Antinomianism - Draco - the DA

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 177330

Mike: Talking about other people's religions has always made me 
uncomfortable. I'd just soon we left out specific religions and 
instead speak in terms of concepts, frameworks, and general 
principals if thats all right with you. Using wynnleaf's definitions, 
and I'm going to accept her view as expert testimony given her 
background in this area, we could go forward with this:

>>> wynnleaf:
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. <<<

Lizzyben, can we therefore call the concept you are forwarding as 
antinomianism, per wynnleaf's definition? As she didn't capitalize 
it, I assume it is a concept rather than a specific religion. I would 
feel safer, less worried about stepping on toes if we go this route.



> > Mike previous:
> > 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. 
> 
> lizzyben:
> 
> <snip> - "King's Cross." In this chapter, Harry "dies" and his 
> soul travels to a kind of afterlife. There his flaws & scars 
> are washed away, and his perfect soul meets with Dumbledore (God)
> in light. 

[Harry] "Then ... I'm dead too?"
[Dumbledore] "On the whole, dear boy, I think not."

My point was that this was a sort of *Way Station* between life and 
death. Harry *possibly* had a choice to go on to ... where? we don't 
know, because THAT is the final journey, Dumbledore's famous "next 
great adventure", that is **NEVER** defined. So JKR purposely stayed 
away from saying some wizards go to Heaven and some go to Hell. 
Instead she gave us DD's next great adventure. 

Does she imply a Heaven and Hell for wizards? I don't think she does, 
instead she gives us those that were afraid of death and those that 
weren't. Tom Riddle, Nearly Headless Nick, some of the other ghosts 
no doubt are afraid of *going on*. DD, the Flamels, James, Lily, 
Sirius, etc. do *go on*. We have Gryffs (your elect) that don't *go 
on* and presumedly, since the WW isn't filled with their ghosts, we 
have Slyths (your damned) that do *go on*. I have no doubt that Snape 
did, and that Slughorn, Draco and many others Slyths will go on in 
their time.


> lizzyben:
> At the same time, LV's reprobate, evil, soul is condemned to 
> everlasting torment, agony and punishment. 

Mike:
Voldemort is not dead either. He's at the same Way Station as Harry. 
And it was explained to us in "The Flaw in the Plan":

"It's your one last chance," said Harry, "it's all you've got left
... I've seen what you'll be otherwise ... Be a man ... try ... Try 
for some remorse ..."

It is a *chance*, Voldemort's final disposition is not yet decided, 
what he will become *otherwise* connotes that there is an alternative 
ending to that flayed soulbit. And as I asked in my previous post, 
what chance is this? A chance to leave that Way Station and go to 
Hell? What would be the point? Also, as I said above, JKR doesn't 
have wizard Heaven and Hell, she has *going on* or not. It seems to 
me that that is the *chance* we are talking about here, the chance to 
*go on*.

If JKR has Voldemort, the most evil character in the Potterverse, 
with still the chance to avoid being "damned" for all eternity, then 
I don't believe she wrote a story where all Slytherins are damned 
from the time they are sorted, either.


> lizzyben:

> God (DD) tells elect Harry that there is no help possible for the
> damned. 

Mike:
I strenuously disagree with the depiction of DD as God in the King's 
Cross station. He is shown explaining from his (DD's) perspective, he 
is admitting to his mistakes in life, unaware of whose curse actually 
killed Ariana and crying over the memory. I neither think DD is 
depicted as God nor think that JKR expected us to make that 
interpretation. This is again getting too close to personal religious 
discussion of the type that I am very uncomfortable with. I really 
don't want to tell you or anyone what their concept of God should or 
shouldn't be. If we could stick to discussing concepts, we should 
avoid putting peoples personal religious views on the table.



> > Mike:
> > Therefore, the rest of the WW is forgiven their sins 
> > including all the Slytherins.
> 
> lizzyben:
> 
> But in Calvinism, Christ's sacrifice only
> saves & protects *some* of mankind - the elect. 

Mike:
My example was a counter to your anitnomianism concept. I was 
attempting an - I don't know, possibly Roman Catholic - allegory. 
Point being, one could pick any number of canonical references and 
conceive an allegorical meaning tying to any number of religious 
concepts. I don't find it profitable to make either these allegorical 
propositions. Obviously, your mileage varies.


> lizzyben:
> 
> Yes, the Slytherins chose their path. And they chose badly because
> they have bad characters. 

Mike:
That's all and as far as I'm willing admit. I adhere to Steve's 
position, that it's up to the Slytherins to change their ways, not up 
to the rest of the WW to accept them as equals until they do. I also 
think part of the message is that now that the last of the Slytherin 
line is extinguished, those that identified with the worst of the 
Slytherin values have noone to rally to. That gives me hope that the 
better part of the Slytherins may come to the fore.


> lizzyben:
> 
> Well, according to JKR, we were *shown* that LV could repent because
> he had a drop of Harry's pure blood in him. 

Mike:
I've said this before, I don't care to debate what JKR said in 
interviews. I *don't* view her interviews as canon any more. In this, 
I take Magpie's position, if it's not in the book, it's conjecture.

JKR *wrote* that Voldemort still had a chance to avoid eternity as 
that flayed soulbit, despite the fact that he caused his soul to 
become that abomination of his own free will. Why this is the case... 
I agree with you, it's not well defined. But the fact that it exists, 
counters your depiction as foregone conclusion of being "damned".


> lizzyben:
> 
> Hope this helps explain my position somewhat. <snip>

Mike:
Yes, you've done a good job of explaining your position. I don't 
agree with your take on it, but I do see where you are coming from.


*****************************
I thought this one point from a few days ago, should be addressed.

In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/177207

> lizzyben:
> Not only did Hermione hit him once, she was about to hit him again
when Ron grabbed her arm, .... I fail to see how Hermione was in any 
way threatened here - she was the instigator of violence.

Mike:
Violence? A 14-year-old, not physically imposing, bookworm of a girl 
hits a 13-year-old boy with an open-handed slap. Violence? Draco is 
stunned mentally but in no way hurt physically. Violence? Could we be 
a little more realistic with the nouns here? It was a slap. My 
goodness, such a stretch.

******************************
In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/177312

> >>Alla:
> I mean, she is manipulating me but in a different sense that I
> understood you to imply. She manipulates me in a sense that I
> follow her story, that I enjoy it, etc, but it is not a
> manipulation really, it is a good solid writing I love.
> <snip>

> Betsy Hp:
> That's exactly the sort of manipulation I'm talking about. Just as
it'd be boring for us to read about a "story-book hero" facing peril
we know he's going to get out of (as he's the hero), it's boring
watching the BMOC smear a regular guy. So JKR gets us to forget that
Harry is better liked than Draco, that whenever they clash Harry
wins, and that Harry has more people backing him up. That way we get
that viseral "Yay!" when Harry beats Draco down. It's good writing
on JKR's part, and that's the manipulation I'm talking about.

Mike:
Yep, good writing on JKR's part. Which is why there are people on 
this list discussing her books. Because she *manipulates* us into 
believing in her world. If she hadn't made her world believable, we 
wouldn't be discussing it, would we? If she didn't cause us to 
immerse ourselves into her characters, we wouldn't care what happened 
to them. Why would anyone read, much less discuss, a work of fiction 
if you didn't allow yourself to be manipulated by the author? 
Manipulated into believing the story, not necessarily agreeing with 
all of the author's positions within the story.

Therein lies the difference. Because, like Alla, I found the 
characterization plausible as well as enjoyable. Not that I liked 
everything that went on, but that I cared about what happened to 
these characters. That only happens, imo, because I found the actions 
of the characters reasonable, believable, and true to the precepts 
JKR set up. Therefore, I allow myself to be manipulated.

As to BMOC, isn't part of being a BMOC knowing and believing that 
defines ones position? Can one be a reluctant BMOC? Being in Harry's 
pov, I don't get the sense that Harry thinks of himself as BMOC, 
until HBP. He was totally surprised that Ron was right about the Yule 
Ball, that Harry practically had his pick of dates. And he *still* 
didn't get to go with the girl he wanted to. What good is it being a 
BMOC if you still get beat out by a bigger BMOC?

Even at the beginning of HBP, Hermione has to explain to him why all 
the people have signed up for his Quidditch tryouts. He knows he's 
this "famous Harry Potter", yet doesn't buy into concept himself. He 
avoids all those girls trying to get him to invite them to the 
Christmas Party. I was friends with a high school BMOC, he took 
advantage of his position, he didn't shy away from it. 

I guess what I'm saying is that we have a different concept of what 
it means to be BMOC. My BMOC would never have a guy like Ernie 
McMillan believing he's the heir of Slytherin. My BMOC would never 
have 3/4 of the school wearing Potter Stinks buttons. He would have 
some admirers trying to ask him for a date, but wouldn't go out of 
his way to avoid those admirers. 


> Betsy Hp:
> (Of course, it didn't work on me, but I'm not saying it's because 
I'm smarter or anything. The Draco vs. Harry thing is more personal
taste, I suspect. I know JKR meant for us to be turned off by Draco
in his first scene, but Draco pinged things I like. Which means my
interpertation is subversive. Deeply subversive as of DH. <g>)

Mike:
I hate to burst your bubble Betsy <eg> but you got manipulated just 
as much as the rest of us, dear. Mmm-hmm. Of course, I didn't believe 
that JKR's message was that I should unquestioningly accept her view 
of the characters. Just that the characters were believable, in her 
world. 

If Draco pinged things for you, you must have found him believable, 
no? Isn't that all a good writer asks in the long run? That you 
identify with her characters, not that you like or dislike the same 
characters that the author likes or dislikes. Didn't JKR say that 
Snape was a gift of a character, even though she doesn't understand 
why people like him? (I think JKR must have liked him a little too, 
but that's just a guess). 

Subversive reading in that you didn't like the characters that the 
author set us up to like? OK, I buy that. But you liked some of her 
characters, didn't you? So you were manipulated in the same way that 
me and Alla got manipulated, just your end result was different.


> Betsy Hp:
> Frankly, the DA group echoed so much about the Hitler Youth to
> me it was a little bit scary. 

Mike:
Oh, the Hitler Youth was a subversive organization, formed by those 
youths, against the in-place government's wishes, learning things the 
government didn't want them to know? Or was it the Hitler Youth's 
encouragment for spying on your neighbor, reporting any remotely 
subversive people or anti-government ideas that evinced a parallel to 
the DA? Hmm, different History books I'd imagine.

Mike, who would still rather have been a Marauder than in the DA ;)