Dark Book - Draco - Calvinism

[muscatel1988]

No: HPFGUIDX 177318

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, wynnleaf fair <wynnleaf at ...> 
wrote:
<snip>   
    
> The idea, as I understand it, is that the characters in Slytherin 
> are "ordained" to be in Slytherin and are reprobate.  That is, 
> nothing they can do can make them "good."

Exactly.  That is what we are shown.  Slytherin, from the founder who 
put the Basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets to devour Muggle-borns on 
down, are bad.  Regulus repents and dies, and is only a cipher 
anyway, and Slughorn is less evil than venal, but the message is 
clear.  The other "Good Slytherin" is a horrible error, of whom more 
below.

> Characters in Gryffindor are "ordained" to be in Gryffindor and 
> are therefore "the chosen" and are always considered "good," no 
> matter what they do.

Exactly.  As has been explored on this board in some detail, the 
Gryffindors do a lot of morally suspect acts, but we're led to cheer 
them.
    
> The idea that being "chosen" means that it doesn't matter what 
> you do, or how bad your actions are, you're still counted among 
> the "good" just because you're chosen is actually considered 
> antinomianism and is generally considered a heresy, even in 
> Reformed (Calvinist) churches.

<snip>

> So, if true Calvinism were really being played out symbolically 
> in the HP series, I would think that someone would start to wonder 
> why the supposed "good guys" were showing no greater goodness of 
> heart than the bad guys.  
    
But that really does, to this reader at least, once I stepped back, 
seem to be what's going on.  I started to wonder.  Your insights show 
that calling this Calvinist is a category error, but the moral 
problems shown by the White Hats still persist.
    
> If the HP series truly does send the message that being in 
> Gryffindor makes you "good" or being in Slytherin makes you "bad," 
> yet the actions and choices of the two do not reflect this, then 
> that is *not* Calvinism, but antinomianism.  Do I think JKR, would 
> consciously write something supporting that doctrinal position?  
> Absolutely not. 

Mus's longer response:

Wynnleaf, thank you so much for that extremely informative post.  It 
clarified for me a lot of issues, and sent me off to look up 
antinomianism.  I agree - your description of Calvinism doesn't chime 
at all with what I and some others here (though clearly not all)
regard as the central problem with the Potter heptology.  Since you 
are clearly much better informed than (at least) me, it seems that 
we're using the wrong term.  

Wikipedia gives the following definition of antinomianism 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomianism)

* Antinomianism (from the Greek áíôé, "against" + íïìïò, "law"), or 
* lawlessness (in the Greek Bible: áíïìéá, which is "unlawful"), in 
* theology, is the idea that members of a particular religious group 
* are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality as 
* presented by religious authorities. Antinomianism is the polar 
* opposite of legalism, the notion that obedience to a code of 
* religious law is necessary for salvation.

For this poster, this rings rather true to what I read in the books, 
especially in HBP and DH.  Using Unforgiveable Curses, tricking 
goblins, identity theft, the use of dark magic and so on by the White 
Hats seems to be the assertion that they are under no obligation to 
behave in a certain manner, specifically one that differentiates them 
from the Black Hats.  It's also interesting, in a sociological sense, 
that antinomianism seems to be a charge to lay against one's 
opponents, rather than a position to which to adhere.

The sorting of children at the age of eleven into houses, and the 
subsequent repeated identification of one of those houses as 
inherently bad is predestination.  When a character does something 
that is undeniably good, then we are expressly told, not that some 
Slytherins was capable of great love, bravery and sacrifice, but that 
he was in the wrong house to begin with.  In other words, Slytherins 
are predestined to be bad, but the Hat sometimes makes a mistake.  
That's a truly extraordinary message.

You see, I would have no problem with a genuinely predestined WW, 
with inherently bad and inherently good houses (or characters).  It 
mightn't make for a particularly interesting story, but it would be 
internally coherent.  My problem arises when the message that the 
sorting gives, that Dumbledore gives us when he talks of being sorted 
too soon, is in direct and canon contrast with what the author has 
told us is the central point of the moral arc - that our choices make 
us what we are.  In other words, we're shown predestination, and 
we're told individual choice.  We're told individual choice and we're 
handed a villain who had none from the womb.  And to confound me 
(us?) further, in the final book, right after HBP has rammed home 
Voldemort's ineluctable development as Evil Personified, we're given 
Harry's dilemma over whether to pursue the Hallows or not.  In other 
words, it's all been decided long ago, but here's an interpolated 
choice (apart from as that interpolation, I don't think the Hallows 
have any real significance - the Cloak remains a plot device for 
allowing our hero to get into places he wouldn't otherwise be able 
to, the Stone is irrelevant, and only the Wand has any real 
importance).  When Dumbledore said that choice makes us who we are, 
he was lying: the Hat decides who we are.

I'm struggling to come up with any good examples of a character with 
a changed heart.  Dumbledore might seem a candidate, but then he 
tells us that his apparent goodness was weakness (and I'm inclined to 
believe him).  Percy or Regulus, perhaps, but they are both too 
secondary (and the the narrative function of the latter really seems 
only to have been there to get the locket out of the cave).  Malfoy's 
heart doesn't change: he's still an arrogant little toerag, just an 
arrogant little toerag who wasn't really up to the task and whose 
power base was removed.  His "curt nod" is an expression of 
submission.  

Your post has convinced me that this is not a Calvinist universe.  
But the question then remains: what sort of a moral universe is it?  
It's not strictly antinomian either, because of all that guff about 
choice.

The sad answer seems to be that it's an ill-thought-out mess.  And as 
Le Guin said, rather a mean-spirited one.  Do I think that she was 
consciously writing an antinomian text?  Absolutely not.  But I don't 
think that she ever decided what the parameters of her imagined moral 
universe were, and in a series which is expressly about the battle 
between good and evil, that is a crucial and lethal flaw.

For this reader, at least.  

Mus, who'll be really astonished if the bits of Greek survive - yay 
for the software if they do!