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

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 186463

No.Limberger wrote:
> In earlier thread (a few weeks back), I believe you referenced the following site as a source for the definition of a "Christ figure": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_figure.
> 
> Here is that definition taken directly from Wikipedia:
> "A *Christ figure* is a literary technique that authors use to draw allusions between their characters and the biblical Jesus Christ."
> 
> No where does this definition indicate what can or cannot be used as a basis for comparison, nor is there an indication that any particular individual or group has been authorized to make such determinations. <snip>
> In other words, it is in the eye of the beholder, which is what I have repeated stated in past postings on this subject, but have been told by several that that view is wrong.
> 
> IMO, those that prefer use of the term "Christ figure" are alluding only to a single similarity: that of Harry dying and coming back to life.  They often also make references to a scant number of biblical quotations, as well as comments made by JK Rowling.  

Carol responds:
So far, so good. No one is stating that Harry is Christ, only that, like Christ, he sacrificed himself for the good of others and that his encounter with the dead Dumbledore at "King's Cross" and his return to the WW *can be viewed* as a symbolic resurrection. That much is sufficient to qualify him as a Christ figure as that term is generally used. And vague or not, the concept of Christ figure is common in literary criticism and it is applicable here for those who choose to apply it. Moreover, as you note, the biblical quotations and JKR's own comments indicate that she intended this parallel. It's there for those who wish to see it and for whom it is meaningful. In fact, even readers for whom it isn't meaningful have noted that they clearly see it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "any individual or group being authorized to make such determinations." JKR can certainly state her intentions (whether the reader agrees with them or not depends on how the reader interprets the evidence presented in the books), and any reader, whether a professional literary critic or a member of HPfGu, is "authorized" to interpret the books. That does not mean that just any interpretation is valid. I doubt, for example, that I could find sufficient canonical evidence to convince anyone that Wormtail is a Christ figure or that Scrimgeour is the real hero of the books. A valid interpretation is an interpretation that can be supported with sufficient evidence to persuade at least some readers to view the book in that way. And since many readers can see the evidence for Harry as Christ figure, it's a valid interpretation. It is not, however, the definitive interpretation, just one way in which the books can be read that happens to be meaningful to some readers.

You say that this interpretation is "in the eye of the beholder." Yes and no. Yes, not everyone will accept this interpretation, and you have every right to reject an interpretation that isn't meaningful to you. But, no, in the sense that your objection to the Christ figure interpretation does not make that interpretation invalid. The evidence to support that reading still exists, both in the text itself and in JKR's stated intentions. By the same token, I disagree with and reject alchemical interpretations, but I can't deny that the evidence for such interpretations can be found in the text. They are, therefore, valid interpretations even though they are not meaningful to me.

Only an interpretation that can't be supported (e.g., the Harry Potter books will encourage children to practice witchcraft) is invalid. Such interpretations can be proven wrong by evidence within the text (in this case, Muggles can't perform magic).

No. Limberger:
> The purpose, then, is not to use the term "Christ figure" as merely a literary comparison (a comparison that I personally find no relevant value given the weakness of the definition itself), but to imply a more deliberate attempt by JKR to use the Harry Potter books a means to promote Christianity itself.  This is something that I completely disagree with. <snip>

Carol responds:
Can you explain where you got this idea? "Christ figure" *is* "merely a literary comparison," regardless of whether you feel that the definition is weak. "Christ figure" is merely a term that can be applied to a literary character as a means of understanding how that character functions in the novel or other literary work.

The idea that JKR is using the books to promote Christianity is a completely unrelated concept. (Are you talking about John Granger? It's unclear where this idea came from.)

It would help if you could quote the person (certainly not me!) who has argued that the HP books are "a means to promote Christianity itself" and answer that person's arguments using canonical evidence. Do you have some other explanation for the sudden appearance of biblical quotations, crosses, and other Christian motifs in DH? (I would argue that they're part of the cultural context of the WW and Muggle England rather than a means of indoctrinating the reader.)

At any rate, stating that Harry is or can be viewed as a Christ figure is by no means the same thing as saying that the HP books are a Christian tract intended to indoctrinate young readers. No one, to my knowledge, is arguing that they're any such thing.

Carol earlier:
> >And I have yet to hear any Christian complain that a Christ figure "waters down" the concept of Christ.
> 
> No.Limberger responds:
> Certainly those who have used the term as a way to promote Christianity itself would not say that.

Carol:
Who are these mysterious people? It would help if you could identify and quote them. Otherwise, you seem to be arguing against a straw man.

Carol, still mystified as to where this Christian tract idea is coming from