![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Terminus! (among other things)-
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.
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.
Continued...
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...)