The Role of Religion in the Potterverse

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 186247

Carol earlier:
> > I understand and respect your feelings, but can you suggest another term in place of the conventional term "Christ figure" for a (fully human) character who resembles Christ in certain characteristics (such as love, humility, and self-sacrifice) without being Christ himself? ("Everyman" won't do; it's a different concept altogether.) Since it's possible to interpret a number of literary characters in this way (Gandalf, for example), we need a term for the concept, and "Christ figure" is the only one I know of that is actually used and commonly recognized. In the eyes of the literary critics who use this term, a Christ *figure* is no more Christ himself than a father *figure* is literally the father of the person who sees him in these terms. We could, for example, compare DD and Snape as father figures for Harry and Draco, respectively, with no delusions as to either of them being the character's actual father, just as we can see Harry as a Christ figure with no delusions as to his being Christ (or even Christ*like* in all respects).
> 
> Geoff:
> I think that your suggestion of a comparison with "father figure" is not entirely valid. A person *can* be a father figure in that they can fulfil every requirement except that of being the biological father of the person concerned.
> 
> For me, a Christ figure would have to fulfil the same work as Jesus himself. Since no one is God in human form or sinless, I maintain that they could not be such a person. Part of this has arisen in the past when various people suggested that Harry was Christ which I do not correlate with being a father figure.
> 
> My general answer would be that a person can be both Christ-like and 
> everyman. Harry, like many folk in the real world, can be so labelled. I 
> believe that all Christians should be Christ-like or strive to be so. Harry 
> is an everyman in the sense that we are; if we are honest, we all fall 
> short of being perfect both in our own estimation and that of others. 
> Some of us fall shorter than others, As an example, I look at those who 
> have devoted their lives to dealing with the poor (Mother Teresa for
> instance) and realise how much more I could do - and don't.
>
Carol responds:
The point is that "Christ figure" is a term used in literary criticism for a character who in various ways resembles Christ without being Christ (and without being divine). It has nothing to do with what Christians should or should not be. Since such characters exist, usually through the intention of the author, they need a name, and "Christ figure" is the agreed-upon term for such figures.

I used "fther figure" as an analogy because I thought it would be immediately intelligible. A father figure resembles a father in some respects, but he's not a father (or, at least, not the father or the person to whom he's a father figure). And father figures need not fulfill every requirement of a father. (Dumbledore, for example, fails in many respects. Other father figures in the HP books also fail. Arthur Weasley and Remus Lupin are weak; Snape is bitter and sarcastic; Vernon Dursley is abusive.) A Christ figure resembles Christ but isn't Christ and, as a human being, has human failings. As I keep saying, he isn't Christ or an allegory of Christ. His relation to Christ is symbolic or analogical, not allegorical.

I understand that no person can be Christ. I'm asking what other term you would use in place of the accepted term, "Christ figure," for a character who saves his people through self-sacrifice and undergoes a symbolic resurrection? Clearly, the parallels with Christ are intended by the author and can't be ignored because the character isn't and can't be Christ. JKR knows that. The reader knows that. Nevertheless, the analogy is both intended by the author and perceivable by many readers, and it needs a name. The accepted name is "Christ figure." I want to know what other name you would suggest for such a figure.

I am not arguing that Harry or any other literary character (except Aslan) *is* Christ or is intended to represent Christ, only that he is or can be interpreted as a Christ *figure* analogous to or resembling Chirst in certain respects. Christ figures are neither sinless nor divine.

I didn't invent the term, It's widespread in literary criticism (and film and drama criticism). The concept exists. It needs a name. The accepted name is "Christ figure." 

The problem is that what a Christ figure would have to be *for you* to accept the term as valid doesn't solve the problem because the term already exists and is in widespread use as the name of a particular concept. Trying to change it is like trying to rename Easter. Sure, "Easter" is the name of a pagan goddess, but it's in widespread use as the name of a Christian holiday, and I could call it "Resurrection Day" if I wanted to because I think it's more appropriate, but my using that new name won't change the fact that the rest of the Christian English-speaking world calls it Easter. Or I could reject the concept of Easter (as the non-Christian members of this list do), but that wouldn't undo the concept or eliminate its validity for those who do believe in it.

Or we can talk about literary terms. I didn't invent the concept of the unreliable narrator, for example. It exists, it has a name, and it can be demonstrated in the HP books and many other works of literature. I can't deny the existence of Christ figures in literature any more than I can deny the existence of unreliable narrators. I can only argue whether or not a particular character is a Christ figure or a particular narrator is unreliable.

Again, what a Christian ought to be and the fact that no human being can be Christ, or even Christlike in all respects, has nothing to do with the use of a Christ figure as a *literary device* or the recognition of a Christ figure by readers analyzing a literary work. 

Carol, not sure how she can make the point any clearer