Baptism/Christianity in HP

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 153794

First, my apologies because this post doesn't link. Yahoo is acting up
again and my first attempt failed because the post I'm respinding to
supposedly doesn't exist. Second, a note that I'm talking to the list
in general, not necessarily to Leslie41.

Leslie41 wrote:
> <snip> I don't wish to make categorical claims about authorial
intent, though I think it's relevant at times.  Most often, though,
intent is irrelevant.  What's *there* is what matters, not what the
author *intended* to be there.  Authors are notoriously bad readers of
their own work. <snip>

Carol responds:
Essentially, I agree with you. However, what's "there" is subject to
interpretation, and what you're seeing is not necessarily "there" for
the rest of us, any more than the "terminally stupid" Snape of another
poster is.

Leslie41:
But I think the place of his scar is supposed to remind us of his
baptism and remind us that it is only through Christ's principles that
he will vanquish Voldemort.  Not through power or destructive raids. 
But through love. <snip>

Carol responds:
If JKR wanted the scar to remind us of Love, wouldn't she have had LV
hit Baby!Harry in the heart (traditionally associated with love)
rather than the brain? Almost everyone else who's hit by an AK or even
a strong Stunning spell is hit squarely in the chest. Why not Harry,
too? Instead, "the place of his scar" is the forehead (where it's
conspicuous, as she has mentioned in interviews) and the frontal lobe
of the brain.

Why LV would aim at the head rather than the chest of a baby is
impossible to know and possibly not relevant, but why JKR would want
the scar to appear there is another matter. Essentially, LV's mind and
Harry's are connected by the scar through a variation on Legilimency,
a mental skill involving the interpretation of memories and the
detection of emotions. It can be blocked by another mental skill (or
could if Harry could master it), Occlumency. Note the Latin root
"mens" (mind) in both these skills. Some of LV's powers, including
Parseltongue and possibly possession, have entered Harry's mind/brain
via the frontal lobe (through the cut caused either by the AK, or,
IMO, the expulsion of the AK) when Voldemort was vaporized.

So, yes, a baptized child would have been marked by the sign of the
cross on the forehead (at least in a Muggle church), but that marking
could simply be coincidence. So far, Harry's baptism is significant
only because it gave Sirius Black the role of Harry's godfather (whose
chief acts in loco parentis are to sign Harry's permission form
allowing him to go to Hogsmeade and to make him his heir). And perhaps
the exclusion of even Remus Lupin from the ceremony will prove an
important indicator of an estrangement between the Potters and black
on the one hand and Lupin on the other. But the sign of the cross on
Harry's forehead has not been mentioned, and his scar does not take
that shape. (It may be the shape of a rune, but surely Hermione or
Luna would have noticed by now.)

At any rate, just because the baptism preceded Voldemort's attack and
both involve Harry's forehead does not mean that they're related or
that one caused the other (post hoc, ergo propter hoc).

I absolutely agree that Harry will triumph through Love, not through
"power or destructive raids"--or, put another way, not by casting Dark
spells to destroy a Dark enemy, using that enemies own weapons against
him. One point that Snape has made clear to us via "Spinner's End"
(and his first Potions lesson) is that Harry is not what Lucius Malfoy
et al. suspected he might be, a nascent Dark Lord for the DEs to rally
around. He is, according to Dumbledore, a pure soul who can destroy
Voldemort's ruined one.

I also agree that love (agape), particularly the idea of forgiving our
enemies, is a Christian principle, but the concept of brotherly love
predates Christianity and is not exclusive to it. JKR is perhaps
universalizing Christian values, making them accessible to readers of
all faiths--or none. But she need not resort to overtly Christian
symbols and rituals to do so. Yes, the Christian motifs are there in
the text, most notably perhaps in Harry's holly wand with its
Phoenix-feather core, but the reader need not be familiar with the
Christian connotations of Phoenixes and holly to see the message that
Love is stronger than death, that Voldemort fears the wrong power
altogether.

JKR *is* a Christian. She is also a libral humanitarian. Her values
show (sometimes too overtly for my taste) in her writing. But
associations, allusions, connotations--all of which the reader is free
to see or even create and some or all or none of which JKR may have
consciously placed in the text--are not the same as allegory. Harry's
baptism need not have one specific meaning (for which I see no
evidence in the text).

The same is true of Phoenixes, holly, yew, snakes, the color green,
and any other motif that can be construed as symbolic. A symbol (as
I'm sure you know, Leslie--I'm speaking to anybody who's listening
here) is a concrete image that has meaning beyond the object it refers
to, but that meaning is subject to interpretation and will vary to
some degree from reader to reader (and be wholly invisible to readers
who aren't looking for it). Allegory, in contrast, consists of a
one-to-one correspondence between a person and a concept. Bunyan
blatantly calls his Pilgrim "Everyman," and it's difficult to
misconstrue the meaning when Faithful says to Everyman, "I will go
with thee and by thy guide." Everyman will be guided through life by
his Christian faith. Talk about an anvil!

I don't know whether JKR, like Tolkien, has "cordially dislike[d]
allegory" since she was "old and wary enough to detect its presence,"
but I'm pretty sure that the HP books are not an extended allegory and
that JKR's symbols are not restricted to a single interpretation. They
are intended, I think, to *suggest* a wide range of meanings and
connotations, some of which JKR herself is probably not consciously
aware of. As Shelley said of poetry (literature) in general, "Veil
after veil may be may be undrawn, and the inmost naked beauty of the
meaning never exposed." So all of us find meaning in the HP books, not
necessarily exactly what the author intended, but "there" in the text.

That is not to say that any reading is as good as another and that
interpretation is wholly subjective (and again, I'm speaking to the
list in general since I'm sure that Leslie, as an English teacher,
knows what I'm about to say perfectly well). A reading becomes
problematic when few or no other readers see the text as a particular
reader sees it; when it is purely subjective and imposes the reader's
values on a text that does not reflect them, or attacks the text or
author for not sharing that reader's values. Similarly, it becomes
problematic when it imposes a single meaning on a text or a portion of
the text to the exclusion of other readings.

I think that it might be well to go back to Tolkien again and consider
his famous distinction between allegory and applicability: "I think
that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides
in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination
of the author."

I don't think that JKR is attempting to "dominate" readers or to force
us into one interpretation over another (though she's perhaps a little
too eager to generalize about her characters or take umbrage if we
don't share her likes and dislikes). But even if she is, the book is
greater than the author, and we are free to find archetypes and
symbols and literary allusions whether or not she deliberately placed
them there as long as our readings are supported by the text. (I could
probably argue that Grawp is analogous to a human toddler and that
Hagrid is right to try to educate him, but I hate Grawp, so I won't
try.) By the same token, we're free to interpret the characters'
motivations as long as our readings are supported by the text rather
than shaped by our own philosophical, political, or religious leanings
and preconceptions. Such readings (as Leslie implied in another
thread) will never convince anyone who does not share the same values
and preconceptions no matter how frequently they're repeated.

At any rate, I think that the mistake being made by several posters in
this thread and elsewhere is the attempt to present their ideas as the
one right reading rather than a possibility for others to consider.
What is "applicable" for one reader may not be "applicable" for the
next, particularly if the reading is based on personal experience or
narrowly defined criteria not shared by other readers or imposed by
the reader onto the text. (I can imagine, for example, a Marxist or
militant feminist reading of the HP books. Shudder!)

By all means, let's lift veils so that others have the opportunity to
see what we see (if their experience and education allow such a
reading). By all means, let's try to persuade others to consider our
interpretation as a valid way of looking at the text. But if we
attempt to impose our interpretationss on others, either as what JKR
"intended" or as the only way to read a particular scene or object or
character, we will never persuade those who don't already agree with
us. (And, yes, I've been guilty of this same error myself on occasion.
;-) )

Carol, apologizing for going into lecture mode and taking off her
McGonagall hat now