posted
I find myself simultaneously hating and loving the idea of Rowling writing more Harry Potter books.
No need to have any conflict or anything. Just tell us everything that happened after Voldy died, and charm us with the characters' witty banter. Is that to much to ask?
Yes it is.
No it's not.
Yes it is.
Shut up.
You shut up.
You're crazy.
No you're crazy.
*** Edit***
This is my 300th post. Yay me.
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm positive that Ginny and Harry raised Ted, because when he was making out with Victoire, who has to be the child of Bill and Fleur, they thought it was gross because they were "cousins," and they would be, though not by blood, because they would be the kids of Bill and Ginny, and thus cousins, but they wouldn't actually be related by blood, so the only reason to call them cousins would be Ted had been raised in the Potter household. I imagine the ages would have matched up nicely too if Victoire had been born not too long after the Battle of Hogwarts.
As for the happy ending, I have zero problem with it, though I too could have done with another 20 pages of explanation, if it meant 20 less pages somewhere else of somewhat lengthy exposition at times.
Maybe the fact that happy endings are so rare in these type of epic works is why it was fulfilling enough. Besides, could anyone really say that Harry DIDN'T pay the price for his eventual happiness? Frodo's life afterwards wasn't all hugs and kisses, but the Shire was rebuilt, his friends went on to lead happy lives, and he left to go over the sea with the Elves, which wasn't an unhappy thing. He suffered throughout his journey, just as Harry did (drastically differently, but still suffering). He led an unhappy life for 17 years before getting what he wanted, though forever robbed of those 17 years. Frodo lived 35 carefree years, suffered one really, really horrible year, and then lived on his life too. I guess the differences in the happy ending just don't seem that far apart to me.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have just been on a looong weekend recuperating from my sleepless Potter-filled night, and now I think I've processed things enough to actually type them semi-coherently.
On the most recent subject, I think that at some point, Harry and Ginny do raise Teddy Lupin. Maybe not at first, because they're obviously rather young to do so, but maybe later on. Rowling does point out Harry-as-godfather, and James saying "OUR Teddy", so I think it might have been a bit more than just dinners--Teddy just probably began doing that sometime after he came of age.
The ending was okay. I don't know if the epilogue was necessary, the final chapter would have been a fine ending for me. I think the epilogue was actually rather mature (I had recently reread the series, and comparing it to the earliest books...well. Let's just say there was a reason it took me three months to actually start reading Book 1!) and was an uplifting way to end the series. I do feel, however, that something else is needed. I hope Rowling gets around to compiling a "Potter-pedia" or whatever simply so we find out the fates of the other characters. I didn't really want any more exposition after the climax, but some supplimental material would be nice.
All in all, this book is certainly in my top three favorite Potters. #3 holds a special place in my heart, and I think for me it may always be my favorite. Although I liked #6, I think this one surpassed it. After all, I was finally the same age as book-Harry, 17, and felt a connection more than in any of the previous ones. Sort of made me look over my own life and see it through different eyes. Book 7 is really the end of an era for me that began back when I was eight.
And now I'm all teary-eyed and nostalgic, and I feel ridiculous. Happy, but devastated. And now I'm going to read it for a third time.
Posts: 973 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone else find it odd that the sorting hat is the medium for the sword?
Maybe the sorting hat was Godric's? and when they needed a way to sort the incoming students, he enchanted the hat with that ability, passing it down to the headmaster when he left.
Posts: 690 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pepek: Does anyone else find it odd that the sorting hat is the medium for the sword?
Maybe the sorting hat was Godric's? and when they needed a way to sort the incoming students, he enchanted the hat with that ability, passing it down to the headmaster when he left.
The Sorting Hat's song from GoF actually says that.
A thousand years or more ago, When I was newly sewn, There lived four wizards of renown, Whose names are still well known: Bold Gryffindor, from wild moor, Fair Ravenclaw, from glen, Sweet Hufflepuff, from valley broad, Shrewd Slytherin, from fen. They shared a wish, a hope, a dream, They hatched a daring plan To educate young sorcerers Thus Hogwarts School began. Now each of these four founders Formed their own house, for each Did value different virtues In the ones they had to teach. By Gryffindor, the bravest were Prized far beyond the rest; For Ravenclaw, the cleverest Would always be the best; For Hufflepuff, hard workers were Most worthy of admission; And power-hungry Slytherin Loved those of great ambition. While still alive they did divide Their favourites from the throng, Yet how to pick the worthy ones When they were dead and gone? 'Twas Gryffindor who found the way, He whipped me off his head The founders put some brains in me So I could choose instead! Now slip me snug about your ears, I've never yet been wrong, I'll have a look inside your mind And tell where you belong!
Posts: 96 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't Ted over 19 years old in the epilogue? Why is he still at Hogwarts?
-----
A few random thoughts, when Harry was walking towards his death and looked at Hagrid's cabin and reminisced a little, that was the saddest moment of the book for me. I wish he thought of his adventures a little more while he was walking. It really put the series in perspective for me.
I loved the scene where Voldemort went to find Grindelwald and Grindelwald mocked him and told him "There's so much you don't understand" just made Voldemort a thousand times better character to me. Hearing those words come from another Dark Wizard just seemed so perfect.
I didn't like all of the times when Harry found out information or found some object that was extremely important to the plot through the luckiest chances. Ted Tonks and Dean walking with two goblins in the middle of nowhere and just happen to mention about the fake sword in Gringotts. Harry tapping into Voldemort's thoughts just as he thinks to himself that the last Horcrux is hidden in Hogwarts. Voldemort hiding the horcrux in the Room of Requirement is also kind of ridiculous. That was Hogwarts deepest secret that he alone had discovered? A random room that anyone can get into? And not a single enchanment protecting the diadem?
Those are nitpicks though. Great story. It's 5 AM, now I'm going to try to go to sleep.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ted isn't still at Hogwarts, he was at King's Cross. Perhaps Victoire is a couple years younger than him and he was seeing her off to school? Or maybe both of them had graduated and were only there to see other people.
If Harry hadn't of been able to see into Voldemort's mind, or if those happenstance moments had never happened, I can't imagine how they would have advanced the plot.
The Room of Requirement thing seemed a bit goofy. I mean, Tom Riddle had been at Hogwarts himself what, maybe 15 years earlier? And there was a crapload of stuff in the Room of Requirement. Considering that school had been around for hundreds of years, and with all the stuff in there, I can't imagine Riddle opens the door, tosses the tiara in there and thinks "Hm, all that stuff must just come with the room as a sort of camouflage." Surely a flag must have gone off in his head somewhere wondering where all that stuff came from, because I don't believe for a moment that it all appears in the 15 or so years since he dropped off the tiara.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gaal, you're right. Did Voldemort know nothing of Draco's plan in book 6? Draco brought all the death eaters in through the room of requirement.. in the exact same room as the 'die-dum'.
Posts: 690 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just finished the Prince's Tale. I swear to god, Rowling must have seen the musical "Secret Garden". How else do you explain how the song "Lily's Eyes" was running through my head through the whole chapter?
It is a song about a woman named Lily who died, the two men who loved her (her husband, and his brother Neville whose love was never returned), and how they see that her niece, Mary, has her eyes.
Those eyes that never saw me, Never knew I longed To hold her close, To live at last in Lily's Eyes.
Listen to the song, and you'll see what I mean (although I wish you could hear the version my college choir recorded; I won't say that it's better quality, but it is far less schmaltzy than any broadway version I've heard).
Posts: 23 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
I was thinking this morning that it would be interesting to see if Ted and Victoire had some kind of werewolf baby. Sorry if that was already mentioned. Victoire's father was somewhat bitten, and Teddy's father was full-on werewolf.
I'd be sad if Draco married Pansy Parkinson. She was such an unmentionable, and the Malfoys really did have a redemption of sorts. I wouldn't be surprised if Narcissa and Andromeda (Teddy's grandmother) became civil again. The Malfoys clearly were tied to the dark side out of concern for what they thought would be best for their family.
posted
*applauds wildly* It was wonderful! She did it! JKR is a fantabulous and I loved every bit of it. I knew, I just knew my trust in her as a writer was right. *still clapping*
quote:snogging Victoire (whose daughter was she, btw?)
Bill and Fleur's daughter, I'll bet. That would make her their cousin.
Potter is a Christ figure. Of course there was a resurrection. I thought it was wonderful.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the subject of epilogue -- after sleeping on it last night I have come to the conclusion that the book/series would have been better without it. Since it went 19 years in the future but told us so little, it left gaping holes in the story and in our hearts. If it had just ended with chapter 36 (or whatever) it would have left us free to imagine what happened next, but the story would have been over. It was all leading up to that battle and that really was the end. The aftermath of a battle like that, while fascinating, only became necessary when she skipped us ahead 19 years.
Maybe I'll just skip that part in the future and pretend Harry becomes the new DADA teacher (which I still can't believe didn't happen...I can't htink of any other job he'd be suited to do after what he went through).
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Without the epilogue, Harry would have had to really die in order to give closure to the series. I mean, I guess I can just rip everything after "King's Cross" out of my book and pretend Harry trusted Neville to finish off Nagini.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Ted isn't still at Hogwarts, he was at King's Cross. Perhaps Victoire is a couple years younger than him and he was seeing her off to school?
Indeed. That was stated explicitly.
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
quote:snogging Victoire (whose daughter was she, btw?)
Bill and Fleur's daughter, I'll bet. That would make her their cousin.
Thanks. Now that 3 (4?) people have cleared that up, I really feel dumb.
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Potter is a Christ figure.
He really wasn't until this book, and it annoyed me greatly. What, is there a RULE that the seventh book of a series I love must have sufficient Christian imagery for me to notice and be disturbed by?
But it was not a huge deal in this book, at least.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Potter is a Christ figure. Of course there was a resurrection. [Smile] I thought it was wonderful.
This doesn't bother you? It does me. I thought about it all day yesterday, and the prophecy of false Christs in the last days deceiving even the elect. What makes it different from Narnia, though, or as I always said, Alvin Maker? Well, for one thing, we've been told Alvin Maker will die die die at the end of the 7th book.
I just wish she hadn't used the word "savior" in that last chapter chapter (not the epilogue.) I don't know, though, I can buy Lily making the Abrahamic sacrifice. I just wish we hadn't gone down this route.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Was there any specific Christian imagery? I didn't see it. Is any instance of a hero sacrificing himself and then coming back from it necessarily a reference to Christ? This mythological theme far predates Christianity and here it was established from the first book at part of the rules without any Christian referents.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you think it is completely coincidence that his Near Death Experience is called "King's Cross", I suppose so.
P.S. Something I keep meaning to discuss is the motif of "treasure". I know there was the inscription on Ariana's grave, and the Ravenclaw motto. Was there a third one, or am I just recalling the first iteration of Ravenclaw's motto with Mr. Lovegood? Xenophilos. I think Rowling might owe Chris Carter a quarter for that one.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does the Christ imagery bother me? Not at all, and it makes perfect sense. Rowling has been retelling an old tale from the beginning, and there is a long tradition of Christ figures in stories. A modernist ending would have been more surprising - she has never been telling stories Stephen Crane-style.
I certainly don't think she meant it the way C.S. Lewis meant it. It is simply a very old story-telling technique, and she is firmly within that tradition and did a beautiful job of it.
And I am incredibly grateful that she had the guts to actually tell a story. The reason The Sopranos ending was so lame and why the Buffy ending was only okay was because there were so many very important elements "left up to the audience." Come on, David Chase, suck it up, be a man, and actually tell a story that runs the risk of not being the one some people want.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Potter is a Christ figure. Of course there was a resurrection.
I never felt like Potter was a Christ figure. His parents were the Christ figures, if anyone was. Harry was merely a disciple, saved because someone had died for him, following Dumbledore with near-blind faith, only questioning him at moments of deep turmoil. He resurrected because that's what is promised to the faithful. Eternal life. That it was eternal life in the flesh is due to the fact that it's a young adult's book.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Was there any specific Christian imagery?
I'm not sure. I was REALLY tired by the time I got to the last few chapters. I just remember thinking, "Not again! Not another Aslan!" and resisting throwing the book. A few minutes later I was past that part, and too busy inhaling the remainder.
Maybe when I read it for the second time (probably not for a week or two) I will notice what exactly it was that indicated that to me.
Maybe not. I prefer to ignore small details I dislike in books that I do. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
He willingly gave his life at the instruction of his father figure for the people he loved. I'm puzzled as to how he wasn't.
I'm not saying it's a perfect one-for-one match - there is more story going on here. However, not dying fit the story and the tradition in which the story is told.\
Mr. Squicky, it is not appropriate to berate fellow posters for not interpreting the story the same way you do. I don't think there's a subject out there more likely to have more than one valid answer than literary interpretation.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and I really thought the epilogue was perfect, if not deeply satisfying. The reason is because the epilogue is really just the fulfillment of something that was touched on in OotP, when Harry muses about how his life would have been if Neville had been attacked by Voldemort instead of himself. He thinks about a normal life, one where his parents would have brought him to King's Cross. Notice, please, that the epilogue was not focused on James, the older Potter son, but on Albus, Harry's doppelganger. It was there to let us feel and see what Harry's life could have been. It's a gift to Harry, most of all. There's a reason Ginny so resembles Lily and Harry, his father, and Albus, Harry.
Forgot to add: I think that's why their professions aren't mentioned; they don't matter. Neville's is mentioned as an aside in the same way a small child might discuss a professor that he already knows from outside school. You could easily replace "Neville/Professor Longbottom" with "Albus/Professor Dumbledore" or "Remus/Professor Lupin" for a young, unscarred Harry.
posted
JKR was pretty blatant about populating her world with pre/non-Christian mythological elements. It would seem odd to me that she would be consciously trying to create a Christ figure as opposed to tapping into the rich sacrifice/ressurrection motifs that exist outside of Christianity. It's a story that was told in many, many cultures specifically because it resonates deeply with people and carries meaning like that which she was trying to get across.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
His death did not save anyone who was not himself, unless you count Voldemort, who was his greatest enemy and that's very nice except he defends himself from Voldemort in a fatal way shortly thereafter.
I think Harry Potter makes a better Everyman than Christ figure.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mr. Squicky, it is not appropriate to berate fellow posters for not interpreting the story the same way you do. I don't think there's a subject out there more likely to have more than one valid answer than literary interpretation.
What the crap are you talking about? Berate fellow posters? THe only one I see doing that is you.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: Oh, and I really thought the epilogue was perfect, if not deeply satisfying. The reason is because the epilogue is really just the fulfillment of something that was touched on in OotP, when Harry muses about how his life would have been if Neville had been attacked by Voldemort instead of himself. He thinks about a normal life, one where his parents would have brought him to King's Cross. Notice, please, that the epilogue was not focused on James, the older Potter son, but on Albus, Harry's doppelganger. It was there to let us feel and see what Harry's life could have been. It's a gift to Harry, most of all. There's a reason Ginny so resembles Lily and Harry, his father, and Albus, Harry.
posted
I think people consider it to be "Christ-related" because Rowling specifically said that she was a Christian, but she didn't go harping on it because if she did, nearly every reader would be able to figure out the end.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Coincidence? The major London train station that was the place where his life with the Dursley's and that at Hogwarts transitioned?
She wrote the last chapter first, so it was with the ending in mind that she chose that train station. Just sayin'. I don't think he's an effective Christ figure, but I think there are enough indications there if someone wanted to argue it.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Harry, of course, is able to battle supernatural evil with supernatural forces of his own, and Rowling is quite clear that she doesn't personally believe in that kind of magic -- ''not at all.'' Is she a Christian?
''Yes, I am,'' she says. ''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 I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, will be able to guess what's coming in the books.''
Oh, here's the quote for my last comment, just in case.
-Wyman, Max. " 'You can lead a fool to a book but you can't make them think': Author has frank words for the religious right," The Vancouver Sun (British Columbia), October 26, 2000
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me the best indicators of what would happen are the ones that seemed to give opposite impressions to everyone else. When Lupin came in and named Harry godfather, I thought, "Lupin and Tonks die, and Harry lives," and I almost threw down the book because it seemed so obvious. And when Harry found out he had to die, I just ignored it, waiting for the revelation that he would live. I was concerned about my theory when Lupin said Tonks was home with the baby, but I should have known that Tonks wouldn't be able to stay behind. But as far as Harry dying was concerned, I figured the only was Harry could truly die was if he realized that he had to in the midst of the duel, right at the end of the book. He learned about it way too early for it to be real.
I was very happy with the end. I went back and forth, unable to decide if Harry should live or die, and I feel both ideas were satisfied. I felt that Harry HAD to die to fill in the literary picture that Rowling had painted, but I just couldn't figure out how Rowling would pull that off when her hero was in the third-person limited view!
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Harry is a Christian too. That's one of the things that brought me around about reading these books, because I used to very much think that the witchcraft made them irredeemable. When they bury Madeye's eye (which can see through the ultimate invisibility cloak, by the way, what the?) they carve a cross over his grave. Black was at his Christening, he has a Godfather. He offers the same sort of vague prayers I would have at his age.
It's a story about courage and love and snogging and getting the Quidditch cup. Why does it have to be more than that? Okay, it's not just that. It's about the desires of our hearts, and our freedom of choice, the power of rememberance, the boundary between heart and mind, the danger of violence, and what binds us to this life. And snogging.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Harry did NOT die...therefore he did NOT come back from the dead...therefore he is NOT a Christ figure.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not exactly "specific Christian imagery" but the inscriptions on the Dumbledores and Potters graves are both Christian scripture quotes.
I was wondering if some of the non-Christians would be disturbed by what I saw as a sudden and obvious increase of Christian overtones. I did, however, greatly appreciate that Harry's reaction to the aformentioned scriptures was "what's that supposed to mean?"
I do think the idea of Harry dying for his friends making him "the master of death" is sufficiently Christian to be identified and discussed as such.
And, Pooka, Harry specifically tells Voldemort that his spells are lacking effect now precisely because he killed Harry and that Harry's death protected the people he was fighting.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm tending more to think of King's Cross as a dream. But then Harry would not be master of death. Also, why was the flayed huddle in the dream? Was that really Voldemort or not? I think he went to a place where he had a choice whether to die or go back to life. I don't read a lot of near death stuff, but I believe a choice is involved for a fair number of people. I believe the idea was he could choose to go on the journey to where Dumbledore was or go back. The symbolism of King's Cross (apart from the name) is that he'd always thought of Hogwarts as truly his home, but so did Tom Riddle.
The whole thing of being raised by the Dursleys, though... that was troubling. I mean, I guess it was their choice not to love him, or as Dumbledore would have it, damage him with their interpretation of love.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry some people severely dislike the "Christ" literary figure, I personally think Jesus was an OK kinda guy.
I didn't mind the Harry "as a Christ" figure motif. I wouldn't call Harry an allegory of Christ, but there were certainly some similarities that cannot be ignored.
1: Harry by dying sets up the ultimate demise of his enemy.
2: Harry comes back ressurected, completely immune to anything Voldemort can throw at him.
3: Harry after dying is at "King's Cross" station. King's Cross hrmm......now perhaps because the actual station is named King's Cross that makes it null and void but why there in the first place?
4: Harry's body is mutilated so as to verify that he was indeed dead.
Mr S:
quote:Is any instance of a hero sacrificing himself and then coming back from it necessarily a reference to Christ? This mythological theme far predates Christianity and here it was established from the first book at part of the rules without any Christian referents.
Do you have any example of this theme predating Christianity? Bear in mind several stories from the Old Testament were specifically told as "types" of Christ's coming.
Also I'll honestly try to abstain from turning this thread into a religious doctrine debate.
edit: People ask why can't Harry Potter just be a story. Well it can, and like all good stories it borrows ideas and reintroduces them diguised in the garb of characters we've never met, yet seem vaguly familiar.
I don't think Harry Potter was written to bring folks to Christianity. But I don't think that elements derived from Christianity corrupt books and make them worse.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And, Pooka, Harry specifically tells Voldemort that his spells are lacking effect now precisely because he killed Harry and that Harry's death protected the people he was fighting.
Seriously? Seems like they still had to fight pretty hard. I was kind of confused by that point. Did Harry still retain extraordinary powers after Voldemort goes? I don't question something transcendant happened. But I don't know if it was a transcendance meant for only one chosen person.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had actually never read any of these books before two weeks ago, but I've read all seven now, and I am very pleased I did. DH was incredible... I haven't been that enthralled by a book in ages.
I agree that Rowling is probably not only drawing on the Christ story, but on earlier iterations of the Hero's Journey/Monomyth. Those frustrated by coincidences ought to remember that heroes in myth always get some assistence from providential luck...
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Seriously? Seems like they still had to fight pretty hard. I was kind of confused by that point.
He says it as he is in the final duel with Voldemort. No one else knew about it, so they kept fighting as if their lives depended on it. Plus, he only saved them from Voldy, not the Death Eaters.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm sorry some people severely dislike the "Christ" literary figure, I personally think Jesus was an OK kinda guy.
Christ figures in literature are ones who sacrifice themselves. It's the resurrection bit that makes it different. Some folks say every story has a Christ (or Gilgamesh, if you will) figure. To give one's life is the essence of Heroism.
I think it's of more value reflected on a teaching which happens to be Christian of "whosoever would save his life shall lose it" in terms of Voldemort's obsession with not dying. The scene where Harry is digging the grave and the ideas of Horcruxes and Hallows flow back and forth in his mind like the waves was very interesting to me.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't mind seeing Christian symbolism in books, but I think it is a mistake to attribute intent to authors. You can find your own meaning in books and that's all right -- that's what's true for you. Personally, I found that this book transcended specific religious dogma but instead idealized the most important elements of many -- love as a conqueror. I suppose to Christians this is Jesus, but I do not believe for a minute that Rowling intended it to be that way or that if she did, that it matters. She created a book that has meaning for many people. In a way, it's about the things that unite us no matter what our specific beliefs may be.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka, I don't have my copy here at work to look it up, but I'm pretty sure he says it when he's explaining everything. I noted it as a strikingly Christian idea and that was precisely the point at which I began to wonder if Rowling wasn't hitting the theme a bit too hard for her non-Christian fans.
DB, Is it possible to write a Christian allegory without calling to mind other variants on the Dying God to those who are aware of them? Rowling is herself a Christian and just by being raised in Common Era Western Society is enough to make Christ almost certainly the foremost figure of that type in her thoughts.
BlackBlade, Frazer's The Golden Bough is probably a good place to learn about non-Christian ideas of the Dying God and Chesterton's The Everlasting Man is the strongest Christian response to it that I have read.
Edit to add: Christine, I disagree in part-- I think Rowling intentionally added the Christian ideas, as well as, I think, some nods to Lewis and Tolkien both-- but I absolutely agree that it shouldn't matter. It's a story... anyone should be able to enjoy it. I certainly don't think the Wachowski Brothers intended to tell a specifically Christian story with The Matrix, but Neo is certainly a Christ Figure and it does very well as a Christian story-- just as you say: people can find their own meanings.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man, so many people including myself are so attached to these books and these characters, if our worlds were connected I think we'd be under Harry's sacrificial protection too.
And since we believed in him we'd all get to go to heaven. (jay kay.. jk..)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I thought it was wonderful.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
