There's a bit of an academic debate starting to be waged about just how "Christian" the Harry Potter books are. I won't post the links, but Travis Pinzi at www.swordofgryffindor.com has all the pertinent sutff up at his site, especially about Lev Grossman's recent (and bafflingly inane) article, as well as the rejoinder from Terry Mattingly at GetRelgion (great site!) and then Jeffrey Weiss' response to him.
What it boils down to, interestingly, is readers who say the Christian symbolism and themes run deep, and readers who claim that Rowling never intended any such reading. From what I can tell, thoughts run in two directions in the last area: either the books are completely "a-religious" and we're all just making this up, or the books leave so much open to interpretation that of course if you, dear postmodern reader, WANT to see Christian themes there, then of course you can and will. Especially because JKR writes in the western tradition, and therefore she uses a lot of traditional western symbolism, and of course all of them are steeped in Christian history, BUT that doesn't mean that they have to mean those things now or that she ever intended them to.
I'm being a bit silly and oversimplifying the arguments here, but that's what they seem to boil down to in essence.
On the one hand, I am sympathetic to the more thoughtful postmodern read that says the text is "open" enough for there to be meanings beyond even the author's intention. If pursued thoughtfully, I think this idea can blossom in a Christian context -- leaves room for God to work in and through both creative process, and in the hearts and minds of those who read. And there is something to be said for a work coming to completion, in a sense, as it's read and engaged. Stories are meant to be read, to be listened to, to be communicated. So what the reader brings to the text means something, and can enrich (or let's be honest, sometimes diminish) what is already objectively there.
Of course we all read these stories differently, depending on how we come to them and what worldview glasses we're wearing. That's a given, not just with HP, but with anything.
But it's just ridiculous to say that there was no intentional placement of and use of Christian symbols and themes. Both because JKR herself has gone on record with various statements (the books aren't that secular, can't reveal much about her own faith/beliefs or it might tell too much about the series' ending, etc.) but because there are just too many of them. To people who say they are not obvious enough, unless you are a classicist, I just want to shake my head. What about the blood refuge provided by Harry's mother? That's your first and most obvious tip-off, but no means the last.
I think what this mostly says is how scared people are to think that there might be Christian depth and meaning to these novels because these novels have obviously fed a vast story hunger in people. Granted it's not as overt as Lewis' message, but Rowling is writing for a different time, place and audience, and writing a different kind of story too. But if those who weigh in on the Christian side of this debate are right, then what this says is that people are still hungry -- not just for well-told stories in general -- but for stories that echo the Great Story and feed a real spiritual hunger.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Dad was just reading a quote by David Sedaris, something about how writers fool themselves into thinking that they have control over their work, when in reality when the words are turned over to readers they bring all sorts of their own interpretations into them. Especially in college, the teachers seemed to emphasize that the writer's intentions aren't all that important. And it's fun to think how much room there is for various readings of things, but what the writer brings to the story is important, particularly with a literary world as rich as Rowling's.
Rowling seems to be writing very much in the tradition of Lewis and Tolkien, drawing deeply both from mythology and Christianity, though the latter is more shrouded in symbolism. After the final book, something tells me it will be hard to dispute the Christian influences in the series...
This short excerpt was lifted from an editorial on Mugglenet by Abigail BeauSeigneur:
"When asked whether she is Christian, author J.K. Rowling states:
“Yes, I am which seems to offend the religious right far worse than if I said I thought there was no God. Every time I’ve been asked if I believe in God, I’ve said yes, because I do, but no one ever really has gone any more deeply into it than that, and I have to say that does suit me, because if I talk too freely about that [her Christianity] I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, will be able to guess what’s coming in the books.”
While I don't go so far as to think that Harry Potter's story is intentionally meant to be a Christian allegory, I agree that it's inevitable for such elements to slip in. Tolkien and Lewis, for example, fiercely denied that their most famous works (Lord of the Rings and Narnia, of course) were allegorical, but they've very often been interpreted as such. As a Christian myself, I try not to seek out specifically Christian references in the books, but rather accept that Jo draws from all manner of classical, medieval, religious, and superstitious traditions. There are various elements in the novels that most certainly do not jive with Christianity (ghosts, for one example; Horcruxes for another). These elements are often what attracts the most criticisms from people of Laura Mallory's ilk, but I think that on closer examination even ghosts and Horcruxes do have a great deal to say about morality, and most of what they say does actually mesh will with a Christian paradigm.
Ghosts, as Nick tells Harry in OotP, cannot fully be in this world or the next because they were afraid of death. He further elaborates that while he now regrets his choice he cannot recant it. This echoes the author of Hebrews, who writes "...man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment." (Heb. 9:27). According to mainline Christian theology, humans are given the chance to decide their eternal fate on earth, and once their lives have evaporated that choice becomes unchangeable. Perhaps we could stretch Nick's regret into a message about not hesitating to live a full life and joyfully enter the next, or the inability to change decisions in our past. Or, perhaps, Jo just meant us to take Nick's story as only that: his personal story.
Horcruxes are a little bit trickier. The very notion of splitting one's soul is in direct conflict with Christian doctrine. The ability to store a bit of soul in a tangible object is also ridiculous by most religious standards. However, once those that hurdle has been jumped, the significances seem to stand out. Murder is the only act which can mutilate one's soul enough to (physically? metaphysically?) split it into two parts (or more). All the world's major religions denounce murder; the Bible is filled with stories of the horrid consequence which await those who murder. Harry, as Dumbledore has pointed out so many times, has an intact, pure soul, an in that lies his greatest strength against Voldemort's desecrated one. Perhaps the soul in Harry's world is more akin to the sense of self in our world. Murder, other serious vices, and the guilt that accompanies them tend to rack at the consciences and sanity of most normal people (perhaps most famously and beautifully depicted in Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment).
However, despite the laundry list of "wicked" features the Christian Right often cites when trying to censor Harry, there seem to be an extraordinary number of things they forget to mention. Harry has proved, time and time again, that he is willing to risk everything for those he loves. Jesus Christ, of course, epitomizes such sacrifice, as he tells his disciples, "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13). Harry's only chance to defeat the supremely evil Voldemort lies not in some hidden superpower or magic weapon, but simply his ability to love and be loved. What is Rowling trying to say here? Should we all throw on our tie-dye, hold hands singing Kum By Yah because love will keep us together? Not at all. In her world, love can be warm and fuzzy but is more often wrenchingly painful and demanding of horrendous self-sacrifice.
In the end, though, most people are doomed to analyze things through glasses tinted by their own personal history of experiences and prejudices. If you care to see Harry Potter as a completely irreligious work, you are free to do so. If you choose to examine the series as an allegory with Harry as a Christ figure, that is certainly plausible as well. But as most things go, the truth is most likely somewhere in the middle of these. Only Jo knows for certain, but if the quote at the top of this very long comment is still relevant, we'll all know by Saturday, anyway.
Happy reading! May we all, by the grace of properly disciplined Internet surfing, stay unspoiled for the next 28 hours.
Post a Comment