The Role of Religion in the Potterverse was Magical Latin

[Miles]

No: HPFGUIDX 186208

> Geoff:
> The question of the Christ figure, for me, is that no human person
> can be Christ or carry the responsibility of Christ in overcoming
> sin. Jesus was God in human form; no human is. Harry, like us, can
> be Christ-like which we can be; that, as I have said before, does
> not make us infallible, saintly or superior. Despite what another
> contributor has written, I do not see that JKR created a character
> irritating in his saintliness. I see him as an Everyman, like us,
> trying to find his way through life and deterine the best way
> forward. I see myself in him as a teenager trying to get into
> adulthood with a minimum of mess-ups. <snip>

> Carol:
> Agree to disagree. As I've said about three times already in this
> thread, a Christ *figure* is not the same as Christ or an allegorical
> depiction of Christ. I accept Harry as Everyman as a valid reading,
> but I also accept Harry as Christ figure as a valid reading. Any
> reading that can be supported from elements in the text (and can't be
> directly disproved from those same elements) is a valid reading. That
> doesn't mean that it's the only possible interpretation.

Miles
While I agree that Harry can be interpreted using the literature category 
"Christ figure", I'm not really sure if it makes too much sense to do so. 
Actually, I do not like this category at all. It's difficult to use it as a 
tool of literary description, as for example you can describe a certain kind 
of plot development or the narrator's position in a book. And I think this 
is part of the the discussion you and others have with No.Limberger.

No.Limberger rejects Harry being a "Christ figure" because the aspects of 
this character are not exclusively Christian, Geoff denies the validity of 
the category because Harry is not God or even saintlike. (By the way, Harry 
chooses his own death because he wants the death of the Evil *within 
himself* - while Christ is *without sin*).

I read the wikipedia article about "Christ figure" as Carol suggested, and 
if I use the definition presented there, nearly all heroes in modern 
literature would count (or could be described) as a Christ figure. A cloudy 
definition like that doesn't help very much if you try to characterize a 
piece of literature, IMO. On the other hand, if you try to find a narrower 
definition, you might get in trouble for the reasons Geoff and others 
mentioned upthread. Well, and one should not try to find a definition that 
suits one's argument in the first place, one should try to find the best 
definition ;).

I think it's obvious that the Potterverse is built on Christian fundaments, 
as the contemporary Great Britain is. And we know from Rowling herself that 
her Christian faith influenced her work, therefore it's only fair to look 
for Christian values and messages in the Harry Potter books. But I don't 
think that's contradicting the impression that the messages and values in 
Harry Potter are universal.

Upthread we had a discussion about how originally Christian faith is 
compared to other religions. That discussion was a bit similar to the one 
about Harry being a Christ figure or not. If you just pick some parts of 
Christian belief (God becoming a human being, self-sacrifice, resurrection, 
virgin birth etc.), you can easily find other religions who know similar 
concepts. If you narrow the description to exclude other religions (or make 
all the parts of the definition mandatory), and if you narrow it more and 
more, you will come to a definition that only meets Christianity (so Alla 
will not receive any answers on the chatter list to her question which other 
religion meets her definition of Christianity). Compare it to the Christ 
figure question - either you have a very broad definition, than it will not 
exclude enough to be of any use, or you have a very narrow one, then it will 
only meet allegoric characters like Arslan.

Back to Rowling's Harry Potter.
For me, the Christian elements that are part of the Christian background of 
Harry Potter's world are not crucial (interesting word here) for the essence 
of the books. Rowling did not write a book about wizards to make it clear 
that they celebrate christmas, or put bible quotes on their tombstones. They 
do because they are British, as they do not like to talk about their 
emotions/are embarrassed by emotions because they are British (sorry for the 
stereotype), or eat fried sausages for breakfast (ugh!).

Let's have a look at the important things in Harry Potter:
Friendship, to do the right thing instead of the easy thing, humans have an 
eternal soul, death is not the end, the soul can be damaged and healed, love 
can conquer all...
If you put all that together, and if you keep every shade of Rowling's 
intentions and what she actually wrote in her books, I think it'd be right 
to say Harry Potter is the work of a Christian author, thus Christian 
literature.
But since readers are free to read books in their own way, pick one message 
and leave another, reject this and embrace that, the Harry Potter books' 
essence is a universal one as well. For example, an atheistic reader would 
not accept the eternal soul, but could appreciate the ethical messages of 
the books.

We all have the liberty to either narrow our view on the books (which makes 
sense if you want to analyze them) or to widen it (for example if we try to 
understand their global success). Both views have their advantages and 
weaknesses, but both are justifiable.