*nods* I read those articles a couple of weeks ago, nodding along all the way. I think there's a lot of interesting stuff there, but somehow I feel like they still don't quite get to the bottom of the problem. Unfortunately, though, I can't figure out what's still missing, and it's driving me nuts.
I hate Potter now. Genuinely, vehemently hate it. I hate it precisely because I used to love it, and it angers me no end that the books I enjoyed, about a boy wizard and his boarding-school adventures, have been swallowed by this "phenomenon."
The Harry Potter books aren't "books" any more. They're events.
Yes! Yes, my opinion exactly, and stated better than I could have! That's really what it all boils down to for me. The first three books were, well, stories. You could see JKR sitting down and saying to herself, "I'm going to write the story about how Voldemort tried to steal the Philosopher's Stone." Or "I'm going to write the story about how Voldemort's diary possessed a girl and made her unleash a basilisk." Or "I'm going to write the story about how a murderer broke out of jail and terrorised Hogwarts."
After that it became "I'm going to write Harry's fourth year at Hogwards," "I'm going to write Harry's fifth year at Hogwards," "I'm going to write Harry's sixth year at Hogwards" and "I'm going to wrap up the non-plot from the last three books," respectively. She stopped sitting down to write a new story and started sitting down to write more Harry. And by then she had hordes of fans who didn't care about stories, because it was more Harry they wanted.
Exactly--it started there and went on and on sounding like this guy was in my head while I was reading DH. The only bright spot since POA for me was HBP where at least for a brief, shining moment we were able to get out of Harry's head.
I particularly loved his comments about Harry being the Only One Who Matters and his secret virtue is Doing Nothing. It always has been, really. The first time he "defeated" Voldy was by sitting in his crib drooling and it just gets worse from there.
I particularly loved his comments about Harry being the Only One Who Matters and his secret virtue is Doing Nothing.
There's something very ironic about that. The idea that "doing something" is good is very much a modern Western idea. So is the idea that desire is an important part of leading a good life, that it's important to desire what is good and right--that, in fact, desiring good and right things is an essential part of being truly good, and without that desire, you're only doing good things by accident.
If this were written from, say, a Buddhist standpoint, where the goal is to vanquish desire and not become deceived by the world's illusions, then Harry-and-the-Hallows vs Dumbledore-and-the-Hallows would make a lot more sense. Or if its philosophy were at base Taoist, that would explain why "going with the flow" was valued.
But unfortunately, Rowling isn't writing from a Buddhist or Taoist standpoint. (Did you read Harry Potter and the Doctrine of the Calvinists (http://ferretbrain.com/articles/article-161.html), also by Dan Hemmens?) What she writes goes against the cultural context she's writing in.
I love that site--if you go back there's a few other articles about Potter that are interesting too, even before DH. He's currently getting anonymously flamed on Mike_Smith's lj for some reason!
Possibly. The person seems absolutely furious at him for saying Rowling was "apparently" Calvinist when she's Episcopalian. (Which I believe she would call "Church of England...?")
In the entry before that there's a long shipping conversation--I went through all of canon without really getting into any shipping debates, and now it seems like I'm kind of in one without meaning to be.
She's not Episcopalian. Episcopalians are the American branch of the Church of England. JKR grew up in the Church of Scotland. One might be forgiven for thinking that was the Scottish branch of the Church of England, but it isn't. I looked it up as part of a recent discussion (I think it was on your LJ, actually!), and they are definitely Calvinist. The Church of England doesn't believe in predestination; the Church of Scotland does.
Also, I see the indignant mouse is claiming that JKR isn't actually a member of the Church of Scotland. But a quick Google search turned up quite a lot of sites, including the HP Lexicon, who say that she is a member (see the "Church of Scotland" entry here (http://www.hp-lexicon.org/muggle/encyc/muggle-c.html), for example).
I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me or the anon guy--what you're saying here is what I meant. I thought that the anon person was claiming that JKR was "Episcopalian" and it seemed to me that if she were that she would call it "Church of England" and not Episcopalian, because Episcopalian is, as you say, American. So just claiming she was that sounded wrong right off.
I didn't know what she'd actually grown up as but I believe you--Church of Scotland. Anon seems to be wrong both ways.
I'd heard or read an interview in which it was said she was a member of the Church of Scotland as one one of the posters finally pointed out. And as you found out, the CoS is most certainly Calvinist.
The reason I'm waiting for this to show up on F-W is because this is the exact argument antianell93 has been using for a long time now and has been routinely trounced for it.
The "anonymous" poster looks like a "wanka" to me--at the very least a wanka wannabe.
It's one of the craziest threads I've ever seen on Mike's lj. Having read your original essay and enjoyed it, I didn't remember the point being to prove Rowling's religion one way or the other. It was just looking at what seemed to be going on in the story and Calvinism coming to mind as a good way of describing it. Since I did find myself literally thinking of certain characters as "the damned" and "the Elect" by the end of the book, it was a comparison that worked for me!
LOL, I love how the mouse in question is going "She's not a Calvinist so there! That automatically makes your analysis redundant," while Dan Hemmens never said she was, and simply theorised that it might have been an unconscious influence for the pre-determination notion in the HP series.
Way to miss the point, anonymouse!
Also, isn't it normal to look at an author's envioronment/cultural context to analyse their literary work? I mean if she was Shakespeare then a discussion of the culture of the times or their personal background is a valid form of analysing their work, right? I mean I don't know much about Lit. Theory, but I reckon that's an acceptable method... so I don't really see what Dan Hemmens would be doing wrong even if he did start off assuming she was a Calvinist. (Which he didn't, anyway...)
That's more or less what I was getting at. Jim Smith wrote an interesting but I think ultimately point-missing rebuttal (since I think he too was assuming that I was trying to prove that JKR was a Calvinist, rather than - as you say - using Calvinist doctrine as an analogy for the way HP character seem to be either saved or damned from birth).
Thanks! Yeah, I understanding the position of saying that without God it can't be Calvinist. It just still very much feels like the same idea, only here the good are those favored by the author as heroes.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
gillieweed.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
deathtocapslock2007-09-18 09:32 pm
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
I hate Potter now. Genuinely, vehemently hate it. I hate it precisely because I used to love it, and it angers me no end that the books I enjoyed, about a boy wizard and his boarding-school adventures, have been swallowed by this "phenomenon."
The Harry Potter books aren't "books" any more. They're events.
Yes! Yes, my opinion exactly, and stated better than I could have! That's really what it all boils down to for me. The first three books were, well, stories. You could see JKR sitting down and saying to herself, "I'm going to write the story about how Voldemort tried to steal the Philosopher's Stone." Or "I'm going to write the story about how Voldemort's diary possessed a girl and made her unleash a basilisk." Or "I'm going to write the story about how a murderer broke out of jail and terrorised Hogwarts."
After that it became "I'm going to write Harry's fourth year at Hogwards," "I'm going to write Harry's fifth year at Hogwards," "I'm going to write Harry's sixth year at Hogwards" and "I'm going to wrap up the non-plot from the last three books," respectively. She stopped sitting down to write a new story and started sitting down to write more Harry. And by then she had hordes of fans who didn't care about stories, because it was more Harry they wanted.
no subject
I particularly loved his comments about Harry being the Only One Who Matters and his secret virtue is Doing Nothing. It always has been, really. The first time he "defeated" Voldy was by sitting in his crib drooling and it just gets worse from there.
no subject
There's something very ironic about that. The idea that "doing something" is good is very much a modern Western idea. So is the idea that desire is an important part of leading a good life, that it's important to desire what is good and right--that, in fact, desiring good and right things is an essential part of being truly good, and without that desire, you're only doing good things by accident.
If this were written from, say, a Buddhist standpoint, where the goal is to vanquish desire and not become deceived by the world's illusions, then Harry-and-the-Hallows vs Dumbledore-and-the-Hallows would make a lot more sense. Or if its philosophy were at base Taoist, that would explain why "going with the flow" was valued.
But unfortunately, Rowling isn't writing from a Buddhist or Taoist standpoint. (Did you read Harry Potter and the Doctrine of the Calvinists (http://ferretbrain.com/articles/article-161.html), also by Dan Hemmens?) What she writes goes against the cultural context she's writing in.
no subject
no subject
So the cult of Rowling has followed him there? I suppose the next step is F_W.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Here's a direct link:
http://mike-smith.livejournal.com/159608.html?thread=1366904#t1366904
In the entry before that there's a long shipping conversation--I went through all of canon without really getting into any shipping debates, and now it seems like I'm kind of in one without meaning to be.
Church of Scotland =/= Church of England
Re: Church of Scotland =/= Church of England
Re: Church of Scotland =/= Church of England
I didn't know what she'd actually grown up as but I believe you--Church of Scotland. Anon seems to be wrong both ways.
Re: Church of Scotland =/= Church of England
Re: Church of Scotland =/= Church of England
The reason I'm waiting for this to show up on F-W is because this is the exact argument antianell93 has been using for a long time now and has been routinely trounced for it.
The "anonymous" poster looks like a "wanka" to me--at the very least a wanka wannabe.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2007-09-20 10:29 am (UTC)(link)-- Dan Hemmens
no subject
no subject
no subject
Way to miss the point, anonymouse!
Also, isn't it normal to look at an author's envioronment/cultural context to analyse their literary work? I mean if she was Shakespeare then a discussion of the culture of the times or their personal background is a valid form of analysing their work, right? I mean I don't know much about Lit. Theory, but I reckon that's an acceptable method... so I don't really see what Dan Hemmens would be doing wrong even if he did start off assuming she was a Calvinist. (Which he didn't, anyway...)
no subject
(Anonymous) 2007-09-20 04:28 pm (UTC)(link)Enjoying your recaps, by the way.
no subject