King's Cross Station and DH as Christian Allegory)

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 173480

Monica wrote:
<snip>
> I definitely saw some parallels to Nazi Germany, of course, or any
other megalomaniacal world leader in recent years. I am more than
> willing to accept this as the parallel rather than making it
> necessarily a reflection of Jesus' cross (incidentally, I'm sure the
> meaning of "King's Cross" has been discussed ad nauseam so I won't
> bother going into it here).  <snip>

Carol responds:
Actually, it hasn't been. IIRC, you and I are the only ones who've
mentioned it. "King's Cross" jumped out at me as an obvious allusion
to Jesus's death and resurrection (cross is obvious, especially in
connection with the cross that Harry drew on the, erm, grave of
Mad-Eye Moody's eyeball. I wondered whether "King's" (which, of
course, in real life relates to the unsaintly George IV) was intended
to suggest (to Christian readers, at least) "Christ the King." At any
rate, Harry's glimpse of the afterlife (and the dead but healed
Dumbledore once again wearing his benevolent facade) in what Harry
interpreted to be a version of King's Cross Station (obviously not the
real, earthly one) immediately confirmed what I already suspected:
Harry was a Christ figure (not to be confused with Christ himself,
whether you're Christian or not) who has "died" (entered the
afterlife, passed through the veil) but is not really dead and will be
resurrected. Meanwhile, Voldie has also "died" (his mangled soul has
left his body, visible to Harry as a whimpering bundle of rags, and
his followers aren't sure whether he's dead or in a coma). Se lerarn
later that his only chance for redemption, to prevent himself from
suffering this fate for all eternity, is remorse. And, of course, he
rejects that choice.

So Harry, willingly sacrificing himself, "dying" without really dying,
will obviously be resurrected unless he chooses to take a symbolic
train (cue a chorus of "This train don't carry no gamblers, this
train") to the next great adventure. Of course, JKR could simply be
using King's Cross Station because it has personal significance to her
and was Harry's point of entry into what then seemed a wonderful new
magical world. Here, it's his port of entry to what lies beyond if he
chooses to go there, but he doesn't. So neither he nor we know what's
beyond the Veil, but it seems to be a better world. Those who have
"gone on," in NHN's words, seem to be themselves at their peak:
Dumbledore's hand is healed; Sirius Black looks young and happy. Even
Lupin looks younger and less grey. (Snape, I hope, will be the self he
would have been if he hadn't been neglected like a plant deprived of
light and made the wrong choice that ruined his life, redeemed by love
and courage.) At any rate, I think I see now what NHN meant: he was
afraid to go on and chose to live as a ghost; Myrtle preferred
haunting Olive Hornsby to taking the train to the next great
adventure. Instead, they became ghosts, pale imprints of souls
remaining on earth instead of facing death, which is anything but
terrible unless you're unredeemed like LV--or trapped forever in the
terrible oblivion of a Dementor's spirit and not even allowed to
properly die.

Apropos of nothing, but I want to throw it in: Love, of course, is the
highest Christian virtue, and sacrificial love (first Lily, now Harry)
is, for JKR and probably many others, the highest form of love. We
also have the secular virtue of courage, represented by Gryffindor
and, of all people, Snape. It weems to me that the only person in the
book who fights for the good for anything other than a personal reason
(including Harry) is Hermione. She alone, as far as I can see right
now, is motivated by principle.

To return to the topic, I didn't catch all the biblical allusions
because I was experiencing the story itself on an emotional level (and
caught up in the whole Snape arc), but the signs that this book was
more overtly Christian than the others were unmistakeable to me even
on a cursory reading.

I want to say, though, that the Christian allegory (which may have
resulted in flaws in the story structure and inattention to other
details (a consistent moral universe, for example; I can see no excuse
for Harry morphing into Bellatrix to Crucio Amycus Carrow, scum though
Amycus is) is not the only reading. The mythological elements are also
there, as are the old stand-bys of genre, character development, and
theme (love, death, choice, etc.). 

As long as we closely examine the text and try to avoid imposing our
preconceptions and preferences on it--very hard to do at this stage of
the game, and I for one am pretty sure that I've entered the game too
early, before I've had time to experience the book as a whole without
the manipulation of my emotions and expectations--we can analyze the
books from whatever perspective works for us (even reder response or
deconstructionism). IOW, we can see beyond the Christian allegory and
symbolism (thank you to whoever looked up the white peacocks and what
were they doing at *Malfoy's* place?) to other perspectives.

I wonder, really, whether JKR got too caught up in what was meaningful
to her (Harry as Christ figure) and forgot "small" matters like
consistency and even logic (Tom Riddle not seeing everyone else's
hidden items? A letter to Sirius written when he was living elsewhere
in 12 GP?).

IOW, the Christian symbolism is undeniably there for readers who want
to see it. Readers who aren't Christian or don't like it are free to
see from other perspectives (Tolkien's "applicability"), the more the
better at this point.

Carol, not at all sure this a a coherent post but wondering if anyone
had a similar reaction to "King's Cross"