July 29, 2007

The Real Lion...

Some interesting thoughts about Harry P...

....It has been widely observed that J.K. Rowling owes a creative debt to Christian fantasists J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis (apart from their fondness for initials). It's odd now to remember that, at the same time, some parents have objected to the magic depicted in the Harry Potter books as a glorification of satanic practices. For "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" confirms something else apart from the well-thought-out-ness of Ms. Rowling's moral universe: It is subtly but unmistakably Christian.

The principal Hogwarts holidays have always been Christmas and Easter, but it took five books before Ms. Rowling really began tipping her hand. In Book Six, "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," she addressed concepts of free will, the power of love, and the sanctity of the soul. But in the final volume she gently lays it all out. The preciousness of each human life; bodily resurrection after death; mercy, forgiveness and redemption; sacrificial love overcoming the powers of evil--strip away the elves, goblins, broomsticks and magic wands and these are the concepts that underpin the marvelously intricate world of Harry Potter.

There are clues throughout. At one point, Harry is led to a weapon that will enable him to destroy the Horcruxes when he finds them: "The ice reflected his distorted shadow and the beam of wandlight, but deep below the thick, misty gray carapace, something else glinted. A great silver cross . . ."

Two unattributed New Testament quotations recur in the story after Harry sees each on a tombstone in the village where he was born and his mother and father died. He discovers on the Dumbledore family tomb "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also," from Matthew. And on the grave of his own parents, he finds this, from I Corinthians: "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." On seeing it, Harry feels momentary horror: Does it imply a link between his parents and Voldemort's followers? Hermione gently sets him straight: "It doesn't mean defeating death in the way the Death Eaters mean it, Harry. It means . . . you know . . . living beyond death. Living after death."....

I'm not sure what I think about this, but it is plausible. However, my guess is that Rowling is just dabbling in a Christian direction because if one is playing with deep questions of life and death and meaning, there aren't many other places to go. It will be interesting to see what she does next. I've never heard rumor of her having any faith, but if she follows the logical path she's on....well, these things sneak up on you. I'd opine that Rowling is showing a sentimental attachment to some leftover shreds of Christian tradition, rather than the real Lion. Read this for contrast. (More thoughts below)

"Random Thoughts Sundays"250

One thing I find fascinating about the Harry Potter books is that they not about magic. At least not in the way it is usually portrayed. The "magic" in the book is more like some esoteric technology, and Rowling could have fit the very same plots into pure science fiction. The stories could have been about an unusual boy selected to go to a secret "Star Fleet Academy," and learn to use light sabers and matter transporters. And become pals with Ron Solo and Leia Granger.

The magic in the books does not seem to have any effect on people's souls, beyond the ways that anything we do affects our inner selves. Being a Slytherin and dabbling in black magic is bad for you, but no more so than, say, getting hanging out with a bad crowd and starting to commit non-magical crimes. The Death Eaters have gone bad, but it's not their magic that corrupts them. Rather, they are like people who join some socialist group and have to commit atrocities, which make them become more and more evil. Nor does anyone have to bend their souls in either a good or bad direction in order to be able to practice magic.

Nor is there any "Fairyland" in the books, no transcendent or otherworldly aspect to the magic. There's no mysticism involved. And HP is not like those fantasies where the magic itself has a deep or world-changing meaning. The Earthsea Trilogy, or The Serpent Mage are examples. But Rowling closed off that option from the beginning.

A Catholic aspect of HP is that Hogwarts has always included the good and the bad. There's never any suggestion that the Slytherins might be excluded from the "church,", or that the Gryffindors might split off to form a smaller and purer "denomination." And in the last book Dumbledore is revealed to have been rather flawed as a youth, and his good qualities seem to have grown from his sins. This is like many a saint, and not like a "Gandalf."

Posted by John Weidner at July 29, 2007 06:49 AM
Comments

Two comments:
First, regarding "One thing I find fascinating about the Harry Potter books is that they not about magic."
I've read only the first of the HP books, but even with that little exposure I believe that for the good characters, and the reader as well, magic is sought after as a source of wonder rather than a path to power.
Second, naming Rowling, alongside Tolkien, and Lewis, as writers whose stories are influenced by Christianity made me realize that the same can be said of Pullman's anti-religious fantasy novels. Pullman needs to build off a Christian worldview, even as he denounces it. I don't think lewis or Tolkien would be surprised by this, the devil can create nothing original, he can only invert and parody the Truth.

Posted by: Terry at July 29, 2007 03:44 AM

The people who continue to think of the Potter books as some sort of training manual, and freak out when they see their kids waving pretend wands and playing at "wizarding," never fail to amuse me. It's no coincidence that many of these modern day witch-hunters also seem to believe in that "prosperity Christianity," where Jesus is the path of not just your soul's salvation but earthly wealth, or at least earthly "happiness" in that you've found the special mechanism that makes everything hunky-dory, as opposed to those losers who don't go to your church.

It's a theme I've been thinking about a lot -- the idea many people have of God as some sort of machine -- kind of like the gadget C.S. Lewis criticized as existing in some kinds of children's writing, where you push a button and out comes a puppy or a piece of cake. The idea is that you perform these rituals, say these prayers, go to church on this schedule, think only the "right" thoughts (as defined by your church or your pastor or that book you bought at the Christian book store), and you'll be saved and go to heaven. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way -- God is not a machine, and prayers aren't magical spells.

I suppose it's human nature to think that way, though. And of course I know that humans need ritual and direction -- look at where a freewheeling DYI attitude has led people. On the other hand, this can be taken too far, and the ritual (the magical spells, if you will) become everything, and God gets forgotten. This isn't limited to Christianity, by the way -- Islam is a big example of this ritualistic way of life becoming more important than God (how convenient that there are so many hedges in Islam against talking about God; get too "close" to God and you get accused of making God too much like man, which is a big no-no in Islam).

Anyway, most of the Harry-Potter-magic-fearers seem to see the magic as a rival to their faith, which is rather sad. Of course, people do make all sorts of silly things into a religion -- see "Jediism." But when that happens it's time for the "guardians" of the traditional faiths to put away their torches and knives and look into the mirror -- no one leaves a faith because he thinks it isn't true, after all.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at July 29, 2007 06:00 AM

Argh. I meant "no one leaves a faith because he thinks it is true."

Posted by: Andrea Harris at July 29, 2007 06:01 AM

By the way, I don't know why the Opinion Journal writer finds Harry "wooden and unappealing." It's the "wooden" I take issue with -- he's often "unappealing" (in that he's no plaster saint, or the modern version -- the Political Correct hero who always says the right thing and never, ever loses his temper for the wrong reason, is never obtuse, always has the wellbeing of others foremost in his mind, doesn't have any crass or boring tastes -- for instance, no PC Hero is supposed to like some dumb sport, sports aren't "intellectual" -- I could go on and on but you get the idea). Anyway, the character is anything but "wooden."

Posted by: Andrea Harris at July 29, 2007 06:51 AM

Good point. I've encountered that criticism before, and it doesn't make sense. I suspect there is some sort of emoting that critics expect, and it bothers them that in times of difficulty Harry just grits his teeth and endures, and maybe becomes cranky and hard to live with.

So he's like a real teenager. They are almost all sort of "wooden."

Posted by: John Weidner at July 29, 2007 08:37 AM

Orrin Judd's take:

"...One should always be careful before guessing an author's intentions, but J.K. Rowling has definitely hinted that her religious views strongly influenced her stories. It is therefore worth noting that the most moving and memorable parts of the Harry Potter series -- including the final chapters of the last book -- read like creative narrative commentaries on 1 Corinthians 13..."
Posted by: John Weidner at July 29, 2007 09:18 AM
Weblog by John Weidner