Voldy recognizes the potential and tries to 
eliminate Harry (though why he didn't show that urgency when he 
dueled Harry, I don't know). This also ties in with Dumbledore's 
dictum of "its our choices that make us who we are far more than our 
abilities". But this also means that Harry is not immortal *yet*
oh 
dear, that seems to conflict with quite a few others in the Kayak..

Quote Cindy:

>>Actually, the idea that Harry has the potential for eternal life 
explains a lot of canon mysteries. It explains why Dumbledore seems 
not to be troubled by Harry's rule-breaking. It explains why the DEs 
couldn't curse fleeing Harry. It explains why Harry was stronger than 
Voldemort in the duel. It explains why Harry was able to survive his 
duel with the Basilisk.<<

See?
now I'm confused. Harry's as vulnerable as ever!.

:scratches head:

Well, ok
next rowing in another tangent to Dicentra's decapitation 
theory

Quote Dicentra:

>>Oh yes, he most definintely has to die at the end. And JKR has 
already told us how it's going down (at least I think she has).  
Remember when Harry and Ron were making up predictions in GoF and how 
Harry inadvertently predicted the three tasks? Well, the last 
prediction Harry made was his own beheading. And, as someone pointed 
out last time I pointed this out, Ron and Harry were later playing 
with a couple of the twins' trick wands in McGonagall's class: 
Harry's had turned into a rubber fish and Ron's was a tin parrot. Ron 
beheaded Harry's fish with his parrot.

Is that Bangy or what? Not only does Harry have to die to take 
Voldemort out, but it will end up being by Ron's hand. (Whether it's 
good!Ron or evil!Ron I cannot say at this time.) And his head comes 
off, too! BANG!<<

OMG! This really has me going!! I really like Ron..and I want Harry 
to live, so this sends Chills down my spine. Has there been an 
indepth discussion of Trelawney's predictions already? Harry and Ron 
do seem to unconsciously predict their own paths to a certain extent 
but didn't their homework cover only the next *month* ? (are we 
reaching too far here?). If their predictions are so on target, is 
Ron going to get runover by a rampaging Hippogriff?
ummm, my crystal 
ball's gone all foggy


But I looked up the 13 at dinner scene again and watched Dumbledore 
closely
 he didn't refute it!! Trelawney makes a scene, and it's 
McGonagall who phoo-phoos it. You'd think DD would have said 
something – but not a peep out of him! IF we were to take that to 
really bode the future, Ron / Harry are to die before the others at 
the table. So who else is there? – Dumbledore, Snape, McGonagall, 
Trelawney, Flitwick, Sprout, 3 other students and Hermoine. Here, 
Hagrid is conspicuous by his absence – afterall, he does live on the 
grounds! Where is he? An unexpected prop to the Hagrid's early demise 
theory.

Now, there's some confusion over who got up first – Harry or Ron. 
Does that imply that in the climatic scene, there will be some 
confusion over who actually died? (depressing line of thought). It 
seems to me that Harry & Ron are to be in at the climax and maybe try 
to sacrifice for each other or something. I don't quite go all the 
way with the `Ron causes Harry's death' theory, though I think it's a 
really interesting course. 

This has gone on long enough, so I'll stop. Last words
I don't think 
Hermione will let her two best friends fight over her in a triangle – 
she'll think of something!


- Errol (The confused soul who ended up paddling so hard in all 
directions that the Kayak now spins out of control in circles): 
glares from the rest of the crew: 

#38593 - Eloise
 
Cindy:

>>Immortal Stoned!Harry, according to Dicentra, can walk on water. 
And, pray tell, what was the very first thing Harry saw in the teacup 
in his very first Divination Class? *A Cross*! It was a crooked (some 
might even say Old Rugged) Cross!

<waits patiently for the disturbed murmer of the assembled masses to 
die down>

And, my friends, what did Ron see when he looked into Harry's cup? 
Ah, you don't remember, do you? Let me refresh your recollection: "[T]
hat looks like an animal . . . yeah, if that was its head . . . it 
looks like a hippo . . . no, a sheep."

A sheep? A young sheep? A *lamb*, I daresay? 

<waits patiently for the roar of the crowd to die down, along with a 
few muffled Amens>

Yes, it all adds up. Stoned!Harry is destined to die a death as a 
sacrifical lamb to spare others from an awful fate. A death by . . . 
uh . . . by decapitation.

Um, maybe JKR will think better of that particular means of Harry's 
demise. There's still time for something a little less gruesome, I 
think.<<

Eloise:

By your reasoning above, that would be...erm....crucifixion. Just how 
gruesome can the end of this series be? OTOH, if we're going to keep 
on making Christian parallels, Christ did predict the manner of his 
own death, according to John's gospel (12; 32), so perhaps Dicentra's 
right and decapitation it is. Is the Gryffindor ghost being (nearly) 
decapitated (and on the same date as James and Lily's deaths) 
significant? (There's potentially a lot of mileage in these ghosts. 
What *is* Nick's backstory? Myrtle's has been of great significance.)

On the matter of gruesomeness, though, I won't be surprised if things 
do get quite bad. I guess that Book 7 will be written with older 
readers in mind, given what JKR has said. That would equate with 
Philip Pullman's readership and there's some pretty gruesome things 
and some pretty dark story lines in his writing. I've winced quite a 
few times. So have my kids.

Cindy:

>>Well, we want to stay right on canon here, so Ron and Harry have to 
die *together*, not, er, sequentially. So how on earth can Ron and 
Harry die together, have Harry be beheaded, and have Voldemort wind 
up in the soup with them?

Eloise:

Well, I guess we could have some kind of cataclysmic ending, where 
Harry dies not by a direct action of Ron's, but in a way somehow 
facilitated by Ron and which mercifully takes him out at the same 
time (we wouldn't want Ron to survive, knowing he was the agent of 
Harry's death, would we?). 

OTOH, carrying on with the parallels, if Ron somehow betrays Harry, 
then perhaps he could equate to Judas, who kills himself on the day 
of the crucifixion, although I'd be much happier (so to speak) to see 
Ron going down *with* Harry. The other is too much. Unless, of 
course, it is Evil!Ron. Ooh, er...perhaps that's what I'm arguing for.

It was Ron's fake wand that decapitated Harry's. Perhaps it will be 
his real wand that kills Harry. Perhaps Voldemort will use Ron's wand 
(as his own, of course, won't work against Harry's) and in the act of 
killing Harry kill himself (or render himself able to be killed) by 
dint of whatever connection there is between them.

OTOH, there's this immortality thing to contend with. I must confess, 
I'm getting a bit confused here. (As Dicentra pointed out the other 
day, I'm prone to confusion in the middle of conversations ;-) )

Now obviously, there's a lot of Christian symbolism being brought up 
in this thread. There's also a lot of alchemical symbolism been 
brought up. Immortality in the Christian sense is not the same as 
immortality in the Elixir of Life sense. 

Ooh........ I think I'm groping towards something here. Is this 
another of these clash of world view things? The desire for eternal 
(physical) life vs. the desire for eternal (spiritual) life. 
Something in the ' He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that 
hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.' 
(John, 12; 25) vein? Is it Voldemort's insatiable desire for physical 
life which will be his undoing, whilst Harry's embracing of the 'next 
great adventure' which will be his salvation? 

(It was only when scrabbling through the Bible (twice) to find these 
quotes that I realised they were both from the same passage, which 
also has some typically Johannine Light/ Dark symbolism. Don't know 
if it's significant.)

And surely Harry can't just die, however heroically. Even dying to 
rid the WW of Voldemort is anti-climactic in a sense, isn't it? I 
mean, it's heroic, and supremely good and all that, but in a way it's 
negative, it's a ridding of the world of an evil without replacing it 
by a positive good. Just as the Christian myth isn't complete without 
the Resurrection, surely the Harry Potter myth isn't complete without 
Harry's death (if that is what it indeed entails) bringing about some 
re-ordering of the WW, releasing it from the prejudice and injustice 
on which we have commented time and time again.

><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< 

Eloise, apologising for the serious vein of a post masquerading under 
the TBAY prefix, but adding some fish just for fun. They're confused 
fish, note, as they're not sure which way they're supposed to be 
swimming. 

PS. Just to make it clear, my usage of the word 'myth' in relation to 
Christianity isn't in any way derogatory. I'm sure I don't have to 
say that in this forum, but I just want to be certain. 

#38598 - naamagatus 

Eloise wrote:

>>Ooh........ I think I'm groping towards something here. Is this 
another of these clash of world view things? The desire for eternal 
(physical) life vs. the desire for eternal (spiritual) life. 
Something in the ' He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that 
hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.' 
(John, 12; 25) vein? Is it Voldemort's insatiable desire for physical 
life which will be his undoing, whilst Harry's embracing of the 'next 
great adventure' which will be his salvation?<<

More than that, in Christianity, life (eternal, redemptive life) 
arises *through* death. The believer gains redemption by dying with 
Christ and Christ's death was real. (The early Christians wrangled a 
lot about whether His death was real or only apparent. The orthodox 
view became that Jesus, as a fully human being, did indeed die). So, 
in Christian terms, Voldemort's refusal to die is truly the ultimate 
evil, since he is refusing redemption (thereby condemning himself to 
eternal damnation? Is eternal life without the possiblity of 
redemption an eternal damnation?).

Naama 

#38599 - cindysphynx 

Eloise (about the means of Harry's Hideous Demise):

>>By your reasong above, that would be...erm....crucifixion. Just how 
gruesome can the end of this series be? OTOH, if we're going to keep 
on making Christian parallels, Christ did predict the manner of his 
own death, according to John's gospel (12; 32), so perhaps Dicentra's 
right and decapitation it is.<<

Oh, it's worse than that, Eloise. Far worse. 

What charm did Ron master in GoF? 

"[H]e used a Severing Charm on the ruff and cuffs. It worked fairly 
well; at least he was now lace-free, although he hadn't done a very 
neat job, and the edges still looked depressingly frayed . . . "

Especially creepy is that Ron used a Severing Charm on the *ruff*. 
Sure, it wasn't perfect, but slicing off someone's head doesn't have 
to be perfect, does it?

<cue the Tabernacle Choir>

Need more evidence that someone is going to lose their head? What 
happens in PoA, I ask? How is Buckbeak to be executed? Of all the 
ways JKR could have chosen to kill Buckbeak, she chose *beheading*. 

<shuts doors to only exit so that weak-kneed list members cannot flee>

Still not convinced? What is the thing Professor Trelawney wants 
Harry to see in the crystal ball during his divination exam? Yup, 
that's right. A beheading! A beheading from which Harry *saves* 
Buckbeak!

<passes the collection plate, glares disapprovingly at tightfisted 
list members>

Eloise:

>>It was Ron's fake wand that decapitated Harry's. Perhaps it will be 
his real wand that kills Harry. Perhaps Voldemort will use Ron's wand 
(as his own, of course, won't work against Harry's) and in the act of 
killing Harry kill himself (or render himself able to be killed) by 
dint of whatever connection there is between them.<<

Oh. My. Goodness! This is so perfect. Eloise, we just have to figure 
out how to have Harry and Ron die together -- at the same instant, 
and we'll be right there.

Wow! Having Ron's spiffy new wand -- the wand Ron received after 
breaking his old wand on an adventure with Harry -- be the instrument 
of Harry's demise would be so darn ironic.

Eloise:

>>Ooh........ I think I'm groping towards something here. Is this 
another of these clash of world view things? The desire for eternal 
(physical) life vs. the desire for eternal (spiritual) life. 
Something in the ' He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that 
hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.' 
(John, 12; 25) vein? Is it Voldemort's insatiable desire for physical 
life which will be his undoing, whilst Harry's embracing of the 'next 
great adventure' which will be his salvation?<<

Oh, yes. I am so totally sold. Harry won't be immortal in the 
physical sense (where's the Bang in that?), but he will be immortal 
in the spiritual sense, where it really counts. That way, the people 
who don't want Harry to die can watch his spirit live on, while my 
FEATHERBOAS will be satisfied. A perfect compromise!

Eloise:

>>And surely Harry can't just die, however heroically. Even dying to 
rid the WW of Voldemort is anti-climactic in a sense, isn't it? I 
mean, it's heroic, and supremely good and all that, but in a way it's 
negative, it's a ridding of the world of an evil without replacing it 
by a positive good.<<

I don't think I fully understand the idea that a sacrifice has to 
result in something good beyond the immediate benefit of the 
sacrifice. I mean, Lily sacrificed herself for Harry and rid the 
world of evil by reducing Voldemort to a noxious fume, and I don't 
think there was any positive good that filled the void. Maybe we can 
think of it as a straight downsizing? ;-)

BTW, this whole discussion of Harry's beheading has made me wonder 
who, if anyone, we are *absolutely* confident will survive the 
series. My list of Survivors is actually quite short. I'm thinking 
that the minor teachers (Flitwick, Sprout) and McGonagall are safe. 
No way will JKR kill McGonagall, I think. Everyone else probably 
should watch their backs.

Cindy (wondering how to draw some loaves to go with the fishes) 

#38604 - dicentra63 
  
Dicentra points at the first can(n)on.

"You've already seen this one: the Argument from Alchemy, which shows 
that the symbols linked to the Philosopher's Stone are also linked 
closely to Harry: red, green, stag, phoenix, serpent, lion, unicorn."

She indicates the second:

"Now there's the one from GoF, where Ron and Harry make a bunch 
of 'phony' predictions: Harry's last prediction is his own beheading."

And a third:

"And the scene later when Ron's tin parrot takes the head off Harry's 
rubber haddock."

Four:

"And the tea leaves: a cross and possibly a lamb."

Five:

"Yew trees. Symbols of immortality. All over the place during the 
graveyard scene. (We're going to ignore Eloise's protests that yews 
are common in British graveyards and so they Don't Count as symbols.)"

Six:

"One name for the Philosopher's Stone is cinnabar: Persian for 
dragon's blood, for which the probable orchestrator of Harry's 
destiny has found 12 uses."

#38608 - pippin_999 

Dicentra wrote:
 
>>"And the scene later when Ron's tin parrot takes the head off 
Harry's rubber haddock."<<

A haddock, may I remind you, is a fish! Yes, Harry's wand turned into 
a symbol of a major biblical figure. 

And speaking of that major biblical figure, weren't we just wondering 
why Harry had to spend *three* days unconscious in the hospital wing 
in PS/SS, when there was no plot reason for him to do so?

Pippin

#38615 - cmf_usc 

A few more can(n)ons to add to Dicentra's excellent list


1. Harry's holly wand
. symbol of rebirth, Christ, etc.
2. The griffin of Gryffindor
 symbol of salvation
3. Willow and stag are both symbols of the Tree of Life
4. Willow is also a symbol of miraculous births.

(And, Dicentra, I'm not too worried about Eloise's protests either. 
`Cause even if yews always hang about graveyards, it's still Quite 
Significant that yew is V's wand wood.)

Errol wrote:

>>:tries to put uneasy feeling into words: 
but..why would Voldmort 
try to kill Harry again & again if he knew he was immortal, and thus 
unkillable? If one argues that he didn't know about the living stone 
part, then there would be no reason to go after Harry, would there?<<

There, there. Don't worry; I have an answer! Actually, I can offer 
two, and you can take your pick.

My pet theory (Bangier, I think) is that Voldemort wasn't really 
trying to kill Harry that night. At least, not right away. Nope, he 
was Up to Something Else, trying to suck out Harry's immortality 
somehow. That's why there weren't swarms of DE's around when Sirius, 
etc. got there. That's why the death of the Potters wasn't just 
delegated to someone else. V. was on a personal mission that only he 
and Wormtail knew about. (Remember, we only have Fake!Moody's word 
that Harry's been AK'd!!)

You don't like that one? Well, if you go with the "AK is unforgivable 
because it steals souls theory," AK-ing Harry would allow V. to 
absorb all of his powers.

As to why he keeps trying: Well, that explains the gleam, you know! 
V. thinks now that he's got Harry's blood, he doesn't need Harry 
around for immortality anymore! He can just experiment on himself. So 
Dumbledore's gleaming `cause he realizes V. doesn't fully understand 
how all this stuff works. And he figures V. may leave Harry alone for 
a bit while trying his doomed-to-fail immortality experiments.

Caroline

#38618 - Eloise
  
cindysphynx writes:

>>Oh, but there is another parallel. What Biblical figure was 
beheaded? I think there was only one -- John the Baptist! So Harry is 
the sacrifical lamb, and Ron is John the Baptist, who, er . . . 
um, . . .<<

Yeah. I was having problems there, which is why I didn't bring up 
John the Baptist. It did make me wonder briefly whether we should be 
looking at a John the Baptist parallel for Harry, rather than a 
Christ one, but I don't think the rest works. I mean, I can't see him 
wandering round the Forbidden Forest living on locusts and wild honey 
and dunking people in the lake.

But to be serious, I don't really see Ron as a Baptist figure and the 
prediction is of Harry's decapitation, not Ron's. And of course if we 
*are* going to bring the Baptist into it, then who is Salome? Or 
Herodias? I know, I know....don't all shout at once.....Mrs 
Lestrange.....but I can't fit it together at all.

OK. We seem to be rolling out ca(n)ons galore today. Want any more?

In the First Task, Harry overcame a *dragon*, symbol of the Devil. In 
the Second Task, which is linked by Harry and Ron's predictions to 
the idea of drowning, he has to swim beneath the lake which could be 
interpreted as baptism.... I'm stuck on the Third Task. The same, of 
course is true for the other champions (and the friends below). I 
have always rather assumed that Fleur and Viktor will be Harry's 
allies.

Now the Champions' wands. When Ollivander tests them, they all seem 
to emit something which reflects something about the owner. 
Fleur: flowers, befitting her name
Viktor, the flyer: birds
Cedric: smoke rings, reminiscent of the form he assumes after death

And Harry's? Harry's wand, made of holly which symbolises death and 
resurrection and which contains a phoenix tail feather, another 
resurrection symbol, Harry's wand emits *wine*. 

I suggest we check the stability of the Big Bang and make sure all 
these ca(n)nons aren't pushing us too far down in the water. You know 
what happened to the over-armed Mary Rose, don't you? As soon as she 
changed course, water flooded in through the open gun-ports and she 
sank like a stone!

Eloise
 
#38623 - Laura Huntley 

Cindy said:

>>Yes, it all adds up. Stoned!Harry is destined to die a death as a 
sacrificial lamb to spare others from an awful fate. A death by . . . 
uh . . . by decapitation.<<

Anyway, you left out an important part of the equation if you're 
trying to draw parallels between Harry and Christ..Yes, Christ 
sacrificed his life in order to save the world...But that wasn't 
enough. He was then *resurrected* (rebirth...phoenix, anyone?). 
Without the resurrection, the cruxifiction is meaningless.

So what does this mean in the context of JKR's story? Well...perhaps 
Harry will die -- or appear to be dead -- without taking Voldemort 
with him...and *then* he'll "rise again" and take V out when the Dark 
Lord least expects it.

Errol asked:

>>.but..why would Voldemort try to kill Harry again & again if he 
knew he was immortal, and thus unkillable? If one argues that he 
didn't know about the living stone part, then there would be no 
reason to go after Harry, would there?<<

Dumbledore only created Harry for the *potential* of immortality. The 
same potential Tom Riddle was born with. However, the spells that 
UNLEASH that potential cannot be done until after birth...perhaps 
only Dumbledore knows them? Anyway, Volde wants to kill Harry 
because, in my variation of the theory, the prophecy that a Dark Lord 
with the potential of immortality will be defeated by a Light Lord 
with the same potential.

Errol continues:

>>Even IF Dumbledore helped `create' Tom (*What* was he thinking of, 
mixing with the Slytherin line anyway? And why leave Tom to grow up 
in a muggle orphanage?), why would Tom merely have the *potential* 
for immortality, while Harry has it inherent at birth?<<

Remember, when Dumbledore created Tom, he was still very young and 
foolish and in love with his own power. He figured that by creating 
Tom he had done his fair share of preventing the "Dark Lord" from 
taking over, and he didn't have time to mess with some kid. Maybe the 
prophecy also specified that the Light Lord would be raise by 
Muggles? Anyway, it was creating Tom (and therefore, the Dark Lord in 
the prophecy) that was the BANG! that made Dumbledore go wise and 
good. Realizing that you may have doomed the world makes you 
responsible in a hurry.

Also, under my variation on the theory, Dumbledore couldn't just 
choose two random people..they had to have something *special* in 
them (especially the mom) to make them compatible with the spells he 
preformed to make the baby Stoned.

To your last question, either 1) they both had/have only the 
potential 2) perhaps Dumbledore perfected his method with Harry..or 
he preformed the final spell on Harry and not Tom...perhaps he didn't 
have the final spell formulated when Tom was made?

hmm..

laura 

#38624 – elfundeb

Debbie approaches the destroyer with one very small additional can(n)
on and requests permission of the good captain(s) to borrow and 
perhaps re-forge the tea leaves into a larger can(n)on by noting that:

Harry sees in the tea leaves not only a crooked cross, but also the 
sun, both a symbol of happiness and of resurrection (isn't that why 
all the old churches always faced East, into the promise of the 
rising sun?). There it is, his death and eternal life, neatly packed 
into one teacup.

Cindy:

>>Oh. My. Goodness! This is so perfect. Eloise, we just have to 
figure out how to have Harry and Ron die together -- at the same 
instant, and we'll be right there.

Wow! Having Ron's spiffy new wand -- the wand Ron received after 
breaking his old wand on an adventure with Harry -- be the instrument 
of Harry's demise would be so darn ironic.<<

Simple solution, completely can(n)on-based -- Ron's wand backfires in 
Voldemort's hands, bringing them all down together and taking Harry's 
head. That would be sufficiently Bangy. Just like Lockhart stole 
Ron's old wand and lost his memory when the wand backfired. The old 
Lockhart was dead; Harry went to hell and was raised up by Fawkes the 
resurrection symbol; Ron served time in Purgatory moving boulders, 
till Harry returned to take sinners Ron and Ginny up to new life.

Lockhart matches up with Voldemort rather nicely, I think: the 
glamour of Evil!

Now for the biblical can(n)on -- three persons crucified together, 
Christ with two sinners, one repentant and one not. Ron, repentant, 
joins Harry in the next great adventure (compare "today you will be 
with me in Paradise" to the promise of happiness for Ron in the tea 
leaves after his suffering); Voldemort loses his life and goes to 
hell.

I guess this leaves Hermione as Mary Magdalene.

Debbie, who hasn't had that much fun with the Bible in a long time 

#38626 - ltg3asu 

southernscotland writes: 

>>I almost hate to bring this up, but there's another bit of canon. I 
just looked it up. 

"They were standing instead in a dark and overgrown graveyard; the 
black outline of a small church was visible beyond a large yew tree 
to their right." (GOF)

Aside from the obvious symbolism of the small church, here's another. 
It is mentioned at least three times specifically, and I'll bet at 
least some of you caught it: 

The yew tree. It is said to be an ancient symbol of immortality.<<

Ok, I thought at first I might have been mistaken, but no. Here it 
is, straight from the Lexicon: "Voldemort: yew, 13 1/2", single 
phoenix feather (also from Fawkes)" 

That's from a listing of the wands and their properties who we know 
about thus far. Voldemort's wand is made of yew, maybe even one that 
was in the cemetary...?

Yew is a sign of immortality, yes, but more importantly, of death. 
However, Harry's wand, ("Harry Potter: holly, 11", supple, single 
phoenix feather(from Fawkes)") is made of Holly, another tree 
associated with immortality, but on a different level. Holly is an 
evergreen, and therefore considered symbolic of ressurection (one of 
the reasons it is popular at Christmas, but also from older roots in 
the Yule celebration). 

So there is HOPE! Maybe Harry's sacrifice by way of the Stoned!Harry 
theories won't end him up dead.... forever.... I know, magic doesn't 
bring people back, but this is much older magic (if magic at all) and 
that seems to not be held down by the same restrictions. 

L. Terrell Gould, III 

PS: Does anyone else find it curious that most of the parallels found 
on this site between HP and religion involve the iconography of 
Christianity? Is it because it is widely known? Are most of us 
Christian? Are we just seeing it through the dominant socially 
enculterated schema in western society? Pardon me. I've been studying 
way too much for my psych and anthro exams. I'll leave now *poof*.  

#38627 - catlady_de_los_angeles 

Lila HP wrote:

>>The yew tree. It is said to be an ancient symbol of immortality.<<

The yew tree is a symbol of death. Because: 1) Its berries are 
poisonous. 2) The English longbow was so great because it was made of 
yew wood which is a natural composite. 3) It is traditionally planted 
in churchyards on purpose to consume the buried corpses as tree 
fertilizer.

That last point is probably the most relevant to there being a yew 
tree in the churchyard scene of GoF: it could be realism rather than 
symbolism. Oh, Eloise already said that. 

Eloise wrote:

>>Just as the Christian myth isn't complete without the Resurrection, 
surely the Harry Potter myth isn't complete without Harry's death (if 
that is what it indeed entails) bringing about some re-ordering of 
the WW, releasing it from the prejudice and injustice on which we 
have commented time and time again.<<

I speculate: the most active and heroic participants in the 
destruction of Voldemort were our Trio: Harry, Ron, and Hermione. 
Harry and Ron both having died in the struggle, Hermione is the main 
surviving hero, so she is chosen by acclamation to be the new 
Minister of Magic, and she sets energetically to setting the 
wizarding wizard to rights. Hopefully with some Weasleys or TAGWATCH 
to advise her when her acronyms are bad and should be replaced.

L. Terrell Gould III wrote:

>>Does anyone else find it curious that most of the parallels found 
on this site between HP and religion involve the iconography of 
Christianity?<<

In addition to the fact that a tremendous amount of literature 
written in English involves Christianity, and JKR was influenced by 
literature, there also is an interview out there somewhere in which 
she states that she is a member of the Church of Scotland and admits 
that her Christian beliefs have influenced her writing. 

#38634 - cindysphynx 

Laura wrote:

>>Anyway, you left out an important part of the equation if you're 
trying to draw parallels between Harry and Christ..Yes, Christ 
sacrificed his life in order to save the world...But that wasn't 
enough. He was then *resurrected* (rebirth...phoenix, anyone?). 
Without the resurrection, the cruxifiction is meaningless.

So what does this mean in the context of JKR's story? Well...perhaps 
Harry will die -- or appear to be dead -- without taking Voldemort 
with him...and *then* he'll "rise again" and take V out when the Dark 
Lord least expects it.<<

Yes, I have been a bit lax on the resurrection part of the equation, 
that's true.

Well, we've seen two ways in which dead people come back. Not all the 
way back, but back enough to have dialogue. There are ghosts, and 
there are smoky shadows. (There might also be the Time Turner angle, 
but that's *way* too complicated, and JKR wouldn't *dare* dust off 
the Time Turner plot twist in the climactic scene in Book 7, for 
cryin' out loud.)

Now, ghosts aren't my specialty, so forgive me if I mess this up. I 
get the sense, however, that ghosts and poltergeists can act on their 
surroundings. Throwing water balloons and such. Stealing the egg of a 
champion (no, Peeves didn't do this, but Filch thought he could). 

Shadows, on the other hand, appear not to be able to do much, 
although they did befuddle Voldemort for a minute, although that is 
probably not difficult to accomplish. I personally think the shadows 
in the graveyard might have put a shield charm around Harry as he 
fled, but I think I'm alone in that unsupported hunch. But the shadow 
idea would require Harry to come slithering out of someone's wand, 
and I don't see that happening.

So . . . once Harry is beheaded over a river of molten lava, he could 
return as a ghost and push Voldemort down into the river, too. 
Theoretically, that is.

Debbie wrote:

>>Trying to accept this . . . well, this scenario doesn't require a 
*betrayal* by Ron; Voldemort could exploit Ron by some other means to 
get the wand -- it would still be his fault and it would still 
require forgiveness, right?<<

Could Voldemort exploit Ron by some means to get his wand? Heck, yeah!

Remember Ron's little problems shrugging off the Imperius Curse? 
Maybe JKR is trying to tell us something there. Perhaps Ron's destiny 
is to be controlled by Voldemort until the crucial moment on the 
catwalk. Harry might have Voldemort in a bad position, having 
disarmed him or whatever, and will be struggling with the difficult 
moral question of whether to behead the Most Evil Dark Wizard Who 
Ever Lived. Ron would choose that moment of hesitation to lunge at 
Harry, causing them both to fall to their deaths. Voldemort will rise 
to his feet and cackle maniacally for longer than is reasonable, only 
to have the Ghost of Stoned Harry . . . um . . . behead him.

Hey, it could happen!

Cindy (who thinks Stoned!Harry should remove the dark glasses, 
because they aren't fooling anyone) 

38635 - Eloise

Cindy quotes me:

>>Eloise:

And surely Harry can't just die, however heroically. Even dying to 
rid the WW of Voldemort is anti-climactic in a sense, isn't it? I 
mean, it's heroic, and supremely good and all that, but in a way it's 
negative, it's a ridding of 

And then goes on:

>>I don't think I fully understand the idea that a sacrifice has to 
result in something good beyond the immediate benefit of the 
sacrifice. I mean, Lily sacrificed herself for Harry and rid the 
world of evil by reducing Voldemort to a noxious fume, and I don't 
think there was any positive good that filled the void. Maybe we can 
think of it as a straight downsizing? ;-)<<

Laura counters with (actually, I think it may have been to an earlier 
post, but it's relevant here):

>>Anyway, you left out an important part of the equation if you're 
trying to draw parallels between Harry and Christ..Yes, Christ 
sacrificed his life in order to save the world...But that wasn't 
enough. He was then *resurrected* (rebirth...phoenix, anyone?). 
Without the resurrection, the cruxifiction is meaningless.<<

Eloise:

Exactly my point. And we have all these resurrection symbols, don't 
we. What else are we going to do with them?

Well, perhaps it wasn't exactly my point, but it was behind it. I was 
just trying to, well, express it in a slightly more secular manner, I 
suppose. But at the same time, the Resurrection is the crux (excuse 
the pun) of the Christian story. However orthodox or liberal your 
interpretation of what actually did or didn't happen, it was the 
event that turned around a group of dispirited, dissillusioned 
disciples of an apparently dead and discredited leader into a force 
that eventually influenced much of the course of Western history.

Laura:

>>So what does this mean in the context of JKR's story? 
Well...perhaps Harry will die -- or appear to be dead -- without 
taking Voldemort with him...and *then* he'll "rise again" and take V 
out when the Dark Lord least expects it.<<

Eloise:

Now that sounds like a likely plot line. No doubt Voldemort will 
forget something crucial in the process, as usual.

Debbie rolls out yet another ca(n)non:

>>Harry sees in the tea leaves not only a crooked cross, but also the 
sun, both a symbol of happiness and of resurrection (isn't that why 
all the old churches always faced East, into the promise of the 
rising sun?). There it is, his death and eternal life, neatly packed 
into one teacup.<<

Eloise:

Oh, yes, you're right.

As a matter of interest, some of the very earliest churches used to 
face West, so that the celebrant faced East (S. Peter's Basilica in 
Rome, for one). Eastward facing was a later development. And its why 
Christian burials are East-West, so that at the resurrection, the 
first thing the believer will see is the dawn of the Saviour rising.

It's also a feature of some other Eastern mystery cults, such as 
Mithraism, which had some very similar imagery to Christianity 
(Mithraeae are architecturally indistinguishable from basilican 
churches). And the Emperor Constantine, whose Edict of Milan in 303 
and programme of church building first spread 'official' Christianity 
throughout the Roman empire was a devotee of the cult of Sol 
Invictus, (the unconquered sun) and seems perhaps to have regarded 
Christianity as a variant of this.

Debbie:

>>Simple solution [to the problem of how H, R and V die 
simultaneously], completely can(n)on-based -- Ron's wand backfires in 
Voldemort's hands, bringing them all down together and taking Harry's 
head. That would be sufficiently Bangy. Just like Lockhart stole 
Ron's old wand and lost his memory when the wand backfired. The old 
Lockhart was dead; Harry went to hell and was raised up by Fawkes the 
resurrection symbol; Ron served time in Purgatory moving boulders, 
till Harry returned to take sinners Ron and Ginny up to new life.<<

Eloise:

We were listening to this again yesterday and I was struck by the 
imagery of Harry rescuing Ginny from the Chamber. The raising of 
Lazarus was what came to my mind, as well as the Harrowing of Hell.

Debbie:

>>Now for the biblical can(n)on -- three persons crucified together, 
Christ with two sinners, one repentant and one not. Ron, repentant, 
joins Harry in the next great adventure (compare "today you will be 
with me in Paradise" to the promise of happiness for Ron in the tea 
leaves after his suffering); Voldemort loses his life and goes to 
hell.<<

Eloise:

Of course, a true parallel to Christ's crucifixion would require that 
Harry dies at the hands of the judiciary, or the establishment in 
some form or another .

We already have accusations from the MoM that Harry is dangerous, 
that his scar (depending on reading) is a warning. (FIE!)

In another thread, I was ruminating on the fact that we haven't 
actually seen a death penalty as such in the WW. Could it exist? 
Could it, just possibly, be manifsted in the form of beheading? 

L. Terrell Gould, III:

>>Yew is a sign of immortality, yes, but more importantly, of death. 
However, Harry's wand, ("Harry Potter: holly, 11", supple, single 
phoenix feather(from Fawkes)") is made of Holly, another tree 
associated with immortality, but on a different level. Holly is an 
evergreen, and therefore considered symbolic of ressurection (one of 
the reasons it is popular at Christmas, but also from older roots in 
the Yule celebration).<<

Eloise:

Now, funnily enough I was going to ask if there was anyone out there 
who had an opinion on this. Obviously, I appreciate the significance 
of Voldemort having a wand made of yew .It's just the yew trees in 
the churchyard that I can't find significant per se. You'd have to 
look hard to find one without yew trees.

What is so interesting is that both Harry and Voldemort seem to have 
wands for which the symbolism is almost identical.

Now, just for anyone else who isn't sure about this, yew *is* 
evergreen. As I understand it, the original symbolisms of holly and 
yew were similar, but yew, because of its association with graveyards 
later took on more strongly overtones of death, and lost (popularly) 
its association with resurrection. This is paralleled of course by 
societal attitudes. In the days of the early church, people would 
gather to celebrate at burial sites; they had positive connotations 
(in fact churches such as S. Peter's, Rome actually started out as 
cemetery churches, built to accomodate families of the deceased, or 
in its case, pilgrims). Later, as the mediaeval mind began to be 
filled with ideas of magic and demons and evil spirits, etc., 
churchyards became spooky and associated more strongly with fear of 
death.

We have discussed before that symbols act at different levels. Do we 
assume that the symbolism of the yew of Voldemort's wand is operating 
at a level where the symbolism of death is uppermost (not least in 
what it deals out to others)?

L Terrell Gould III again:

>>PS: Does anyone else find it curious that most of the parallels 
found on this site between HP and religion involve the iconography of 
Christianity? Is it because it is widely known? Are most of us 
Christian? Are we just seeing it through the dominant socially 
enculterated schema in western s