Posted on 06/20/2003 8:43:14 AM PDT by Antiwar Republican
Deconstructing Rowling
By Dave Kopel
J.K. Rowling is an Inkling. That's the well-argued thesis of John Granger's fine book The Hidden Key to Harry Potter. Granger demonstrates the absurdity of the claim that Harry Potter is anti-Christian. And even if you've never worried about charges brought by misguided fundamentalists, The Hidden Key will substantially augment your understanding of what's really at stake in Harry's adventures.
The Inklings were originally a group of Oxford dons who wrote Christian fiction. The most famous of them are J. R. R. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis. Lord of the Rings and the Narnia series never mention Christianity overtly, and in Tolkien's books, religion itself is absent from the plot. Yet these mythopoeic books aim to "baptize the imagination" of the reader — to teach her the importance of fighting for the right, no matter how powerful the forces of evil may appear.
Rowling has confessed herself to be a great fan of C. S. Lewis, her use of "J. R." for her byline evokes "J. R. R." Tolkien, and she is a member of the Church of Scotland (that's Presbyterian, for American readers).
The most useful parts of The Hidden Key are the author's extensive discussion of symbolism. Harry lives in Gryffindor House, founded by Godric Gryffindor. "D'or" being French for "of gold," we could translate the name as "golden griffin." The griffin has a lion's body and an eagle's wings — a hybrid of the animals that are master of the sky and of the earth, the griffin was traditionally a symbol of Jesus, master of the spiritual and temporal worlds.
The unicorn, too, is a traditional Jesus symbol; pure and powerful, it could only be tamed by a virgin, as Jesus could only be incarnated by a virgin. In Sorcerer's Stone, drinking its blood brings life, and its killing is an especially hideous crime.
The phoenix (which saves Harry's life in Chamber of Secrets) rises to life from its own ashes, and is described by T. H. White as the "resurrection bird." This explains the title of the almost-released book five, The Order of the Phoenix — that is, the alliance of people who band together to fight for resurrection values. "Order" also evokes the fighting Christian religious orders of the Middle Ages, such as the Order of the Knights of Malta.
Harry's father James was nicknamed "prongs," for his ability to turn himself into a stag. In Prisoner of Azkeban, when Harry conjures a magical patronus to drive away the soul-stealing Dementors (Latin for mind-removers), the patronus appears as a stag, shining "as bright as a unicorn." The stag is also a medieval symbol of Jesus.
John Granger recaps the plots of the first four books, explaining each of them as a form of trial in which Harry's purity of heart is tested. In The Sorcerer's Stone, Harry is able to find the power of immortality (concealed in a magic mirror) only because he does not want to use it for selfish purposes.
The villain in Chamber of Secrets is Gilderoy Lockheart — the gilded, or false, king ("roi" in French) with a "locked heart." Lockhart, best-selling author of a string of false books, is, Granger suggests, modeled on Philip Pullman, the militant atheist and best-selling real-life author of the Dark Materials children's series — books that were written as a deliberate refutation of Narnia.
In the climax of Chamber of Secrets, Harry descends to a deep underworld, is confronted by two satanic minions (Voldemort and a giant serpent), is saved from certain death by his faith in Dumbledore (the bearded God the Father/Ancient of Days), rescues the virgin (Virginia Weasley), and ascends in triumph. It's Pilgrim's Progress for a new audience.
Prisoner of Azkebanrevolves around two characters (Sirius Black the magician and Buckbeak the hippogriff) who are falsely accused and condemned. Jungian and Freudian themes abound, as Harry begins by fleeing from his fears (running away from the Dursleys), confronts his hidden memories of his dead parents, forgives the man who betrayed his father, and triumphs by mastering his fear. "Expecto Patronus," invokes Harry — or in Latin, "Expect the little father." As Harry achieves identity with his father James, the luminous stag appears and drives away the soul-killing Dementors, rescuing Harry's godfather Sirius.
Granger reveals the meanings of the names of all the important characters. Draco (dragon/serpent in Latin) Malfoy (faith in evil, in French); Harry's parents James (the brother of Jesus) and Lily (the Easter flower), nasty journalist Rita Skeeter (read: a bloodsucking pest), and more.
And "Harry Potter"? Well, the name does evoke Harry Hotspur, the prince Hal of Shakespeare's histories. But if you say it with a French or Cockney accent, it also reminds us of "heir." For "Potter," Granger tells us to look to the Bible's "potter verses" (e.g., Isaiah 64:8), in which God is described as the potter who shapes man out of clay. Granger's summary of Rowling's theme is that we are all heirs of God.
The Potter books are a magical work aimed to liberate their readers from materialism and to elevate their spirits. Harry leaves the temporal world of London by entering Diagon Alley — that is, by moving diagonally, not in the lines of the ordinary material world. And Dudley's grotesque weight and surfeit of toys are an extreme case of a spiritual death from immersion in a purely material world: a world which Rowling shows can be put aside, if one can think and live diagonally.
Harry Potter fans are used to scouring the Internet for the morsels of hints Rowling has offered about the rest of the series. The last section of Hidden Key offers informed speculation about what will happen in the final books; of course, some of Granger's guesses might be wrong, but his exposition of the series' themes makes many of his ideas seem almost inevitable. For instance:
Harry will be revealed as the true heir of Godric Gryffindor and the climatic battle will be fought at Harry's birthplace, Godric Hollow. The heir of Gryffindor will confront the Heir of Slytherin (slithering, like a snake), Voldemort. Dumbledore has powers of invisibility; that is how he knew that the orphan Neville Longbottom (no-village, long at the lowest place) stood up to his friends in Sorcerer's Stone. Dumbledore will die, because Harry must defeat Voldemort himself. Snape's mixed feelings about Harry — he saves Harry's life, but is angrily jealous of Harry's fame — can be traced back to Snape's school days; then, Snape loved the green-eyed Lily (perhaps a Slytherin student, since house color is green) who rejected him for James. No matter — love and sacrifice will battle with death, at first appearing to be defeated, and then triumphing gloriously.
There's much more in Hidden Key: Rowling's extensive use of alchemical symbolism (alchemy being a process in which spiritual purification is correlated with metallurgical purification), Aristotelian and Platonic themes, and Arthurian legend. Like King Arthur, Harry was hidden as a baby, raised without knowledge of his true identify, watched over from afar by a great wizard, and proves that he is the true heir by pulling out a sword — in Harry's case, by pulling Godric Gryffindor's sword from Godric Gryffindor's sorting ("sword-in") hat.
Hidden Key can be read in an afternoon, and if you can interrupt your progress through the Order of the Phoenix for a little bit, Hidden Key will greatly add to your understanding of J. K. Rowling's magnificent work.
— Dave Kopel is a contributing editor of NRO.
Liar, blasphemer, heretic, false prophet I curse you with all my soul!
(Err, was that out loud? Nevermind I am all better now...)
OK, if I read you right your saying that evil prevails and muggles (non-magical people) are, by definition, evil in the Potter books? If so you really don't know anything about the books.
Muggles are portrayed as ignorant of the magical world around them (read that as "real world" within the context of the stories) and can sometimes be frightened or pig-headed about things because of that. They are most clearly not all evil. Harry's aunt and uncle are typical, money grubbing, materialists, but they are not inherently evil. In fact the family that represents "good" wizards, the Weasleys, is headed by a man whose life is devoted to understanding and protecting muggles. He's a little daft, but clearly a good guy.
The force of evil is reserved to Lord Valdemort and is represented by the Malfoy family of nasty wizards. They are the ones that preach the hateful doctrine of wizard purity and not mixing with muggles, etc. So far the forces of evil are 0 for 4, so they aren't exactly winning. They're 0 for 5 if you count Harry's initial defeat of Valdemort as a child.
Now, I understand that people are easily decieved and that the occult is a tempting path that has ensnared many unwary people. However, in the context of this thread, I have to agree that the Harry Potter stories have far more in common with CS Lewis' overtly Christian literature than it does with anything promoting the forces of darkness. Belief in miracles presupposes a willingness to accept supernatural forces exist. Setting a fictional story in a world where those things happen doesn't immediatly mean that the author is promoting satanism. Context and intent are important, though obviously sometimes difficult to discern and open to interpretation.
If you've never read C.S. Lewis' works I'd recommend, for adults who enjoy speculative fiction (also referred to as Sci Fi), starting with Out Of The Silent Planet, the first of his space trilogy. Imagine the War Of The Worlds written by a devoted Christian. He has also written some excellent non-fiction books which are very worth reading and thinking about.
If I misread your post... never mind.
I actually put it down to a (literal) vision arranged by Satan rather than some need for every kingdom in the world to be visible from one mountain. Why would you need to call that a "metaphor"?
There have been times in history when the church took this literally and argued the earth is flat.
True. Of course, I've read the Bible and I can show you exactly where it says that the earth is a sphere that "sits" on empty space. That just shows that there are theologians through the ages that have ignored much of the OT, not that you need to resort to metaphor where there is none in order to avoid a flat earth.
Regarding the subject of the thread: Despite my fundamentalism, I'm fine with Harry Potter, though I never started the third book and am not sitting on pins and needles waiting for the next. While I recognize that there is real power in the occult in the real world, I also recognize the difference between an obvious fantasy and the real world. Frankly, I wish that some of my bretherin would stop complaining and concentrate on writing works as good as the likes of Rowling, King, et al. We need some more C.S. Lewises in our generation.
Two reasons: first the seeing wasn't literal, and second you have made an interpretation that contradicts the clear and explicit words of the Bible. If anyone is allowed to read stuff into the actual words, how can you claim any authority for the original words at all. Here's a clue: does everyone agree with you?
I fear he will be Harry's Wormtail...
You see, if you had bothered to read what you're condemming, you'd know that, and wouldn't make such simple errors.
Oh really?! What error? Point out the post were I said there were? I recommend both reading and comprehending at the same time. It helps you to avoid blathering on about points that were never made.
It's "lev i osa" not "levi o SA!"
Of course I have more luck when I step on her tail, and I've the scratch marks on my ankle to prove it!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.