Christian Symbolism in HP/Harry's Hatred of Snape

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 153845

Tonks"

> The key part of this for me is "he seemed to hang suspended 
beneath 
> the shining skull". She does not say the dark mark, she does not 
say 
> the skull with snake, she says simply "skull". I have said before 
> that to me the death of DD on the tower was symbolically the 
> crucifixion of Christ at Golgotha or "the place of the skull". I 
> think that JKR did not just have DD slum to the floor, because she 
> needed that extra image of the crucified Christ to stick in our 
> mind. True not everyone would see it, and even those that might 
know 
> the symbol would probably only see it through the eyes of their 
> unconscious mind.

Magpie:
I wish I knew the word for the dodgy method of arguing in this 
thread where by one takes a perfectly straightforward word choice 
that works well in context and bases arguments on the fact the 
author *didn't* choose some other word that's no better or worse, as 
if that's evidence of some other idea.  It feels like putting the 
burden of proof on others to prove a negative.  A great big honking 
skull is suspended in the air above the Tower where Dumbledore has 
just been killed as part of the story.  I'd have hung Dumbledore 
under it (rather than the Dark Mark or the skull with the snake) as 
well.  It's a great image.  I don't have a problem linking skulls to 
Gogoltha generally, and I believe the two things are made out of the 
same common shared unconcious, but there's little evidence, imo, 
that the author is making a very strong reference to Golgotha.  (We 
at least know that Dumbledore isn't Jesus.)  The skull part of the 
Dark Mark is the part that represents death, so is understandably 
the part the author chose to emphasize when Dumbledore has just 
died.  Skulls are a really common symbol of death.

Tonks:
Perhaps it would help if I explained that I am trained in a type of 
hypnosis that uses stories to heal. In the context of therapy I can 
talk to a client, put them into a trance, do the work that needs to 
be done within their subconscious mind, bring them back out of 
trance and all the while they think that I was just telling a little 
story.[...]They may have their final session and wonder why you 
never did any hypnosis when that was what you were doing all along. 
Because of this training I am extra sensitive to seeing what might 
lie beneath the surface of a story, that part of the story that only 
your subconscious mind is suppose to hear.


Magpie:
So you're not doing literary analysis, you're being extra sensitive 
to the part of the story only the subconscious mind is supposed to 
hear or see.  That's a little...vague.  


Tonks:
> An Invitation:
> 
> Now I would like to offer a special invitation. I am going to 
start 
> a special society. The Luna Lovegood Society. We will be known far 
> and wide as the "Loonies".  Anyone who sees symbols in the HP 
> stories that others do not see may join. Anyone persecuted for 
> saying that they see what others say are not there may also join. 

Magpie:
Please tell me you didn't just suggest that you are 
being "persecuted" because you advanced an interpretation about a 
series of books we have all read relating to another book most of us 
have probably also read and people were not convinced. The attitude 
of Luna's that seems to be being celebrated is the one Hermione 
describes, where Luna only believes things if there's no proof for 
them. Me, I have a liking for objective truth where I can seek it.  
The case for certain specific allegorical meanings in HP has been 
advanced and I've taken them seriously and not been convinced.  I 
utterly reject my being cast into the role of a persecuter because 
of it.  

Look, I've had things that I predicted or saw before other people 
turn out to be true, and the people who argued with me over it 
weren't persecuting me.  As long as we stuck to defending things 
using canon or making a case logically it didn't have to be 
personal.  I really want to see what's there, and would rather 
be "right" in terms of seeing what's really there even if someone 
else has to show it to me than "right" in terms of continuing to 
defend an argument just because I was the one who advanced it.

Tonks:
> 
> The day will come when the Loonies will be recognized for their 
true 
> contributions to the cause. I predict that the day will indeed 
come 
> with JKR will, if not *tell all*, will confess that she has used 
> symbols from Christianity in telling her story. She might even 
admit 
> to plagiarizing the bible. Our day will come fellow Loonies, our 
day 
> will come!!

Magpie:
Unfortunately, even if that happened it would not make your analysis 
any more honestly or convincingly done so I don't know what 
contributions you're referring to are.  Given the way this 
invitation is expressed, and the way the arguments expressed change 
shape, I would doubt the club's ability to judge themselves and 
others objectively on that future judgment day when JKR speaks.  I 
just really don't see how even JKR coming out and telling us that 
she's plagiarizing the Bible (that special kind of plagiarism where 
by you change the entire thing so a familiar story becomes 
unrecognizable) will make sense of Peter Pettigrew being Saint 
Peter, change one iconic image into another, or make werewolfism and 
animal shape-shifting a good metaphor for transubstantiation.  

Lupinlore:
In other words, I think Lupin is trying to say something like:

"You are determined to hate him, Harry. And I understand. As
James' son, as Sirius' godson, you have inherited the results of
what happened back then. He is bitter and hateful to you. You are
naturally bitter and hateful toward him."

Magpie:
Having now read Lupinlore's interpretation of the line in context I 
think he's right, that is more what Lupin is saying.  I think his 
interpretation holds up better and is more correct than mine was.  

-m (happily un-hypnotizable)