MAGICkal elITE - The Boy, The Man, The Hero, the Saint.

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 186435

No.Limberger wrote:
> <snip>
> 
> As I have previously indicated, there is no harm in viewing Harry Potter as a "Christ-like figure" or "Christ-figure".  However, Harry's life falls so far short of that described in the Christian new testament of the life of Jesus that, yes, to see such a strong parallel between Harry and Jesus can be a stretch. The alternative is to so water down the definition of "Christ-figure" as to make it apply to virtually anyone who has ever done any kind of a heroic act, such as soldiers who were wounded or died in battle in efforts to save others, policeman and firemen who have done the same, Buddha, Frodo Baggins, Perseus, Luke Skywalker, etc.  Since a difference that makes no difference is no difference, use of the term "Christ-figure" in that context is meaningless.  Otherwise, the bar is raised so high that only Jesus qualifies.  Additionally, to have such a watered-down definition of "Christ-figure", imo, can potentially reduce the value of the the new testament stories of Jesus that Christians hold dear.
> 
> What makes the stories about Harry and Jesus (as well as every other mythic, religious and fictional hero) have similar elements is that each is a variant of the common "hero's journey".
> 
> Now, let us consider some of the differences between Harry's life and the life of Jesus as described in the Christian new testament.  Was Harry born of a virgin as Jesus was?  No,Harry is clearly the son of James and Lily Potter.  At the time of Harry's birth was he visited by three magi, was there a new star in the sky, or were there heavenly angels visiting wizards to tell them that a wizard savior had been born to parallel similar stories about the birth of Jesus?  <snip>

> IMO, the differences between Harry and Jesus far outweigh the similarities when it comes to comparing them beyond those elements in common as described by "the hero's journey". If people want to view Harry as being "Christ-like" or a "Christ-figure", that is a personal choice.

>
Carol responds:
I certainly agree that Harry is not Christ, but I have yet to encounter anyone who claims that he is. And I agree that viewing Harry as a Christ figure or not is a personal preference (as is viewing Harry from the perspective of "the hero's journey"). But, as I've said repeatedly, a Christ *figure* is a common literary motif which is different from an allegorical representation of Christ (e.g., Aslan). 

You're trying to make the definition of Christ figure identical with Christ himself, which no literary critic using the term would do. Of course, Harry doesn't fit your definition. He isn't Christ. A Christ figure, as any literary critic would tell you, resembles Christ in certain significant ways, not in every way or even most ways. He (or she) is often an ordinary person who sacrifices himself to save others and/or experiences some sort of resurrection or return to earthly life (both Gandalf and Harry qualify as Christ figures by this definition though admittedly Gandalf is not an ordinary person. As I have already pointed out, "Christ figure" is not identical to hero, either in the sense of everyday hero or epic hero. Firemen who die in the line of duty saving someone else do not reappear on earth after having experienced some sort of resurrection, and epic heroes who have visited the Underworld and returned have not died to get there.Harry, of course, does not literally die, but he does, for the second time, survive a Killing Curse, he does experience the first stage of the journey to whatever is beyond earthly life, and he could have chosen to "go on"--that is, to die without returning. His is a symbolic resurrection, certainly, but it's nevertheless, in Dead!Dumbledore's word, "real."

No virgin birth is necessary for a literary character to be interpreted as a Christ figure. No walking on water is necessary. No magi are necessary (though it's rather likely that the newborn Harry was visited by three wizards named Lupin, Black, and Pettigrew). no crown of thorns is necessary. Ad infinitum. Conversely, no critic who interprets a literary hero as a Christ figure works backwards to argue that Christ didn't experience the elements of the hero's life. Of course, he didn't. He experienced the life of a Jewish boy and man in Palestine during the early days of the Roman Empire. That's completely irrelevant to the Christ figure argument. (Harry's being raised by unloving stepparents is a folklore motif, not an element of the Christ figure pattern, FWIW.)



And I have yet to hear any Christian complain that a Christ figure "waters down" the concept of Christ. In fact, Christians are supposed to attempt to be Christlike as far as possible, especially in forgiving those who wrong them (Harry forgiving Ron and DD and Snape and even Wormtail). We could also, probably, show Harry as a "Christian figure" like the Pilgrim in "Pilgrim's Progress" though not so obviously allegorical, journeying toward forgiveness of others and an understanding that death is not the end of all things. Again, it's just one way of exploring and applying the Christian motifs that are present in the stories, especially DH.

We can call Dumbledore a Merlin figure and draw parallels showing resemblances between the two, intentional or otherwise. (I think they're intentional.) That does not make Dumbledore Merlin. By the same token, the (intentional) resemblances between Harry and Christ do not make Harry Christ, nor do they eliminate the possibility of other interpretations, including Harry as Everyman and Harry as epic hero.

*Of course*, Harry in some ways fits the pattern of the hero's journey, which, IIRC, JKR has said that she's familiar with. The old mentor, she says, has to die. We could go through all the other stages, too, and see how well they fit. But showing that the HP books conform to one familiar pattern does not tell us everything that we can learn by examining the books. There are other, equally valid, ways to look at it, one of which is Christ figure. We understand that Harry is not Christ. We understand that you reject the concept of Christ figure as you have chosen to define it. Your definition, however, is not the one that literary critics use, and arguing that Harry can't walk on water or that no new star appeared in the sky at his birth does not eliminate the parallels that do exist, including the appellation Chosen One. You can, if you choose, compare Harry to mythic heroes who fulfill a prophecy. That's perfectly legitimate. But so is the Christ figure interpretation when the definition of Christ figure is not distorted to be equivalent to Christ himself.

That JKR intended DH to incorporate Christian themes of some kind is evident from the second epigraph to that book, the one by William Penn. That she also intended classical themes and parallels is evident from the first epigraph, the one from Aeschylus. (Placing the epigraph from Aeschylus first may seem to make it more important, but most debaters save their best arguments for last, knowing that what comes last is most likely to be remembered.)

My point is that no one interpretation, no one way of looking at the books, will tell us everything that we can know or understand about them. Some interpretations will appeal to some readers more than others. (For example, I have no interest in alchemical or Freudian interpretations, but I'm not going to call them invalid if they're supported by canon just because they examine aspects of the books that I'd rather ignore. I can just imagine a Freudian having a field day with Hermione using a phallic Basilisk fang to destroy the "feminine" cup. That sort of interpretation leaves me cold, just as the Christ figure interpretation does for you.)

Can you refresh our memories regarding the "hero's journey" and how it applies to Harry? It's been awhile since I read Joseph Campbell or since anyone on that list discussed that topic. What can Campbell add to our understanding of Harry's growth and development (which can also be viewed from the standpoint of the Bildungsroman)? IOW, rather than redefining "Christ figure" and in so doing turning your argument into a straw man fallacy, how about ignoring the interpretation you reject and supporting your own?

Carol, reiterating that any interpretation that can be supported by canon is a valid interpretation whether or not we agree with it