HBP spoiler(ish): Hor-thingies: etymology

[Barry Arrowsmith]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> The Time magazine interview:
> 
> http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-time-grossman.htm
> 
> (Interestingly, although Rowling is a member of the Church of
> Scotland, the books are free of references to God. On this point, 
> Rowling is cagey.
>  "Um. I don't think they're that secular," she says, choosing her
> words slowly. "But, obviously, Dumbledore is not Jesus.")
> ---
>

Interesting interview.
I'll quote a few more bits later,  but before those - I did a search in
Quick Quotes using 'religion' or 'secular' as key words. Only one of
the latter, the Times interview you mention. Five results for the
former: Chicago Sun Times, New York Times, CBC, the US version
of BBC's "Harry Potter and me" and the UK version of the same.
In the last two 'religion' turns up as a concern voiced by a couple
of Carolinians and linked with 'promoting witchcraft'. Admittedly it's 
small numbers, but if QQ is accurate nobody outside the US has shown
 much concern over secular/spiritual content, certainly not enough to 
bring it up in interview, anyway. It appears to be a minority interest, 
which was more or less the point in my previous post.

It does seem that Jo is a bit cautious, even touchy on this subject; I 
remember that when she told that OoP contained more words than the
New Testament, her response was "I suppose they'll use that against me
as well" referring to the religious Right. (Paxman interview.) It was 
elements of this fairly influential group that was agitating to get her 
books banned from libraries, after all. Not be surprising if she doesn't 
want to stir them up again.

Which leads back to the quote you posted. The Times writer had stated 
that in the books 
"Her Hogwarts is secular and sexual and multicultural and even sort of 
multimedia, with all those talking ghosts. If Lewis showed up there, lets 
face it, he'd probably wind up a Death Eater." 

I think Jo was being careful, not further alienating those not very fond of
her to start with.

The Times writer also states:
"And unlike Lewis, whose books are drenched in theology, Rowling 
refuses to view herself as a moral educator to millions of children who 
read her books. "I don't think it's at all healthy for the work for me to 
think in those terms. So I don't," she says. "I never think in terms of what
I am going to teach them. Or what would be good for them to find out 
here. Although," she adds,"undeniably morals are drawn."
 
Morals are drawn. By the readers? But which morals would be entirely up 
to them, I assume. Which is approximately where we ended up the last 
time we discussed JKR and moral/ethical systems.


> 
> I'd feel silly ignoring it, nor do I see why its existence should be 
> more offensive to fans than a framework of secular humanism, or 
> multi-culturalism or agnosticism or existentialism or  any other 
> philosophy.
> 
> Fans might be disappointed to learn that the author's philosophy
> is different from theirs; on the other hand they might also find
> it  depressing to think she hadn't an idea in her head and it
> was all just fluff, created with no no other purpose than to kill 
> lots of trees and make piles of money for the author (not that 
> she doesn't deserve every penny.)
>

Do readers automatically assume that an author will or should include
in a work of fiction references to their personal philosophical bent?
Terry Pratchett is in trouble then - a more disreputable bunch of
low-lifes has rarely been encountered outside politics. And he revels 
in their mendacity. Ann Rice would be an even worse case.

To a greater or lesser extent the old truism holds.
What you get out of it depends on what you bring to it.
Those with religious convictions will find support for those convictions,
even if it's in a negative fashion i.e. a book so opposed to their beliefs
that it ends up strengthening them. What does not destroy us ....

The a-religious will notice not very much of this sort of thing - unless
it's shoved down their throat. And if it were I wouldn't be reading HP. 

 
> Pippin
> noting that the cathedral metaphor showed up again in HPB

I did another quick search.
Jo is Church of Scotland - Presbyterian. They don't build cathedrals,
though it seems there are a few pre-reformation buildings that were formerly
cathedrals and are now C of S places of worship that are still referred to as such.
I'd keep thinking of it as an image-evocative metaphor for a large enclosed
space if I were you.

Kneasy