Disappointment and Responsibility (was Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables)

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 174856

> lizzyben:

> I've really struggled to figure out *what*, exactly, was the
> theme of this series. What was JKR trying to say? Why did she
> write 7 books about this? Based on the epilogue, it seems like
> it was intended to have a simple message of good brave
> Gryffindors beat the bad guys. Is that worth a series? These
> novels do not seem Christian to me, in the sense of embracing
> tolerance, forgiveness, non-judgment etc. There's a distinctly
> Old Testament flavor to the books.


Okay, this brings up a very good point.  I think, and I don't
mean this as a criticism, that a lot of the problem is that over
the years people have read all sorts of messages and meanings
into the text JKR did not intend, and when she made some matters
more clear in DH, it brought out a lot of disappointment. Now,
this is inevitable in any book, but it was a special problem for
the Potterverse due to a large number of factors.

First of all, I don't want to criticise JKR's writing in this
message. Not that I find it in any way above criticism, or
that I think she is without responsibility with regard to
these controversies.  Far from it.  She has been, at the very
least, disingenuous and inconsistent in both canon and secondary
canon (i.e. interviews and explanatory messages).  But I want to
focus on another factor, here -- one where readers bear at least
a large share of the -- well, I don't want to say "blame," as that
is such a loaded word, so let's just say "responsibility."  Let's
look at two instances in particular, just by way of example: the
Christian nature of the books and the specific instance of Sirius'
comment about the division of the world.

With regard to the Christian nature of the books, let me reveal
that I myself am a member, whether a faithful one or not I leave
it to others to judge, of the Greek Orthodox Church. Now,
Christianity, viewed as a set of ideas, is ancient, incredibly
complex, often subtle, and wonderfully heterogenous. Its
relationships with other faiths are likewise ancient, complex,
subtle, shifting, and difficult to unravel.  To cite just one
example, the Old Testament of which lizzyben speaks is not at
all the same set of books as the Hebrew Bible, even if the words
are actually identical.  That is, the meaning, interpretation,
and use of the words, sentences, and stories is different,
sometimes radically so.  A Christian citing the Book of Isaiah
and a Jew citing the Book of Isaias are citing two very different
books even when quoting exactly the same words. And two Christians
quoting Isaiah will likely mean very different things (as, I
strongly suspect, would two Rabbis quoting Isaias).

To focus more on literature, the arguable Ethical Calvinism of
Rowling is quite different from the Catholicism of Tolkien, the
Broad Church Anglicanism of Lewis, the Symbolic Romanticism of
Williams, the Narrative Romanticism of Lawhead, the Episcopalian
Spiritualism of L'Engle, or the Fundamentalist Literalism of
LeHaye.  It is therefore not surprising that when she talked
about being a Christian people read all sorts of meanings into
that she did not intend, and were therefore disappointed when
her intent was more fully revealed.

With regard to Sirius statement that the world is not divided into
good people and Death Eaters, here the issue is even more complex.
I understand and acknowledge that, even taking that statement at
face value, there are problems with the way that JKR plays the
theme out in the text, or fails to play it out as the case may be.
I reiterate, I do not see JKR as having no responsbility in this
matter.

However, it seems to me in this example that some people were
wanting her to have said something very different than what, in
fact, was literally put down in the text.  That is, they were
wanting Sirius to have said "The world is not divided into people
who are nice to you and people who hate you and mean you ill."
They wanted this to play out particularly, to use loaded examples,
with the Slytherins, particularly Snape and Draco.  They wanted,
it seems, Snape to not REALLY hate and bear ill-will toward Harry
-- his cruelty was to have been an act, or a legitimate teaching
method designed to teach Harry what he had to know, or an artifact
of Harry's skewed perceptions.  Draco's attitude likewise was to
have been a result of petty, not-serious childhood rivalry and/or
Harry's prejudice.  Draco was to have been revealed to have been
a boy much like Harry who really just wanted to be friends.

Well, the trouble is that ISN'T what JKR said.  Sirius DIDN'T say
"The world isn't divided into people who are nice to you and people
who hate you and bear you ill will."  Regardless of the merits of
such a message, that just isn't what's there. Snape DID hate Harry
and bear him ill-will, if not always in the way Harry believed (but
usually in the way Harry believed).  Draco DID hate Harry and bear
him ill-will, almost exactly in the way Harry believed.  In this
regard, to say something controversial, JKR might be justified in
answering the charge, "You lied to us!" with a rejoinder "Errr, no.
You lied to yourself."


Lupinlore, who points out there are many other examples that might
fit in such a discussion, and who once again points out that he does
not feel JKR to be without responsibility.