death to capslock

I know I was not the first person to notice this, but I think it's worth mentioning again. Here are a couple of saints:

http://www.el-greco-foundation.org/thumbnail/70000/70227/mini_normal/Saints-Peter-And-Paul-1605-08.jpg?ts=1459229076

And I just wonder what on earth Rowling was doing with these guys.

Saint Peter, the first Pope, was a simple fisherman. He tended to blurt things out without thinking, and he was made the keeper of the keys of the kingdom. He denied Christ on at least two occasions in the Gospels, once after Jesus was arrested, and again whent the early Christians were being persecuted in Rome. Peter fled the city. The story goes that he met Jesus on the road. Saint Peter asked him, "Where are you going, Lord?"

"I seek Rome," Jesus answered. So Peter turned around and went back. He was arrested, and (eventually) crucified, but he chose to be crucified upside down.

Then there was the young man called Saul of Tarsus. He was zealous for the Jewish faith, such that he persecuted the followers of Christ. When the first martyr, Stephen, was stoned to death, his attackers laid their cloaks at Saul's feet.

Saul, who is to the right in the El Greco painting, was a freeborn Roman citizen. He was converted on the road to Damascus and afterward became as zealous for Christ as he had once been against him. He, too, suffered death. But, as a freeborn Roman, he had a right to be killed by the sword. He was beheaded.

As to their appearance, what's been handed down is that Peter was big and burly, while Paul was a rather slender, wiry type.

So what WAS Rowling doing with these guys?

Hagrid is quite obviously modelled on Saint Peter, while Severus Snape is modelled on Saint Paul. But--

The real men were of different classes. Both were Jewish; both belonged to a subject, occcupied people. But Peter was a commoner while Paul was patrician. Not so with Severus and Hagrid. Hagrid is a commoner, certainly, but so is Severus. Both are half-bloods.

The real men were both saints, both teachers, and both founders of the faith. But the characters in the Potter books? They and their fates are very different.

Hagrid is beloved by Harry. When the Acromantulas carry him off upside down, he somehow survives. He's not crucified, after all.

Severus, on the other hand, is hated by Harry. And he is very nearly beheaded. However, there is no suggestion that he is redeemed.

It's all very frustrating to me, somehow. I can't make out why on earth Rowling so obviously harks back to these two saints when the characters she bases them on are so different in their fates and characters.

Just one more thing. Also during the Passion, when Christ was arrested, one of his followers took a sword and struck out with it. He chopped off the ear of one of the assailants. When the man who picked up the sword is named, his name isn't Paul (as you'd expect, since it was Severus who chopped off the twin's ear during the flight of the seven Potters.). It's Peter.

What on earth do you think Rowling meant by all this? Did she mean nothing at all except, yes, Severus is a good guy? Thoughts?

Not sure quite what to call this - it's a comment I made on an earlier thread, where it was pretty deeply buried. I'm posting it as a separate comment because it's something I feel pretty strongly about.

Yes, I know - this is a sporking community. We are making fun of the Harry Potter books, and, at times, some of us can get quite irate in our discussions. But - please, please, can we refrain from getting irate towards J.K. Rowling?

Here's what I mean: I'm really not comfortable discussing the character of an actual human being just because I find her books frustrating. I'm a bit of a structuralist. The author is dead once a book has been published, and that cuts two ways. The author is no more privileged in his/her interpretation than any other reader, because the work belongs to the readers now. And there are limits to what we can extrapolate about an author's belief, personality, etc, based on the work s/he has written.

As angry as I get at the awful, mixed messages in these books, I think we must never forget that a real, vulnerable human being wrote them. It isn't right or fair to trash her while trashing the books. (Though I like to think we're not trashing them, but subjecting them to rigorous criticism!) And I'm really not comfortable with speculating about her family life and personality based on the words she's written. Though I do believe all real art is "true" in a deep sense, and reveals the heart of its creator, I still think the art has, and must have, its own validity. You see what I mean?

I hope to be a published author one day. Though I neither want nor expect Rowling's level of fame, I wouldn't like it if anyone psycho-analyzed me on the basis of my stories. I don't think any of us would - and many of us do some type of creative work. Would we like to be called "stupid cows" because a reader found our work stupid? The person is not the work.

So I think it's fine to discuss the image of God in Rowling's stories. I think it's fine to question the heavy use of Christian symbolism given the non-Christian content of the stories. Heck, I've done this myself, repeatedly! It's fine to discuss the mixed messages about race, bullying, authority figures, and so much more. But I'd rather not discuss the psychology and personal life of the woman who wrote the stories. J.K. Rowling is a woman trying to write, and raise a family, and live, in this real world. We shouldn't forget that, no matter how angry her books make us.

From 2007 onwards, we have, via DH (that disastrous book) and interviews, discovered the following things:

1. The Death Eaters were right. According to Rowling, there are no "Muggleborns". Every Witch or Wizard born to normal parents is a throwback to a magical ancestor. Yes, she really said that!

2. All Wizards seem to feel themselves superior to normal people. Even good-hearted types like Arthur Weasely show themselves extremely prejudiced toward non-magical human beings, as well as extremely ignorant. But-

3. I am no expert on magical history - like Harry, I missed any hints of a coherent backstory that might have been in the books. But I do get the impression that, in addition to being prejudiced, magical people might fear ordinary human beings. Perhaps the persecutions shown as laughable in Harry's textbook were actually quite serious?

4. Young Tom Riddle was fearful of being locked up in an asylum.

5. Young Gellert Grindelwald and Albus Dumbledore aspired to rule over Muggles and Muggleborns.

6. Young Regulus believed Voldemort's agenda was to overthrow the stature of secrecy and have wizards take their rightful place as the lords of creation.

7. And then there's the way Dumbledore chose to raise Harry.

Where I'm going with all this? It's seemed to me for awhile now that the Death Eaters might have a point. What if every Dark Lord in the Wizarding World was either a Muggleborn or a Muggle-raised half-blood? What if Dumbledore was actually trying to create a new Dark Lord?

Think about it. Given what we see of Tommy's, Sev's, and Harry's experiences, magical children have a very hard time in the normal world. In self defense, they may well come up with grandiose theories about their specialness. And, like all magical children, they will lash out with magic at times of high stress. The future Dark Lords among them will control magic early, cling hard to their specialness, and learn contempt, as well as fear, for the normal people who don't and cant' understand them and cant' do magic, either. By the time such a child is 11, he may well be quite powerful magically and morally and emotionally quite messed up.

Thoughts?

Hi, everyone! I hope this doesn't get flagged as spam: the folks at Ferretbrain posted a link to a tumblr called Reviewing Rowling. The reviews are a bit harsh - I truly don't think Rowling's grammar is that bad - but the reviewer talks sense about Harry's lack of normal affect and Petunia and Vernon's very normal and sympathetic desire to protect their son. Here's the link:

http://reviewingrowling.tumblr.com/

I do feel uncomfortable when we start speculating about J.K. Rowling, the person. OTOH, I also think it's perfectly okay to look hard at the way she presents emotional, as well as moral, issues in her text. And nobody has taken a harder look, with funnier results, than starcrossedgirl! Look here:


http://starcrossedgirl.livejournal.com/322471.html#cutid1

In the discussion about "The Centaur and the Sneak", Dracasdiablo made a very interesting point. She stated that Marietta was a bad friend to Cho. After thinking about this for a while, I have to admit that I actually agree. The quotes that follow will, I hope, make clear why I think this. ( Read more... )