Horcrux: was Baptism/Christianity in HP

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 153755

> Leslie41:
> 
> It's a huge topic--as for a "noted authority," try...
> http://www.mugglenet.com/books/name_origins.shtml
> 
> Mugglenet's done a better job than I could do with most of the 
> names.  

Magpie:
But we've been through all this.  a_svirn isn't asking for a name 
dictionary, but for you to explain why the names that also appear in 
the Bible are significant because the Biblical character somehow 
relates to or sheds light on the HP character.  We've already on the 
list said that James comes from the name that means usurper, and that 
there is an apostle named James.  The question is what do either of 
those bits of name trivia have to do with James Potter?

Example: Remus was one of a set of twins suckled by a she-wolf.  
Lupin is a word meaning wolf.  These two wolf-related names have 
meaning because Remus Lupin is revealed to be a werewolf.

Fred means "peaceful ruler."  Fred Weasley is not peaceful nor is he 
a ruler.  It really doesn't shed any light on the character.  
Probably the name was chosen for the kind of name it is, simple, 
unpretentious, kind of funny.  Weasley was probably chosen because 
JKR likes mustelids and it's funny-sounding.

 
> Leslie41:
> I don't see how that logically follows, any more than it logically 
> follows that without a white dress and a priest one cannot be 
> married.  Yet, in many cases, a white dress and a priest are "part 
> and parcel of the same experience."

Magpie:
If a person is married by a priest than the priest is part of his/her 
wedding.  If she wore a white dress at her wedding that was part of 
her wedding too.  But you are taking two completely different things 
and putting them together.  Harry maybe got water dripped on his 
forehead at his baptism, which we assume happened off-page because he 
has a godfather.  Some time later Harry had an AK thrown at him while 
his mother stood in front of him and sacrificed herself--that's 
canon.  How are those two things part of the same experience?  And 
once we know that, where is the canonical evidence of it?  If 
Voldemort had interupted the christening and zapped Harry then I'd 
say yeah, JKR is drawing a parallel and either baptizing Harry twice 
(once with love by his family, once with hate via Voldemort).  But 
everything I read in canon indicates that the christening was 
important to illustrate the bond between Sirius and James, and so 
Sirius and Harry.  Sirius' role as godfather really defines him in 
his adult life, because of his relationship with James.


> Leslie41:
> True.  But then if they're not significant, why go through them at 
> all?  To forge a tie to Sirius?  Yes, of course.  But why not just 
> make Sirius Harry's guardian, all nice and legal?

Magpie:
Because dramatically what is needed is a title with warmth, and 
godfather works perfectly. Hearing that Sirius was a friend of his 
parents is one thing, hearing he was the kind of friend that they 
asked to stand godfather really says how they felt about Sirius, and 
also is the perfect title to explain what his relationship with Harry 
can be.  Not something dry and legal--the Dursleys are his legal 
guardians.  (Fairy tale stories very often have cold legal guardians 
and fairy godmothers.)  Godfather is exactly the word I would use to 
describe Sirius' relationship, and Harry uses it too...only without 
either of them ever meaning anything too religious by it.  Sirius 
takes his role of godfather very seriously, but we've never seen him 
take an interest in Harry's religious instruction.  He considers 
himself an adult who promised to take a special interest in this boy 
when he was asked by his parents.  It's the association I've always 
grown up with, myself, and seen reflected in lots of fiction, movies 
and tv.

Leslie: 
> Hey, you don't have to think it's important.  I think it's very 
> important, because it's there in canon and Rowling could have 
chosen 
> another way to make Sirius important to Harry, but *didn't*.

Magpie:
But it's not like there's any other title that fits better, nor is it 
unusual to use it this way. And if there is an important religious 
significance to it's not yet been hinted at in canon.  That, to me, 
seems to be the reason that people are reading the godfather question 
as something other than religious, because it's the way the 
characters all seem to relate to it.  
 

> Leslie41:
> Yes, sir!
> 
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/whore
> 
> "to compromise one's principles for personal gain".
> 
> http://m-w.com/dictionary/whore
> 
> "a venal or unscrupulous person".
> 
> http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
> 
> "to pursue a faithless, unworthy, or idolatrous desire".
> 
> I think the key definition is the first one, though the others are 
> relevant as well. If what you're asking for is a specific 
definition 
> that it means "to sell one's soul," you won't find that.  Because 
the 
> idea of selling one's soul is a metaphor--for "compromising 
> principles for personal gain."

Magpie:
The metaphorical meaning doesn't apply.  If Voldemort is "selling his 
soul" with his horcruxes he is doing it literally, not in a 
metaphorical sense (though the way it's explained in canon is 
something else, not Voldemort selling his soul to an entity like the 
devil but Voldemort splitting his soul and keeping it outside his 
body so that he can not be killed--another motif).  He's not 
compromising his principles for it.  These are his principles.  
Whatever else Voldemort may be, he's not a sell-out.  

-m