Yes
No
No, it is not the same. It is allegory, not anything else. It is the bible on ice, an uninnocent take on history, and a rather simplistic approach to the world. It says, to me at least, either you fight with Jesus, or you are against Jesus. There is too much literature already that features Jesus as a protagonist, this is just a popular example. These, I would argue, are not a modern set of myths, but a retelling of a dated set of myths.
Originally Posted by JBI
I agree that it is a retelling, but it is far from modern, and it is not Christian, not that it is anti-Christian. It is a sort of turn-about on the way that the Christian missionaries converted Iceland; they said that Ragnarok had happened, but it wasn't exactly as the myth said. Rowling is saying, in effect, that the ancient faiths are still there, but we just don't notice them most of the time.
I think that the Christians who preach that Harry is anti-Christian are almost right.
They say it is because of a line from Exodus;
Exodus 22, King James Version
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
That is the reason why. Of course, that is a mistranslation, but what can you do. There is enough commentary on the meaning of מכשפה to render this interpretation of the text idiotic by most Jewish commentators. Many commentators actually dispute the true meaning of the word. The definition given by Christians for the term "witch" is actually derived from other pagan traditions. The meaning in the Tanakh stems from more of a witch-doctor tradition or a false medium. In short, someone who professes that they have powers from other places than the one god. The allegorical characters in Harry Potter hardly fit this category. The prophet Isaiah is believed to have had even more power than that. Elijah is believed to have have flown in a chariot to heaven, I see that as no less grand than flying in one to a school. The Witch definition that seems to be formed from the Jewish tradition is often also linked to a follower of Lilith, the first wife of Adam who went against god and the angels. Either way, Harry Potter has nothing to do with this.
It is a very Christian text in many ways. The ending is the most obvious, but also the nature of the conflict. All of these good verses bad novels seem to be rooted in Christianity, since according to most traditions, they don't exist in that form.
Rowling is saying nothing about ancient myths. She is pushing Christianity, which has very dated. She, a firm follower of Lewis, is to some degree even pushing Lewis. Her works are too firmly rooted in her personal beliefs to be read as anything than a justification on her way of life verses another.
You have clearly given Harry Potter a lot more critical thought than me! I'm not going to argue that any of your analysis is wrong, I'm merely saying it is irrelevant. I agree with you that Harry Potter is - compared to the Great Works of Literature - completely insignificant BUT it is a children's book and therefore (in my opinion) should only be judged as such
Your critical analysis was an interesting read though
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
Uhm, except Harry Potter isn't an allegory by any stretch of the imagination. I think the books have more in common with Tolkien than they do with Lewis.
Symbolic allusions to the Bible or to be more blunt scenes practically stolen right out of the Bible do NOT necessarily an allegory make. There are so many other ways to read Harry Potter than from a "religious perspective."
"You understand well enough what slavery is, but freedom you have never experienced, so you do not know if it tastes sweet or bitter. If you ever did come to experience it, you would advise us to fight for it not with spears only, but with axes too." - Herodotus
https://consolationofreading.wordpress.com/ - my book blog!
Feed the Hungry!
Such as what? She herself has stated it is a very religious book, and even as far as to spoil the ending after the publication of the 5th book by revealing it as a religious work. Now you are contradicting the author.
And on the note of let it go because it is a children's book, children's literature has as established a canon as non-children's literature. I can't see giving Potter to a kid as better than giving Kipling, or giving Roald Dahl, or giving Burnett, or even Shel Silverstein, or Dr. Seuss, or any of the children's greats.
First, there is nothing wrong with contradicting the author.
That's why there is a long history of literary theory that has challenged the author's authority as final interpretation or even important for interpretation at all, the two seminal essays in this area being William Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley's intentional fallacy and Roland Barthes' The Death of the Author, but there are many others besides who have dealt with this issue on different theoritical grounds.
I agree with the problems that these theorists raise as far author intentionality, but also disagree that the author should be entirely excluded from the picture.
Basically my position is that the author should be a guide-post, not chains and fetters. However, the real point being there is nothing actually wrong with contradicting or disagreeing with an author; they may not be aware of elements within their story for a number of reasons.
Second, I don't disagree that Harry Potter can be read in a religious light and has spiritual/religious elements. So I am not sure I am actually disagreeing with anything Rowling ever said. If you can find where Rowling explicitly states that she meant her novels to be a Christian allegory than by all means share it with us.
Allusions to the Bible do not automatically equal allegory. Certainly the scene in the last book where Potter dies and comes back to life is allegorical and Christ-like, but that doesn't make the entire set of novels a Christian allegory. Potter is more than just a stand-in for Jesus. Not to mention the other characters aren't personifications of some political message or religious symbolism either.
They are "real" characters that are more than just symbolic mouth-pieces. Harry goes through a variety of teenager type transitions as major parts of the story that have nothing to do with Christian allegory; he has real concerns about his life, about his fame, about his friendship, about his love life, about his past that often have nothing to do directly with him saving the world or preaching or doing something Jesus-like.
Allegory is the wrong genre.
"You understand well enough what slavery is, but freedom you have never experienced, so you do not know if it tastes sweet or bitter. If you ever did come to experience it, you would advise us to fight for it not with spears only, but with axes too." - Herodotus
https://consolationofreading.wordpress.com/ - my book blog!
Feed the Hungry!
Perhaps it is only part allegory, as you say, though the World War allegorical elements are present again. I personally think the book is world war 2, with a Christ like savior coming to liberate the people. The series being spun around a certain prophesy of the "chosen one" seems to push it more towards religious allegory as well, but that is not all, to dig around other sources;
http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/culture/thinking/561a/
To quote,
John Granger, author of The Hidden Key to Harry Potter, believes Rowling has been misunderstood and misrepresented. He describes first book, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone as “a tale of the soul’s purification, illumination, and perfection in Christ (written in the medieval language of spiritual alchemy).”“That the blood of the unicorn will curse those who drink it unworthily, and that it has life-giving power, echoes St Paul’s discourse on the unworthy reception of Communion, which is the blood of Christ.”
I am unable to find the article I read about her talking after the release of the 5th book, but I'll dig around later (I had read it upon its publication, so it is a little difficult to find).At the centre of the morality play was an allegorical spiritual journey undertaken by ‘Everyman’. John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress is written in this style.
John Granger sees the climax of Book II, where Harry descends to the chamber of secrets to rescue Ginny Weasley as “the clearest Christian allegory of salvation history since Lewis’s The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. ... Using only traditional symbols, from the ‘Ancient of Days’ figure as God the Father to the satanic serpent and Christ-like phoenix (‘the Resurrection Bird’), the drama takes us from the fall to eternal life without a hitch.”
Granger provides a compelling argument for seeing the divine in the ‘demonic’ Harry Potter books. Describing the scene in detail, he explains what happens in terms of allegory. The following is Granger’s key to unlocking the climactic scene.
• Harry is ‘Every Man’
• Ginny is ‘Innocence, Purity’
• Riddle/Voldemort is ‘Satan, the Deceiver’
• The Basilisk is ‘Sin’
• Dumbledore is ‘God the Father’
• Fawkes the Phoenix is ‘Christ’
• Phoenix Song is ‘Holy Spirit’
• Gryffyndor’s Sword is ‘the Sword of Faith/Spirit’ (Eph 6:17)
• The Chamber is ‘the World’ and
• Hogwarts is ‘Heaven’
Most fantasies use the "chosen one" of prophesy trope to save them from the Dark evil Lord. Certainly this is inspired by Christian ideas (really it is the influence of Tolkien), but that doesn't mean these stories are necessarily allegorical.The series being spun around a certain prophesy of the "chosen one" seems to push it more towards religious allegory as well, but that is not all, to dig around other sources;
John Granger sounds like he has some interesting points, but I still think it is a mistake to read Potter as a Christian allegory. For me allegory has specific connotations as a literary type, one that utilizes symbolic personification, that pretty much has a one-to-one metaphoric correlation. The characters shouldn't feel like people with their own human concerns, but rather should be "types." Nor should it require us to read a John Granger to figure out a story is allegory; it should pretty much be that obvious the moment we read the book.
I think Granger is partially right as far as the symols go because there is no denying that Rowling turns to Christian symbols throughout her story, but there are many works of literature with allusions to Christian themes, symbols, and motifs that are NOT allegories.
This is what separates Tolkien from Lewis. Tolkien wanted to write a Christian story, a fantasy mythology for England with a Christian theological perspective, but unlike Lewis he didn't want to write allegory. He talks about how his story is applicable. Gandalf and Aragorn are certainly Christ-like at certain points embodying Christian morals of bravery, faith in providence in the face of despair, sacrifice for the good of others, etc., but that doesn't mean any of them are literally supposed to be read as a stand-in for Christ. Not to mention making it applicable allows for the story to be read in many non-Christian ways: neo-fascists in Italy for example have a fascist reading for the story, there are elements libertarians like about the story (particularly the hobbit community), there is an environmental theme, etc.
I see the Potter novels following more in the footsteps of Tolkien. The themes are applicable, not allegorical.
Another critic who has some thoughts:
"In fact, although there is loaded language and imagery attached to Harry within the narrative just as there is to Voldemort, the links between character and symbolism are always relatively distant and tenuous--a device which both discourages simple allegorical reading, and allows Harry to remain a character rather than a symbolic figure and thus function as a point of reader identification, allowing readers to engage fully with the narrative" (emphasis mine; from Wizard and Wainscots: generic structures and genre themes in the Harry Potter series)
P.S. I also would point out that I don't mean to be antagonistic as I know I tend to disagree with you a lot. I apologize in advance if my tone comes off that way. I argue mostly in the spirit of worthwhile intellectual discussion.
Last edited by Drkshadow03; 05-20-2008 at 01:00 PM.
"You understand well enough what slavery is, but freedom you have never experienced, so you do not know if it tastes sweet or bitter. If you ever did come to experience it, you would advise us to fight for it not with spears only, but with axes too." - Herodotus
https://consolationofreading.wordpress.com/ - my book blog!
Feed the Hungry!
The idea of a "chosen one" predates Christianity and is common to most ancient mythologies. Gilgamesh was a chosen one, and the idea existed in other cultures from Sohrab and Rustam to Aeneas. I see Harry Potter as being more closely related to non-Christian mythology than to Christian mythology.
I don't know, the whole ending of the book seems quite Christian, and less Gilgameshian to me. I also have my doubts that Rowling has read many of the works you have mentioned, much less read anything beyond a basic level.
Of course this cannot be as allegorical, as lets say Bunyan's work, but there is no doubt that many portions of the story are designed to be allegories. Loads of stuff in the books act as filler, of course, and for that reason it cannot fall into the genre of allegory, however it is fair to say that the major plot arc is allegorical in nature.
There is also the political allegory, with the simple equation of sticking Dumbledore as Churchill, Fudge as Chamberlain, and Voldemort as Hitler. Such representations are admitted by the author to some degree, and would fit in with the author's mindset. Of course, Dumbledore is all good, so the Dresden bombings didn't quite make the novels, but the rest is there in one form or another.
It appears that this work can represent a biased English history as well as a religious study to some degree or another. I find also the tempting by Voldemort of Harry in the first few books to be similar to the temptation of Christ, to say the least.
I personally think the books resemble Lewis' Narnia far more than Tolkien's world. The plot too feels far more Lewisian than Tolkinian, but I guess we are all entitled to our opinions, however wrong and childish.
Either way this is rather irrelevant, the true question is whether or not the Christian morality being pushed in this book is a virtue or a fungus, and whether or not these works, given their themes, style, content, and politics a) should be read, and b) if so then by who.
And on another note, I am not deliberately attacking who I disagree with, I just like to argue with an ice pick tone (a trait developed in childhood). I mean nothing against the individual, I only wish to discredit some arguments. I am sure you are all lovely people.
Last edited by JBI; 05-20-2008 at 02:13 PM.
The same themes and tropes have appeared in literature from every age and every part of the Earth; that is way Harry Potter and similar stories have been successful, and that is why religions have used that same kinds of stories. You may be more familiar with such stories from Christianity, but people from other places see parallels to their culture heroes.
That is an unwarranted assumption.I am sure you are all lovely people
Yeah, JBI! Please stop spreading unfounded rumours about us!
~
"It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
~
Rowling has a background in Classics I believe. The Persia Epic that PeterL alludes to might be far-fetched, but I don't think inspiration from Gilgamesh, Beowulf, and Aeneid is far-fetched considering her background.
Of course this cannot be as allegorical, as lets say Bunyan's work, but there is no doubt that many portions of the story are designed to be allegories. Loads of stuff in the books act as filler, of course, and for that reason it cannot fall into the genre of allegory, however it is fair to say that the major plot arc is allegorical in nature.Rowling overturns that reading when Dumbledore absolutely refuses to become Prime Minister multiple times. Not to mention Rufus Scrimgeour who replaces Fudge as Minister of Magic has a lot of Churchill qualities to him. However, I do agree that Fudge equals Chamberlain or better to say is similar to Chamberlain. Voldemort and his government certainly is fascist and has similarity to the Nazis, but I think we are supposed to read them as Neo-fascists.There is also the political allegory, with the simple equation of sticking Dumbledore as Churchill, Fudge as Chamberlain, and Voldemort as Hitler. Such representations are admitted by the author to some degree, and would fit in with the author's mindset. Of course, Dumbledore is all good, so the Dresden bombings didn't quite make the novels, but the rest is there in one form or another.
Mostly because of the time period of the story: Grindelwald, the famous dark Wizard with very similar views to Voldemart whose story is important in the final book, was defeated in 1945, when the Nazis were defeated.
The dates and the fact that we have a dark wizard before Voldemort during the Fascist period overturns the allegorical political reading and disrupts the one-for-one symbolic correlation needed for allegory. Voldemort comes later as a kind of Neo-Fascist defeated not once, but twice (which has overtones of Napoleon). It seems that Rowling is mixing and matching history as she chooses to construct her story.
All of this feeds into one of the major themes of Harry Potter: history is linked together. The events of the past affect the events of the present, while the events of the present shed light on the events of the past. The Wizarding world history reflects human world history.
Dumbledore is certainly NOT depicted as all good; this becomes more apparent in the last two novels when a darker more remorseful and secretive side of Dumbledore is revealed.
Similarity does not equal allegory, though. I think one of the most important parallels in the entire novel is Voldemort and Harry's backgrounds as orphans. They have very similar background histories, but they both end up as very different people. The narrative, however, repeats again and again that Harry could've gone the way of Tom Riddle. Vice-versa it hints that Voldemart could've gone the direction Harry went.It appears that this work can represent a biased English history as well as a religious study to some degree or another. I find also the tempting by Voldemort of Harry in the first few books to be similar to the temptation of Christ, to say the least.
The stories in a general sense are anti-Racist, anti-Fascist, Pro-Open Society Democracy, Pro-Friendship, Pro-Love, Pro-Het Marriage. They might be said to be Pro-Faith (in a general way), but this always seems to be subordinate to Friendship or Love (faith in your friends, faith in the power of love).Either way this is rather irrelevant, the true question is whether or not the Christian morality being pushed in this book is a virtue or a fungus, and whether or not these works, given their themes, style, content, and politics a) should be read, and b) if so then by who.
The Christian morality isn't any stronger in these books than more typical Greek virtues. The Christian elements are more in how they are incorporated into the symbolism rather than the explicit themes themselves.
Last edited by Drkshadow03; 05-20-2008 at 06:09 PM.
"You understand well enough what slavery is, but freedom you have never experienced, so you do not know if it tastes sweet or bitter. If you ever did come to experience it, you would advise us to fight for it not with spears only, but with axes too." - Herodotus
https://consolationofreading.wordpress.com/ - my book blog!
Feed the Hungry!
A bunch of Potterites assembled this list, using quotes from the author; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_P..._and_mythology
Gilgamesh is not on it, the only thing pre-bible is The Iliad, at its influence is only supposed on one or two scenes, and in a very basic and trivial manner.
You really don't study Gilgamesh with classics. That is more of a specialized thing than lets say, reading the Iliad, and very few people actually can read it in the original.
Last edited by JBI; 05-20-2008 at 11:32 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote