mary_j_59: (Default)
[personal profile] 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.

Christianity and the Potterverse

Date: 2008-08-15 09:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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

Date: 2008-08-20 11:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 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.

Profile

mary_j_59: (Default)
mary_j_59

March 2024

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
242526 27282930
31      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 24th, 2025 11:25 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios