tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post5107156674418230557..comments2024-03-27T08:46:54.369-04:00Comments on BabyBlueOnline: How the boy wizard won over religious critics -- and the deeper meaning theologians now see in his taleAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17490745238430648958noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-46062814321665355022009-08-20T16:09:09.950-04:002009-08-20T16:09:09.950-04:00Very creative.... :)Very creative.... :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-41404652622646862772009-08-20T15:51:58.421-04:002009-08-20T15:51:58.421-04:00Perhaps redemption was on Snape's mind too as ...Perhaps redemption was on Snape's mind too as he died, looking into "Lily's" eyes, Lily, which has such a close connection to Easter and to the Resurrection. <br /><br />bbAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17490745238430648958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-76640180554396725952009-08-20T11:48:46.610-04:002009-08-20T11:48:46.610-04:00Good question, BB, but I think this is where mixin...Good question, BB, but I think this is where mixing HP with too much Christianese gets a little dicy. Seeing as how there is no reference to God in the books themselves (meaning the words themselves, not Rowling's allusions), I'm thinking we'll never have that answer. Did he care for Harry? Yes. He said so himself. Did he care for Dumbledore? Definitely, yes. But who's to say that he didn't do a little killing well before Dumbledore's murder whilst still a Death Eater? Has he "repented"? All this to say, sadly, this is where the mixing runs dry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-38620810085335909392009-08-20T00:51:24.434-04:002009-08-20T00:51:24.434-04:00The real question, it seems to me, is this: Is Sn...The real question, it seems to me, is this: Is Snape redeemed? Is he forgiven?<br /><br />bbAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17490745238430648958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-47963378137185414192009-08-20T00:48:37.556-04:002009-08-20T00:48:37.556-04:00No, no, no - it's not assisted suicide, Snape ...No, no, no - it's not assisted suicide, Snape kills him to protect Draco. Dumbledore was dying all ready, but in order to save Draco's life Dumbledore had to die. What Dumbledore did, though, was save Draco's soul from committing such a henius act as murder and Snape, who had made the promise in the first place, the "Unbreakable Vow" to Draco's mother, did the deed. He killed Dumbledore. It is Snape's soul that is put in peril and Snape complains about this to Dumbledore, as we learn from Hagrid's slip of the tongue. There's never an indication that what Snape did was "good" - it was murder. Dumbledore was murdered.<br /><br />Snape did not kill Dumbledore to ease the old man's suffering - quite the contrary (in fact, it seems that Dumbledore intended for Snape to prolong his life since the school year was not quite over). But when it became clear that this was the night that Draco meant to take the headmaster's life, Dumbledore's plan for Snape to do the deed instead went into play. That is why Dumbledore pleads, "Snape, please." It's not to ease Dumbledore's suffering, but to spare Draco.<br /><br />Snape carries out the deed - why? Dumbledore was indeed dying, a long goodbye, and it was only a matter of time before Dumbledore would die on his own. Snape was keeping him alive through his advanced potion making (as one would with modern medicine, no doubt - are not many people kept alive long after they may have succumbed because of the wonders of modern medicine - to even live normal life spans where in another decade they would have surely died, AIDS patients come to mind, as many take their "cocktails" and are living far more extended lives.<br /><br />Dumbledore sacrifices his life to save Draco's, not to alleviate his own suffering. With a different set of reasoning, as some who complain about the Christian faith say, Jesus himself could have been said to have committed suicide on the cross for he had the power at his hand to save himself. But he allowed the Romans to kill him, and God allowed it to happen by design, to save the world.<br /><br />Why would God permit His Son to die and not intervene to save Him? Because Jesus was dying to save the world, and Dumbledore died to save Draco - for Draco it seems clear did not have it in him to take the headmaster's life. Snape took the penalty himself and carried out the deed, something we learn he did not want to do. Dumbledore played a card to make Snape do it, by reminding Snape of his own vow to protect Harry Potter and this was done out his love for Lily.<br /><br />I would not call it suicide, or assisted suicide, for it was not about Dumbledore - it was not about him. He intended to sacrifice his life to save Draco.<br /><br />It was sacrifice and not a suicide (just as Christ's death on the cross was a sacrifice and not a suicide - neither Dumbledore or Jesus wanted to die, they both had desired that the cup of death spare them) but in order for Draco to be spared, Snape made the "unbreakable vow" and kept his promise in his the end and protected his student from the wrath and certain corporal punishment of the dreaded Dark Lord Voldemort.<br /><br /><br />As we learn, Draco did disarm Dumbledore and this act becomes the turning point for the entire series. In the end we see that Draco is redeemed, he becomes an upstanding citizen (as much as one could be with the name Malfoy) and shows a certain measure of respect (as much as a Malfoy could) when he meets Harry at the train station years later where they put their own children on the train Hogwarts. That "reconciliation" - as it is, would only have been possible by Dumbledore's own plan to sacrifice himself and allow Snape to follow through on his own Unbreakable Vow. He gave up his life.<br /><br />bbAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17490745238430648958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-19192454864575938402009-08-20T00:24:59.168-04:002009-08-20T00:24:59.168-04:00BB,
The Harry Potter series seems to me to revea...BB, <br /><br />The Harry Potter series seems to me to reveal J. K. Rowling's wrestling with the Christian faith more than giving a strong apologetic for it. As Terry Mattingly has said, she shows every sign in her books of being a liberal Christian. Rowling herself, in an interview after the publication of Deathly Hallows, said that her doubts with which she struggles concerning Christianity are there to see in the books. There are a few syncretic elements as well.<br /><br />All of that is not bad, of course - it's where J. K. Rowling is at, and much kudos and heartfelt thanks to her for setting her stories in the context of some form of a Christian worldview. (And you know I love the books!) But there's *much* difference between her and Tolkien. <br /><br />Perhaps nowhere is this seen better than in Rowling's extremely disturbing handling of the resolution of Snape's story in connection with Dumbledore's death. Contrast how Rowling portrays that with Tolkien's message underlying the issue of what should be done with Gollum (beginning with Gandalf's words to Frodo in Chapter 2 of Fellowship on down through the rest of the story). Rowling comes out essentially pro assisted suicide, while Tolkien consistently argues that we are to be quick to preserve the life of even the most heinous individuals, because God may yet have something for them to do in our story. The whole outcome of LOTR depends upon first Frodo, then Sam showing mercy to Gollum -- without their decisions on the side of mercy, the ring would never have been destroyed. Furthermore, suicide is repeatedly condemned in LOTR as faithless. <br /><br />Your point about the book's effects going beyond the author's intentions is well taken, but the author's meaning is still critical. I strongly disagree with you that "the author is but one critic and there is so much more to discover than even the author knows." There is so much in the way of impact that an work may have on someone, yes, but that is not the same as "discovery." There's a difference between application and meaning. <br /><br />Peace of Christ,<br />ChipChipnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-29857832102273326442009-08-19T23:36:05.917-04:002009-08-19T23:36:05.917-04:00Part Two:
Rowling did that - because I think she ...Part Two:<br /><br />Rowling did that - because I think she was honest in her own deep search for her faith. She went into places, asked the questions, and dared to take a biblical view for the answers (now do we know for the modern audience what it means to be "covered by the blood?" Oh yes we do!!). The work then becomes larger than the author. This is true with Tolkein, for even Rowling and absolutely true for the great works. That's why readers enjoy it so much - the author is but one critic and there is so much more to discover than even the author knows.<br /><br />I can remember this kind of experience when I wrote my BFA Senior Thesis and it was a full length novel. I had to go before a university board which had read the work and now was going to critique it as you would any of the books and stories we read in my courses. The student/author was not permitted to speak while the discussion went on and it was one of the most illuminating and exhilarating moments in all the years in college, of sitting there and listening to the discussion over characters I created and knew intimately and hear them spoken of by others who had come to know them too and were challenged by them. They brought not only their own stories to my work, but also the stories of others (in which I had been influenced at the time), and my writing style. I could not speak, I could only listen and it was an extraordinary exercise in self control. I was terrified going before that board but the experience left me so excited that writing was not limited to the author but was a collaboration with her readers and with so many authors and poets and philosophers who had gone before her. <br /><br />Writing is always collaborative - it's never just about the author. So while I am interested from a trivia point of view in what Tolkien was thinking or Jo Rowling was thinking when they wrote their books, when the books are done they are wise to remain reserved and allow the books to not be mere extensions of their own personalities and egos, but of something much much more, far more profound - indeed, a work that is inspired by the Holy Spirit.<br /><br />bbAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17490745238430648958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-68873564255883002532009-08-19T23:35:52.053-04:002009-08-19T23:35:52.053-04:00Part One:
J.K.Rowling is much more a student of D...Part One:<br /><br />J.K.Rowling is much more a student of Dorothy Sayers than Tolkien, though she borrows some of the same story elements as C.S. Lewis and Tolkien though often with more of a humorous twist (i.e., the official motto of Hogwarts).<br /><br />J.K. Rowling is far more a descendant of Sayer in that the Potter series embody a great mystery series - but just the genre alone (the mystery) is a marvelous vehicle to tell the Christian story. In this series Rowling does a tremendous work on explaining some of the fundamental elements of the Christian story, but in the most subversive way. For many years, folks like our friends Travis Prinzi and John Granger (whom I met through our years of discussion over solving the mysteries) could see the Christian worldview and story that Rowling was telling, but for most people reading the books that story went over their heads. It is possibly one of the most ironic if not bizarre outcomes of the publication of the HP series is that the very people who should have gotten it (IF they had actually read the books, which so many apparently DID NOT) they would have recognized that we had a major contribution to Christian storytelling by an author who indeed in telling the story was searching her own heart for her faith.<br /><br />It elevates the story from propaganda to art. <br /><br />That being said, I was tremendously irritated when, with the publication of the final book, Jo Rowling went on a "Now I'll Explain the Book To You" book tour and it would have been so much better if she patted a few children's heads, had a few chat-ups with fans, and kept the explaining to herself. When an author has to "Explain" what their books mean, they reduce their work.<br /><br />It is a piece of trivia what Tolkien though of his books, but the author is not the final word, not on the great books (which Lord of the Rings is) because it is a co-creative process with the Holy Spirit and sometimes - often - the writing can take the writer into places where they can not fathom. That's how art becomes iconic - be it the great masters or the great authors.<br /><br /><i>continued</i>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17490745238430648958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-18673571960728701322009-08-19T22:21:56.951-04:002009-08-19T22:21:56.951-04:00Just to add the actual Tolkien quote from a letter...Just to add the actual Tolkien quote from a letter he wrote to a Roman Catholic priest:<br /><br />The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision.<br /><br />(I haven't yet found the Mary quote that I remember.)Chipnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-54856667080573607472009-08-19T22:02:34.743-04:002009-08-19T22:02:34.743-04:00I don't disagree with you about reading Christ...I don't disagree with you about reading Christian allegory into too many things, Steven, and the Harry Potter series is wonderful literature but not fully from a Christian worldview, IMHO. <br /><br />Concerning Tolkien, however, the author himself said that in the revisions of the text (made in the early '50s, if I remember correctly -- but definitely before the books were published) he *consciously* went back and put in Christian allusions (most notably, he confirmed that Galadrial is meant to reflect Mary). Now Christian allusions are not the same as Christian allegory, but I think it's also a mistake to say it "at best presents a Manichean view of existence, or worse." LOTR (and I'd add here all of Tolkien's Middle-Earth material) is not Christian allegory, but it *is* profoundly Christian in worldview.<br /><br />Peace of Christ,<br />ChipChiphttp://peaceofchristtoyou.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-44659719289577565442009-08-19T19:25:01.372-04:002009-08-19T19:25:01.372-04:00For Christian apologists, I think it is hazardous ...For Christian apologists, I think it is hazardous to read Christian allegory into too many things, as you risk distorting the Gospel message to others. Take, for example, the classic "good versus evil" plot line, which is the basis for virtually every fantasy novel ever written, including Harry Potter. This Manichean view of the universe is the antithesis of Christianity, wherein God always has dominion over Satan (remember Job), Christ has conquered death (i.e., evil) and the day of Christ's return and ultimate triumph over Satan is not in doubt. For Rowling to have done Christian allegory properly, HP's conquest over Voldemort would have been preordained in the opening dialogue on Privet Lane and would never have been in doubt throughout the series.<br /><br />J.R.R. Tolkein got it right in his protestation of others' attempts to paint The Lord of the Rings as Christian allegory. Like HP, LOTR at best presents a Manichean view of existence, or worse (when read in conjunction with the Simlarillion) a world of a disinterested god (Iluvatar) who populated his creation with some angels (the Ainur) and then walked away from it. Tolkein, a person of profound faith, must have thought why write Christian allegory when you can crack open the Bible and get the Christian message undiluted.Steven in Falls Churchnoreply@blogger.com