Terminus! (among other things)-

[mary_j_59]

Well, we are back, and we had a blast! Draco and the Malfoys like us! Kids were asking us to sign their T-shirts! Eek! More under the cut, because I'm rambling a bit.

I could go on for ages about the conference, which I enjoyed *much* more than I expected to - will write a longer entry later. For now, I've just got to say that I had an absolute blast at the Snape panel, "Good Night, Sweet Prince". The general consensus was that, where Snape is concerned, Rowling's book is wiser than she is, and she did write him as a hero - but does not recognize it. One of the women spoke of him as a knight (exactly how I see him!) and as batman! And several people came up to me later to tell me how much they had enjoyed my presentation, including sinick (I did the classic "squee" and embraced her!) and amydmartin, a friend of Cardigrl's.

Then Amy Snow (aka Romilda Vane and the Chocolate Cauldrons) did a podcast in the park of lots of wizard rockers - that was a blast, too. And we did lots of great non-conference things - Sue the dinosaur; a great exhibit on mythic creatures; a tour of the city by bus and boat; the Sears tower with a lot of wizard rockers; the art museum; the aquarium - it's hard to believe we were only there six days. Deirdre has put a photo album up at the Gringotts grrls myspace page, and it sums up the trip really well.

But gosh, were there some fascinating discussions! I'm afraid I got a bit cranky with a grandma who is a Rowling and Ginny fan - it's true Ginny is not all bad, but, at the time, I just couldn't admit it. I wish I had managed to mention the couple of scenes in which I did like Ginny. Oh, well. I couldn't think of them at the time.

Still more fascinating was a professor called Jeffrey Rudski, who did a presentation on disability in Harry Potter, and has an autistic son. He believes the way Rowling treats the disabled in these books is absolutely unconscionable - and I think he's right. He said, when I was raving (again) about her misuse of Christian symbolism, "It's Christianity as understood by an atheist." What an interesting comment! I'd agree that her core beliefs, as I glean them from this text, have nothing to do with anything I recognize as Christianity. He disagreed that she is Calvinist, pointing out that the Calvinists *do not know*, and do not pretend to know, who is saved and who is damned. Rowling's mentality is quite different - she knows. Gryffindors are the elect. Interesting.

That's my brief and spontaneous summary of some of the high points. There were a lot, really, and the train trip was fun, too, though it took us nearly 24 hours to get back to NY state from Chicago. Will try for a more extended/coherent summary later.

Comments

[alchemia.livejournal.com]

i wanted to go Rudski's presentation and unfortunatly couldn't; I'd really like to know more if you have other notes/thoughts on it, esp since he had some perspective as a person whose family is affected by autism; i was diagnosed autistic in childhood and am high enough functioning now that I could tolerate such an event with a lot of opiates and frequent hiding in the hotel room.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

I didn't manage to get to his presentation; this, like the conversation with the Rowling fans (including that grandma) was an evening conversation when people were just hanging out eating/drinking. Professor Rudski has given me his e-mail address and says his paper is likely to be published in an academic journal, so I'll post again if I find out more. A shame you couldn't come! I'll let you know if I find out more. I do think you would have enjoyed it, and we did a fair bit of hiding out in the hotel room - but the people made the conference, for me, and most were very friendly and welcoming.

[bluestocking79.livejournal.com]

That's a very interesting point about Rowling's use/abuse of Calvinist ideas. It is a perversion of those tenets, and I wonder if this is just one more instance of Rowling picking up something that looked shiny to her and using it without really considering the implications and troubling herself to understand it in depth.

I'm so glad you had a good time at Terminus, though! Everything I've heard makes it sound like great fun.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, that's what I have concluded about these books. She just throws in everything but the kitchen sink and doesn't really consider the implications of anything. That's why the books can seem to have depth that isn't in them. BTW, Dan Hemmens, in that original "Calvinism" essay, said the same thing as Jeff Rudski. She just throws things in that she doesn't understand and doesn't bother to try to understand.

But Snape's a wonderful character, anyway. He's just about the best thing she wrote, imho, even though she clearly doesn't realize what sort of hero she had in him.

I do wish you could have come; it would have been lovely to meet you.

[alchemia.livejournal.com]

He said, when I was raving (again) about her misuse of Christian symbolism, "It's Christianity as understood by an atheist." What an interesting comment! I'd agree that her core beliefs, as I glean them from this text, have nothing to do with anything I recognize as Christianity. He disagreed that she is Calvinist, pointing out that the Calvinists *do not know*, and do not pretend to know, who is saved and who is damned. Rowling's mentality is quite different - she knows. Gryffindors are the elect. Interesting.

Interesting, yeah. I wish I got to this one!

[puckling.livejournal.com]

Sounds very exciting. I can't wait to hear more.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Yes, it was great, really.

[bohemianspirit.livejournal.com]

I didn't realize you had gone to Terminus. That explains why you haven't posted lately. ;-) I'm glad someone was talking some SnapeSense at this one! Every person I've talked to in real life agrees that the obvious reading of DH is that Severus Snape emerged as the hero of the series and turned out to be a good guy, after all. It was only when JKR started saying, no, that's not it, at all, and contradicting what we all read in the last book that my estimation of her started to go downhill. Not that DH was a literary classic, to begin with, but my estimation of it was a lot more positive after my first reading than it has become over the past year.

He said, when I was raving (again) about her misuse of Christian symbolism, "It's Christianity as understood by an atheist."

It strikes me, rather, as Christianity as understood by a fundamentalist: reflecting a very simplistic, biblical-literalist, God-killed-Jesus-cause-he-was-ticked-off-at-wicked-humanity fundamentalism that degenerates into fetishizing death and bloodshed as "magical." In Matthew Fox's terms, it would be "fall-redemptive" theology (and a very crude version of it, at that) rather than "creation-centered" spirituality which is life-affirming and sees people as sacred. Atheists, on the other hand, are sometimes more savvy about theology than many of the professed believers! (Not the least reason being that a fair number of them were raised in one Christian faith or another.)

Anyway, personally, I would prefer to keep the discussion of the HP books to a broader sense of spirituality and ethics, because the attributes of compassion, mercy, kindness, and the valuation of people belong to all healthy spiritual paths, not just the ones identifying as "Christian." And, as we see, not everything labeled "Christian" reflects a healthy spirituality.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Um - okay. I did say several months ago that I was going to Terminus, Deirdre and I having been invited to play there as the Gringotts Grrls. So, since we were committed to going anyway, I submitted a paper and a couple of stories, which were accepted, and I read a short version of "Severus vs Sirius" for the panel, and "Gift and Burden" and "Tommy Serpent" on artists and author's night. I do distinctly remember asking all of my friends in the midwest if they would be able to go? And I think you said you couldn't? It's a pity none of my livejournal friends could make it, but maybe another time.

I am a devout Catholic, as you know. I guess you don't understand how outrageous and infuriating it is to see symbols and messages so dear and meaningful to me so dreadfully distorted. It is hard not to talk about Christianity - or the misrepresentation/abuse of it - in the Potterverse, because it is there. I certainly understand your not wanting to, however. Most definitely, I do not want to discuss comparative religions. But Rowling has stated that she is a Christian, and that there is a Christian meaning in her books, and she has made very heavy use of Christian symoblism in them - ultimately, to deliver a message that, to me, reads more like a fascist manifesto. That people with essentially fascist beliefs can and do consider themselves Christians is an unfortunate fact. I hope I am not being self righteous in saying this. It just really, really bothers me.

Again, I don't mean to be provocative. I just don't think you understand how deeply hurt I feel by these books. I feel betrayed, honestly. And I hated DH from the beginning. Never have i been so disappointed by a book. It made me feel as though I'd been kicked in the stomach and then spat upon. Since Rowling's interviews, I know my initial reaction was on target.

Oh, well. I hope nothing I've said here is offensive; my apologies if so. And thanks for your response.

[bohemianspirit.livejournal.com]

Um - okay. I did say several months ago that I was going to Terminus, Deirdre and I having been invited to play there as the Gringotts Grrls.

Now that you mention it, I think I recall you posting that. I hope you weren't offended that I didn't remember; I have enough trouble keeping track of my own schedule! I didn't even remember that Terminus was going on until someone mentioned being there when they replied to me recently in a comment. And then there was Portus not too long before Terminus... I get all confused with all this convention stuff that's been happening. ;-) Anyway, I meant nothing more than, "Oh, O.K., that's where you were." It's not as if I post a great deal, myself, but I do read my f-list via cell phone so generally notice if someone is or isn't around.

Now, before discussing the faith aspect, Mary, I need to clarify: I was NOT objecting to you talking about Christianity, or your Christian perspective, here on your journal. Upon re-reading my comment, and your response, it seemed to me you might have read it that way. When I said, "I would prefer to keep the discussion of the HP books to a broader sense of spirituality and ethics," I meant in the context of general HP discussion at large.

So no, I did not find your post offensive. (Even if I did, hey, it's your journal.) The only thing I found "offensive" was the way in which the other person used atheists as a negative example. Yes, atheists bash people of faith as much as people of faith bash atheists, but I still find it objectionable. And I realized it might have seemed to you to be an innocuous analogy, so I just wanted to point out that, as someone who spent a few years as an atheist and knows and respects intelligent, thoughtful atheists, it was not innocuous at all.

(So sorry... I'm verbose. Faith and values continued in next comment.)

Continued...

[bohemianspirit.livejournal.com]

I am a devout Catholic, as you know.

Yes, I know. ;-) But I'm not sure if I understand exactly what being Catholic means to you. And I get a sense that you think I know nothing about Catholicism or Christianity, when in fact those have been strong influences in my life and spiritual path. My experience with Catholicism is that most American (or at least Minnesotan) Catholics are fairly fluid with their faith: They see the underlying "faith and values" aspect as more important than specific religious or denominational identity, and they are very oriented towards an ecumenical and interfaith approach to religion and spirituality. It's a sense of, "This particular church is how I express my spirituality, my social and ethical conscience, my connection to the Divine, but we all have that connection in common, regardless of the form in which we each express it."

In addition, there are many ways of being Catholic, and many ways of being Christian, so it's hard for me to understand your particular expression of faith based on those broad labels. My own experience of Catholicism has been with the fairly "mainline," moderate-to-liberal wing of it. Catholics become Lutherans, Lutherans become Catholics, Catholics and Lutherans become Methodists or Episcopalians or Unitarians, and it's all good. The parish I attended for a couple of years in the early 2000's had a very liberal Christology, recommending books by John Dominic Crossan, for example.

I thought, based on a few things you've said in other discussions, that you came from a fairly liberal background, but maybe that's just your political leanings? Are you closer to what I would consider an "evangelical Catholic," one who feels more affinity with evangelical Christians than with mainline/liberal Christians?

I guess you don't understand how outrageous and infuriating it is to see symbols and messages so dear and meaningful to me so dreadfully distorted.

I guess I understood your objection to be mainly on ethical grounds, on the values or lack thereof expressed by the characters and the confusion of who was "good" and who was "not good," rather than on the level of symbolism and overt Christian theology. That you were offended by the books, I understood. My own reaction to things like the "holy family" tableau of the Potters was more to roll my eyes at the heavy-handed and sudden intrusion of overtly Christian symbolism--not to mention seeing the analogy between the two families as ridiculously inappropriate.

(one more...)

Christianity and the Potterverse

[bohemianspirit.livejournal.com]

(I heartily apologize that this has gone to three comments!)

It is hard not to talk about Christianity - or the misrepresentation/abuse of it - in the Potterverse, because it is there. I certainly understand your not wanting to, however. Most definitely, I do not want to discuss comparative religions.

From my point of view, it's kind of hard not to discuss comparative religious perspectives, once we start discussing the role of faith and religion and values/ethics in the books. I'm not saying we should get into a full-blown course in comparative religion, but I do think it is important to bring out that the concerns about the faith-and-values side of the books (especially DH) are not limited to a strictly "Christian" perspective, but touch on the "universals" which I have mentioned numerous times: ethical concerns in particular, the love of neighbor, or lack thereof, etc.

I also think, in general HP discussion, that we need to be as inclusive as possible of all reader perspectives. When people start talking about the books as "Christian" books, along the lines of the Narnia books being "Christian" books, I start to feel excluded from the faith-and-values discussion that, frankly, I have a strong interest in and feel very strongly that I have a part in. I never thought of the HP books as "Christian" books. Indeed, I always understood that Rowling was writing them to be religiously neutral: that she herself was of Christian faith, and of course drew upon her faith, as she understood it, and the values that (presumably) informed that faith, but that she was not writing overtly religious books a la Lewis. So if anything, I (along with others I know) felt more "betrayed" by the sudden turning of the HP series into an incredibly clumsy (not to mention spiritually and theologically questionable) religious tract.

I hope, Mary, that you are not offended by my free and strong expression of my views, here or elsewhere. I do try to be respectful, even in disagreement, and as much as possible I try to find the common ground as well. For me, differing views are a chance to open up and discuss and understand one another a little better, and I do not consider "argument" (in the civilized sense of the word) to be a bad thing at all, and certainly don't take offense when someone disagrees with me! The goal is to understand, not necessarily to agree on every point.

Re: Christianity and the Potterverse

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

I am glad I didn't offend you. For what it's worth, Rowling does strike me, personally, as more fundamentalist than atheist, and I also don't think Professor Rudski meant "atheist" as an insult at all. He was merely saying that her books had a superficial Christian veneer while they entirely lack any Christian content. I am aware that many atheists come from Christian backgrounds; that doesn't mean they have any particular understanding of theology. After all, there are, in my experience, plenty of Christians who don't understand theology, but think they do. (I am thinking of some unpleasant discussions my sister and I have had on so-called "Christian" boards.)

As to the rest of your post, I'm not sure this is the place to get into it, so I think I will send you a message privately. It's funny - I think I'm being *so clear* when I keep repeating "I am a practising Catholic", and yet it's not at all clear to you what I mean by that. So I will try to explain that much "out in the open".

To me, to be a Catholic means that you (1) accept the most basic dogmas of the Church, which are great mysteries, and (2) participate in the life of the Church through the Sacraments. Whether you are politically liberal or conservative has nothing to do with it. But, for what it's worth, I do find myself agreeing with the Catholic bishops quite a lot. So I am feminist, anti-war, anti-abortion*, anti-death penalty, pro social justice, anti corporate greed, and so on. The humanist message of the Church is entirely consistent with its spiritual message, IMHO. We are ALL brothers and sisters in Christ; there are no exceptions, and this life is a gift and a mystery and marvel. It should be served and protected. We are stewards of the earth and of each other, and we are meant to be the hands and feet, eyes and ears and arms of Christ on this earth for each other. We are meant to start to build God's kingdom on this earth, or we will not find it in heaven. So that's me. More privately. Whether you would call me liberal or conservative, I do not know. It doesn't much matter, does it?

More later, and thanks for your lenghty and thoughtful response.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Thanks - I agree with you on what you say about Rowling as a cultural Christian, actually. She doesn't strike me as an atheist, but rather as a shallow and surfacey thinker who is quite ignorant of what Christianity reallya is, and what it implies. And I'm lucky not to have met self-professed Christian Snape-haters of the sort you describe. Really - if the poor man didn't 'earn' redemption, who did in those books? Dumbledore?!! But, as you say, redemption isn't something anyone can earn, anyway, and it's more than a bit shocking that Christians can put themselves on pedestals and look down on other people they consider sinners. That's missing the point - in a big way!

And yes, Amyd is a hoot. I wish I'd had more time to talk with her.There were a lot of great people at the conference - it was really fun!