DH as Christian Allegory (was Classical & Biblical Quotations)

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 173549

> >>Mike Gray (aka Aberforth's Goat):
> Hi all - particularly Betsy!

Betsy Hp:
Hiya, Mike! <g>

> >>Mike Gray:
> <snip> 
> However, before I even start, I'm just curious: Betsy, have you had 
> serious reservations about the religious and moral implications of 
> the series all the way through or has something changed for you in 
> DH?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
As far as religious implications, I didn't really see any within the 
Potterverse pre-DH.  I mean, JKR is British, so as a writer she's 
standing on the shoulders of Western Civilization and all that 
implies (Christianity, the mythologies and philosophies of Ancient 
Greece, etc).  So yeah, there were things that pinged "Christian" to 
me.  

For example, I thought the story of Snape might have echoed the story 
of Paul.  And I saw the three times Dumbledore told Draco he was not 
a killer as echoing Jesus asking Peter three times if he loved him.  
Boy did I get those both wrong! <bg>

But I didn't think JKR was setting out to write a Christian allegory 
a la CS Lewis.  I did expect that the conclusion would echo a certain 
morality that could be seen as Christian, but not in an evangelical 
way.  IOWs, the ending would have a good moral lesson anyone could 
take away with them, and those who wished could use as an example in 
Sunday School, if that makes sense.

As for moral implications, I was very uncomfortable with some of the 
actions and over all attitude of the Trio pre-DH, so much so I 
decided not to reread the series, but I thought the end would redeem 
them. I think that discomfort started in OotP.  There'd been issues 
all the way through of course, but I think that's where I started 
disliking the three main characters to an extent.  Though again, I 
thought they were issues to be fixed.

HBP deepened my dislike.  And DH, by refusing to tackle any of the 
issues raised, cemented it.  And then there's the "moral" of the 
tale.  Honestly I'd have never called that JKR would take the story 
in the direction she did.  It's such an out-dated way of looking at 
the world, one that has (I thought) been rather universally 
condemned.  But it is what it is.  DH, by approving of the WW's 
morals, changed the entire series for me.  What I thought was 
something to be fixed became something to be accepted and maybe even 
celebrated.

> >>Mike Gray:
> However, what I noticed reading your post was a different point:
> 
> The people Harry had along with him on his walk towards Voldemort   
> are people he looked up to - parental figures, comforting figures, 
> even authority figures. And - in contrast to the disciples at the 
> crucifixion - THEY DID THEIR JOB. That is, they didn't fall asleep, 
> chop off ears, deny knowing him, run off naked and generally freak 
> out. One of the central elements in the crucifixion stories is that 
> the disciples blew it.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
But the disciples were alive.  Of course they freaked out, got tired, 
etc.  Also, they weren't really clear on what exactly Jesus was about 
to do.  Harry's support were all dead people who had nothing to lose 
and seemed pretty content with how everything was going.  

And one of the more beautiful things in the resurrection part of the 
story, IMO, is that Christ forgave his disciples their earlier 
weaknesses, giving them a chance to make good.  That question session 
with Peter, for example.  There was a level of grace there that Harry 
and his friends, with all their false "perfection" could not achieve.

> >>Mike Gray:
> The crucifixion narratives underscore Jesus' singularity and       
> independence; DH underscores how deeply Harry relied on other      
> people.
> It's a *very* interesting contrast. It fits into a lot of similar 
> aspects of a contrast between Harry and Jesus. Harry is alone - but 
> he finds friends; Harry needs help - and he gets it; Harry is      
> young - but he matures; Harry is weak - but he becomes strong;     
> Harry is fallible - but he becomes wise.

Betsy Hp:
Honestly, I don't see Harry maturing the way you do.  Probably 
because everything worked out so smoothly for him.  I didn't see 
Harry become strong, he just lucked into a kick-ass wand.  And as he 
was content with the way the WW worked in the end, I certainly didn't 
see any wisdom points coming his way.  (Frankly, IMO, Harry never 
seemed stupider than he did in this book.  Fortunately for Harry, 
Voldemort lost a ton of smart points himself.)

> >>Mike Gray:
> The contrast also fits into the kind of change Harry brings about: 
> to say that all of wizarding history flows to Harry and from Harry  
> (the way Christian history flows to and from Christ) would be       
> absurd; but he did get rid of a nasty wizard and make the world a   
> better place.

Betsy Hp:
Not even the world.  Just a tiny little isolated community in 
Britain.  And again, that tiny little community is just as twisted as 
ever, so another Dark Lord will rise.  All Harry did was get rid of a 
rather nasty crime lord.  There are police out there right now doing 
the sort of job.  It's good work and it's heroic.  But it's not all 
that epic.

> >>Mike Gray:
> Is Harry a Christ figure? Yes. But he's a very human one - a sort   
> of Messiah in minor key.

Betsy Hp:
I just cannot get that.  I really, really can't.  Harry doesn't 
*change* anything.  He gets rid of a particularly icky crime lord, 
but he doesn't take on any sort of forces of evil or anything.  And 
gosh, he really just stumbles into the ability to take that crime 
lord down.  Plus, there's that whole lack of compassion and his 
comfort in seeing others as pariahs.  I can't see a Messiah in 
someone like that.

> >>Mike Gray:
> <snip> 
> And if there were one character in the series that you could cut    
> out of the series and paste onto the  ceiling of the Sistine       
> Chapel - who would it be?
> <snip>
> Dumbledore is the old man with the long, white beard. Dumbledore is 
> a bit mysterious and unimaginably powerful and wise and knowing and 
> loving. Dumbledore has a plan - just trust him and everything will 
> work out OK. 
> But wait - Dumbledore can't be God!
> Why not?

Betsy Hp:
Um, because he's evil?  Seriously, Dumbledore worked to take over the 
world, killed his sister, got cold feet and went into hiding.  He 
wasn't even that great of a headmaster since he barricaded himself 
into his office and used his position to hide from the world.

At best, Dumbledore is a coward.  He could have been powerful, but 
the power scared him.  Like Peter Parker's Uncle Ben said, "With 
great power comes great responsibility" and Dumbledore passed the 
buck.  To a baby.  Nicely done there, Dumbledore.

He had an odd fixation on the Deathly Hollows that may have led to 
the Potters' deaths (what would James have done if his cloak was 
avaliable to him, I wonder?), and definitely led to his own death 
right when he was needed most.  So Dumbledore, while incredibly 
clever, wasn't all that wise.

> >>Mike Gray:
> <snip>
> In fact, theologically speaking, that's the very interesting point 
> thing in DH. The God figure turns out to be very human after all.   
> It's almost as if Rowling first blew God into the series, then     
> changed her mind and let the air out.
> 
> What's so interesting about that? Well, this act of deflation      
> mirrors a lot of Christian thinking over the last century or so.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Interesting, but not something I agree with personally.  I don't see 
any gain coming from an attempt to squeeze God into anything less 
than the omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient Father-Mother.

Which, hmm... Maybe that *is* what JKR is doing?  Trying to humanize 
and weaken God, leading to rather weak and impotent Messiah, morals 
that are completely relative, and the scapegoats gathered all 
conveniently together to blame and punish when things inevitably go 
wrong.

Explains why I found DH (and therefore the series) so distasteful. <g>

Betsy Hp