Dark Book - Draco - Calvinism

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 177297

> > Amy:
> > 
> > Not to be argumentative or anything, ('cause for the most part,
> > I agree with a lot of what you said here) but was Draco 
> > really "damned" in the HP series?
> 
> lizzyben: 
> 
> Yeah, IMO he was. If JKR started out w/a Calvinist allegory, and 
> Slytherins are the non-elect, they're damned. 

Mike:
"If JKR started out w/a Calvinist allegory" is a mighty big *IF*. 
This may be the way you've read these books, but I don't see them 
that way at all, nor do I see any reason to believe that JKR was fond 
of or wrote with a Calvinistic bent.

First off, AFAIK, JKR is not a Calvinist herself. She doesn't follow 
Calvinistic teachings. And she admitted that her Christian values 
influenced her decisions in writing the series, especially the 
finale. So, if she isn't a Calvinist and yet she did assign her 
personal Christian values to her writing, how do you conclude that 
her assigned personal values are Calvinist?

Secondly, JKR wasn't assigning wizards to Heaven or Hell as far as I 
can determine. Where wizards went after death wasn't defined at all. 
In OotP, NHN answered Harry's question of where do wizards go when 
they die with "I cannot answer." And that's it! No more attempts to 
find out where wizards go, nor any character or narrative voice even 
broaching the subject. It seems to me that JKR purposely sidestepped 
any assignation, including the supposed "elect" and "damned" that 
you've chosen to believe she used.


> lizzyben:
> That's why she was so insistent on not creating a truly "good" 
> Slytherin - they are meant to be the House of the reprobate 
> unsaved. It's also handy to have them around to smite.

Mike:
Or maybe it's as simple as JKR needed a house for bad guys and 
Slytherin was it. No deeper assignation of "unsaved", no Calvinistic 
determinations since she wasn't writing a Calvinistic allegory. Your 
last flippant sentence seems closer to the purpose of Slytherin than 
any of the deeper allegorical theories. And yet, the only Slytherins 
that we know for sure were "smited" were Bellatrix and Tom Riddle. 
Both of whom had done plenty of smiting of their own before their 
downfalls. 



> lizzyben:
> 
<snip>
> 
> Redemption is not a part of traditional Calvinist thought - you are 
> sorted Elect or damned from before birth, and there's no changing 
> that. People are saved through grace, not good works. A reprobate 
> might devote his life to charity, kindness & goodness and still not 
> be Saved. 

Mike:
So we've gone from *IF* to WAS, I guess. How about I call this series 
an allegory for Christ's sacrifice for mankind? After all, isn't that 
what Harry did, willingly offer himself up for death to save the rest 
of the WW? Therefore, the rest of the WW is forgiven their sins 
including all the Slytherins.

I don't read the books that way, nor do I believe JKR wrote the books 
that way. But that is just as valid a reading, with just as much 
validation from canon as your Calvinistic reading. If anything, based 
on the author's own words and her own faith, it's more valid, imo. 
Yet, I find that type of assignation ridiculous, so I wouldn't 
espouse it.


> lizzyben:
> 
> This seems harsh, maybe, but that's what Calvinism preaches. 

Mike:
And only matters if JKR wrote a Calvinistic allegory, which I don't 
believe she did.



> lizzyben:
> The difference is that in the Potterverse, through magic,
> we *do* know who is in the Elect.

Mike:
No, we know who got sorted into Slytherin. The *only* character that 
was depicted as irredeemable was Tom Riddle, and a case could be made 
that he chose his path. (I won't make that argument, however) The 
rest of the characters, including the Slytherins, were shown to have 
chosen their respective paths. Then there were those that were 
tricked into following LV, and once in, you can't get out. Sounds 
more and more like LV was a Satanic allegorical character, doesn't 
it? And still, I won't make that argument.



> lizzyben:
> 
> I think JKR started out w/this black-and-white, saved-and-damned 
> viewpoint. Slytherins are the damned, full stop. But the problem 
> was that over time, she spent so much time with these characters 
> that she couldn't help making them, well, human. Draco's love for 
> his family, Narcissa's courage, Lucius's loyalty, Snape's 
> protectiveness all came out without her even knowing it. She 
> started to feel sorry for Draco, Narcissa and even Snape. And she 
> struggled. It's much easier to condemn faceless strangers, than to 
> condemn people you know and care about. So that's why we end up 
> w/ this ending in which Slytherins as a group are condemned, yet 
> the major Slytherin characters all seem to be forgiven. 

Mike:
I've left this whole paragraph because I didn't want to chop anything 
to make it look like selective editing on my part. I've read this 
many times and it just doesn't make sense. "Slytherins are the 
damned" despite all the humaness she gave to some of the Slytherins? 
It's easier to condemn the faceless strangers, yet these characters 
are neither faceless nor strangers? How can *all* the Slytherins be 
condemned and yet *some* are not?



> lizzyben:
> 
> But to a good Calvinist, this is bad. You shouldn't question God's 
> will or his Election - don't look at the damned, there is no help 
> possible. I think that's DD ordering Harry (and JKR) over & over 
> again to stop feeling sympathy for the reprobate. Harry learns to 
> tune out its cries, as does JKR, in order to finish the black-and-
> white, saved-and-damned allegory she had started.

Mike:
So, although we've got an entire house of reprobates the only 
reprobate Harry was told to "stop feeling sympathy for" was the one 
truly evil character that was beyond saving. But of course, 
Dumbledore did *not* tell Harry to stop feeling sympathy for the 
flayed Voldiebit, he told him he cannot help it. "Something that is 
beyond either of our help." 

Is that Calvinism or a case of reaping what you've sown? With all the 
references to Voldemort going beyond the bounds of *usual evil*, I 
would say the latter. And still, Voldemort will have a chance to 
repair himself if he feels some real remorse. Yes, I know, not even 
remotely likely, but still it was there. And, had LV had a remorse 
epiphany, would that only mean he could leave the "train station" for 
Hell? I don't think that was the option, since it's not much of an 
option.

So the most evil character in the book, the character that caused so 
much death and destruction that he was beyond redemption could still 
have saved himself from eternal... whatever... according to JKR's 
formula. Yet you've decided that JKR *didn't* give him that option, 
no matter how unlikely he would take it, because you've decided that 
he was "damned" from birth.

I'm not seeing how you can square this theory with canon.

Mike