HP- source of all evil, or so they say

[highlyeccentric]

lepsdavid just pointed me to a particularly interesting JK interview, post-OotP. Given that I was then at school, and my involvement in internet fandoms was restricted to ringbearer.org, i never heard this interesting spoiler. I was busy at the time trying to hose down the rumour that she was a neo-pagan, which effort was hampered by the fact that I wouldn't actually care if she were a neopagan.

All along I've been a fan of the Harry Must Die theory, for several reasons. One, I felt that the story was simply screaming for a "sacrificial hero". Whether it's thanks to Christian influences or not, that's a well established topos in western literature (particularly fantasy) by now. Think Gandalf- and possibly Frodo, although he didn't literally die. Aslan is obvious. Neo from the Matrix. What's more, the foundations were laid for it from book one. Dumbledore was always on about love being biggest power in the universe; Lily's sacrificial love was the key to the first defeat of Voldemort, and the protective power of love was established early on. By book 5, the "Neither can live" thing was propelling them toward mutual destruction.

Funnily enough, I never seriously thought of "resurrecting" Harry. Maybe because I devoutly hope no one ever writes more books to feed the crowd who see C.S. Lewis as the Newer Testament. Maybe because HP is, whatever Rowling's personal faith may be, a salvation tale for the secular age. Overtly Christian symbolism would ruin that universal appeal. I think she executed the Death-of-Harry episode very nicely, incidentally. Harry's second escape from death holds together in a logical way, though the logic is very sneaky.

The spoiler I missed, made shortly after OotP came out, ran thus:

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.''
(courtesy of Accio Quote)

I suspect the part I've put in bold is one reason why I never heard of this- when you're writing about the evilness of Harry Potter, you don't want to hear that the author think's she's a Christian. That gets you into debates about what makes a Christian, and even if you believe writing about witches disqualifies her from the get-to-heaven race, it does ruin your nice punchy argument for banning HP. Particulary if you're arguing with a secular school librarian. Likewise, that explains the lack of deeper questions about Rowling's personal faith- you don't want to discuss theology with your nominated Satanic influence. They might turn out to be right.

The last part- the point that the intelligent reader could predict the plot if they knew enough about her faith, is interesting. It validates the interpretation I outlined above. It is ok to talk about Jesus and Harry Potter. It doesn't make it ok to assert, as people do of Lewis and sometimes Tolkien, that Rowling wrote HP as a Christian text. I think it's fairly clear from the books that she wrote a universal tale. Not a meticulously secular one, but one which isn't constrained by the forms of Christianity, or any other belief system for that matter. It really aggravates me- much as it aggravated Tolkien, and I suspect even the devout Lewis would be annoyed if he saw the extremes to which some people take the Christian themes in Narnia- when Christian readers want to take a book, particularly a book by a believing author, and rob it of it's identity as a story by making it over into an evangelical masterpiece.

Note that JK doesn't say, in the above quote, that she deliberately wrote Harry as a Christ metaphor. Granted, her policy of secrecy wouldn't allow her to say so if she had. But something tells me that the kind of person who would write him as one wouldn't keep it quiet. And wouldn't have him using Sectumsempra. And probably not have him snogging little Miss Weasley, either. And the books would be a lot duller.

Harry Potter is a salvation tale. Like The Matrix and Narnia and all the rest of them. Good vs evil, and good win not through violence but through sacrifice, love, and judicious use of expeliarmus. I'm not too well versed in the anthropological discourse surrounding the idea of story, but I think that's what it boils down to. Embedded in our Western culture is an idea of salvation which has either grown out of Christian tradition, or explains the popularity of Christianity. Some people use it unconciously; others deliberately eschew it; and others, and here I place Rowling, put it to good use. The ideas of redemptive love, sacrifice and the victory of good, ordinary people over the violent and power-hungry push buttons in our minds and hearts. What author doesn't want to push the right buttons with their audience? HP pushes buttons which tell us about the value of trust, courage, friendship, kindness and so forth. Not an exclusively Christian tale, but one which should never be represented as in opposition to Christianity.