DH as Christian Allegory (was Classical & Biblical Quotations)

[Monica]

No: HPFGUIDX 173972

> Betsy Hp:
> Hmm, but I think I have a problem in that the WW didn't even become
> that much happier or nicer.  It was the end of what I think amounted
> to an almost school-boy king-of-the-hill (heh, or keeper of the wand)
> type of squabble.  There just wasn't much *epic* to it.

Monica:
Been gone all weekend and, it seems, missed quite a bit... especially
about Slytherins as Jews? Will have to read that because I'm sure not
seeing it. As far as the whole world getting happy and nice, I think
Harry's transformation may be at least somewhat indicative of the rest
of the wizarding world. He clearly realized that not all Slytherins
are bad, evidenced by the naming of his son, and he told his son that
there is no shame in becoming a Slytherin. Some old prejudices still
exist, so the transformation was neither immediate nor all-inclusive,
but I still believe that given time, they will begin to affect change
in the wizarding world as a whole.

>
> Betsy Hp:
> Well, it certainly depends on your own personal belief system, but I
> think it can safely be said that the life, death and resurrection of
> Christ made an impact.  So much so that our calender system does a
> before and after.

Monica:
Well, I would certainly agree that he made an impact. On the other
hand (and I'm not saying this would be the case with HP) it took many
years for the extent of that impact to be felt. Christ had to start by
affecting those with immediate contact, and then it rippled out to
affect the world. So maybe in Harry's case he made the sacrifice, and
made the first step, and now it's up to everyone who witnessed it to
go on and spread a message of equality and love (this sounds rather
sappy, I think).

>
> > >>Monica:
> > Radical change occurs primarily within people themselves, rather
> > than on an outward level. Perhaps this is what happened in the case
> > of Harry.
> Betsy Hp:
> If it did it all happened off-page.  Which means (since this is the
> end of the series) that it didn't happen.  Harry doesn't change after
> his fight with Voldemort.  He's pretty much the same boy as ever.
> Which, again, reflects the lack of epic, IMO.  And makes it hard to
> link with the Christ story.

Monica:
I think he did change though. He assured his son that he could be a
Slytherin and that good men have been Slytherins, saw the good in a
man he despised, and saw that even his hero, Dumbledore, was not
perfect but was still forgivable. He came to terms with the fact that
death was irreversable and he was willing to face it for the sake of
the world. I would say Harry's acceptance of death, after his struggle
with Sirius and his parents and Dumbledore and his strong desire to
resurrect the dead (e.g. the stone deathly hallow, the mirror of
Erised) was one of the central themes of the book. Although he did use
the stone, it was more for the encouragement than to bring his loved
ones back to life permanently. His "last temptation," if you will, was
to leave humanity to its own defenses or to come back to finally end
it. I would say Harry did "conquer death," in the sense that he came
to terms with it. In that sense I can still see a parallel with Christ
(although Christ conquered death in an entirely different sense).

> Betsy Hp:
> Except, the lack of good in the WW is exactly what gave rise to
> Voldemort.  And Harry doesn't change that.  Harry attacks the symptom
> but gives no thought to the cause.
<snip>
> Before Jesus there was a very small elect who had a relationship with
> God, afterwards, that relationship was open to anyone interested,
> IMO.  But with Harry, there's still just a small elect.

Monica:
Well, without a more detailed synopsis of the House system at the end
of the book, other than realizing Ron maintains his dislike for
Slytherin (although it's interesting to note that he is opposed to his
daughter marrying Scorpio not because he is a Slytherin or even
Malfoy's son, really, but because he is a pureblood, even if it is in
a joking sense). I also would have liked to see some interaction with
the non-wizard magical beings to see if the wizarding world could
learn to be at peace rather than constantly trying to repress them.

> > >>Monica:
> > Not having the book on me at the moment, I would say what is
> > momentous about Draco's appearance at the end of the book is that
> > he is alive, has children, and has been redeemed.
> > <snip>
>
> Betsy Hp:
> He cannot possibly be considered redeemed if he is still a member of
> the unclean class.  And since he is a Slytherin, and since the
> Slytherins are still the bad house, Draco is, as he was, a non-
> redeemable lesser-than.

Yeah, here I do have a bit of an issue with the way things were
portrayed, perhaps, but on the other hand, Draco went about as far
over to the "other" side as he could get, of his own free will, and by
all accounts should be dead or ostracized from all wizarding society
or confined to a prison because of his choices, but he had a change of
heart and is therefore able to live a seemingly good life. I admit I
would have loved to find out that he had married a Mudblood or have
his resolution flushed out a little more, but at the same time I think
delving deep into Draco's psyche would have required a few more chapters.


>> Betsy Hp:
> Personally, I think these are incredibly immoral books that promote
> bigotry and hatred, and possibly even suicide.  Plus, there's the
> whole might makes right and the blessed can do no wrong thing.  Oh,
> and the total lack of respect for any sort of guiding law.

Monica: But the blessed did wrong, and a lot of it. Dumbledore was
wrong, and evil Snape did right. The only ones in the book who made
continuously bad choices were Voldemort and his more staunch
followers. Even the Malfoys eventually made correct decisions out of love.

>
> > >>Susan McGee:
> > Also, in answer to that commentary about how Harry doesn't struggle
> > or his character doesn't change, etc. First, I don't agree, I think
> > going to one's death willingly is an incredible struggle... <snip>
>
> Betsy Hp:
> Actually, I think if so many people close to you have died, and your
> one constant mentor has told you it's a good idea, and the dead are
> telling you to jump in the water's great, suicide is easy.  Times
> like those, living is the hard part.

Monica: Again, bringing up the whole Christian thing, Jesus knew that
he had to die and chances are he knew that even though dying would be
quite painful, what he had coming to him was pretty good. Does that
invalidate the difficulty of what he did or make his sacrifice any
easier? I don't think Harry's sacrifice/suicide/call it what you like
was out of depression or the inability to continue living because of
all the pain he went through. I think it was out of a love for the living.


> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/173345
> > >>Geoff Bannister:
> > <snip>
> > He [Harry] sees his death as the only way to get rid of Voldemort
> > once and for all. It is the altruism that leads people to risk
> > their lives to rescue others in disasters or on the battlefield;
> > the courage that led Captain Oates to walk out of Scott's tent in
> > the Antarctic.
> > <snip>
>
> Betsy Hp:
> I think the reason I have such a hard time buying this is that Harry
> left before his part was done. Nagini was still alive.  I know Harry
> told Neville to kill the snake, but it struck me as passing the
> buck.  Also, I didn't like it that it was all Dumbledore's idea,
> rather than Harry's own. Even to the extent that Dumbledore arranged
> for Harry's dead to tell him how cool death was when the time came.

Monica:
Harry passed the buck to Ron earlier in allowing him to destroy the
locket horcrux with the sword, though, and I thought that was
admirable. As far as Dumbledore's arrangement of things, arguably it
wasn't his idea so much as the only possible conclusion. And when he
arranged for Harry's dead to come in and help him along, I think it
was because he was trying to give Harry what comfort and support he
needed to do what he had to do. I think Harry HAD to die, or at least
had to allow himself to die at Voldemort's hand, because he was the
final horcrux in a sense and if he had not, Voldemort could have
continued to survive. If Voldemort had realized this, he would have
killed and then resurrected himself to rid himself of Harry's blood
and then killed Harry. Just so happened that it worked the other way
around.  And initially Harry would have had to die, if Voldemort had
not taken his blood in Book IV. That wasn't Dumbledore's plan, it was
destiny I suppose.

Monica