Christianity and HP

[carolynwhite2]

No: HPFGUIDX 112645

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hp_lexicon" <steve at h...> wrote:

It infuriates people? Really? I didn't think I was making any kind
of provocative statement at all! I have a degree in literature and
have spent any number of hours in classes talking about the way that
the world view of an author affects their writing, intentionally or
not. I wasn't preaching any particular world view, although my own
was evident, that's true, and if that was seen as provocative, I am
truly sorry. If your world view would happen to come out in
something you write on here, I can gurantee you that I will never
be "infuriated" by it.

Carolyn:
Your reply surprises me even more. Anyone who has studied lit knows 
that the issue of authorial intent is highly contentious, ranging 
from people who believe that texts should be read in strict isolation 
from any knowledge about the author, through those who believe in the 
relevance of various degrees of biographical knowledge, right out the 
other side to those who believe the reader's perceptions are more 
important than the intentions or beliefs of the author (conscious or 
unconscious). Plus any number of shades in between, and who knows 
what the deconstructionists are really on about.

Setting aside arguments about the overall relevance of lit crit to 
the reading and enjoyment of books, as a teacher in this area you 
will obviously know all about these different approaches to 
interpretation. So yes, in that case I think it was also a 
provocative statement to make at a meta level, as well as a sweeping 
assumption that other people would share your personal faith and 
conviction about what JKR is about.


Steve:
Rowling's world view doesn't always match my own. That also comes
out in her writing. I don't have the slightest problem with that,
and in many ways I celebrate it. (See my published works ;) What is
it about her Christian world view that you find threatening? It's
just a world view. We all have them. She can't help it, and I don't
see that she's intentionally trying to inflict it on anyone.

Carolyn:
Well, I won't repeat the points made above, but surely you can see 
here that you are just making a series of assumptions about what JKR 
really thinks and how authorial intent works in this series, 
essentially as a means to finding a 'best fit' with your personal 
beliefs? 

Mindful of the Admin note just issued, I don't think this is the best 
place to discuss my personal views on Christianity. And I cannot see 
how anyone here can claim to know what is in JKR's mind on the 
subject.


Steve:
My criticism of those who want to ban the Potter books was perhaps
out of place, you're right. I am sorry if that offends. That was
unnecessarily harsh. I could talk about my personal experiences with
that group as some sort of explanation but that would not be
helpful.

You misunderstand me, however. I do not think that she is
intentionally writing Christianity into her books. I am saying that
her own world view is bound to come out when she's talking about
things like death (and life after death) and I do see elements of
Christian belief in what she wrote. I am sure she would be the first
to say that she isn't trying to preach Christianity, but there are
elements there, and if they are there, what's wrong with noting that
she is a Christian and that might be why?


Carolyn:
I was not in the least offended by your comments on Christian 
fundamentalists. The point I was making was that, in asserting your 
own opinion so strongly (and it is nothing more than your heartfelt 
opinion), you are, in your own way, committing the same error that 
they do. Essentially, assuming that your POV is basically correct, in 
an area that is particularly difficult to 'prove' anything either way.

In truth, if you had put up a post with yards of detailed canon 
substantiation of your opinion, I doubt if I would have bothered to 
respond or join in. That kind of approach is fair game and exactly 
what the list is here for, and I would have left those that are 
really interested in the subject to carry on the discussion with you. 
I am sure there is a case to be made, equally I am sure one could 
argue many other interpretations, and we will all go on doing that 
for a long time yet.

What I object to is brief, casual statements and opinion on a very 
contentious topic that assume everyone on the list is of a similar 
viewpoint. And, as I said in my earlier post, it is particularly 
regrettable from the Editor of the Lexicon, who has built such a 
reputation for objectivity, and incidentally, who is such a long-
standing poster on this list and knows the likely hot buttons better 
than most.

Steve:
I just searched the Vancouver Sun web site, which is where I got it.
It was an interview with Max Wyman. However, they seem to not have
archives of such things. I do have a copy and I'll find and post it,
but I would much rather be able to just link to an URL...we'll see
if I can track it down.

In the meantime, please accept my apology if I offended you. Believe
me when I say that I had absolutely no intention of infuriating
anyone and I'm a bit astonished that my comments would have done
that.

Steve
The Lexicon

Carolyn:
It would be interesting to see that interview, as it sounds like 
something that hasn't been widely circulated up to now. I am sorry if 
it appears to you that I am making a mountain out of a molehill, but 
I do find your astonishment a tad overdone. My observation is that a 
fairly high proportion of posters on this list are of a Christian 
persuasion; you should not be surprised if sometimes this relentless 
worldview gets not just wearying, but downright irritating to those 
who choose to think otherwise. Unfortunately, your post did it for me 
this evening.