The Role of Religion in the Potterverse

[Geoff Bannister]

No: HPFGUIDX 186248

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

Carol:
> 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.

Geoff:
Within literary criticism, yes.  But I have been looking at this from 
discussion I've had in the past with fellow Christians about the 
perception of our faith by others, not from a literary standpoint.

CArol:
> 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). 

Geoff:
Which, surprisingly, is precisely the point I made.

Carol:
> 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. 

Geoff:
But part of the problem stems from the fact that, in the past,  
we have had members of this group who *have* insisted that 
Harry is Christ.

Carol:
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.

Geoff:
I've already answered that.

Carol:
> 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. 

Geoff:
In a literary context as you have said but I hinted earlier that we don't 
all work in a literary environment.

Carol:
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. 

Geoff:
Tell that to the English councils who insist that their employees refer 
to "Winter Festival and not "Christmas".
:-(
 
Carol, 
not sure how she can make the point any clearer

Geoff:
You've made it quite clear in your usual inimitable fashion! It's just 
that I'm  not a literary analyst and am interpreting it within the context 
in which I have met it elsewhere. As I have said already, time to put it 
to bed, agree to amicably disagree and retire to a well-earned plate 
of eclairs and a large mug of hot chocolate.