![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
What if? (my very last post about the Potterverse - I hope)
As I expect all of my friends know, I was deeply disappointed in Deathly Hallows, and therefore in the Potterverse as a whole. It seemed to me meanspirited, full of contradictory messages, and poorly written. In many ways, after two years, it still does. But, as a result of a couple of conversations, something just occurred to me. What if the Potterverse is not exactly what it seems to be? Or, rather, what if Rowling actually achieved her goal with these books - but that goal wasn't exactly what we (or at least I ) thought it was?
There are two ways in which I think this could be so, one likely, and one perhaps unintentional. I'll start with the unintentional one.
I expect those of us on the lookout for Christian symbolism saw Harry as a Christ figure. I certainly did, and I was disgusted. But someone (was it Jodel?) pointed out that:
1. Snape's reaching out to Harry, rather than trying to save himself, was a choice - and a sacrifice. A deliberate one.
2. If anything was going to confer protection on the school and its inhabitants, the deliberate sacrifice of an acting headmaster doing his duty would be much more likely to confer that protection than the death of a boy who happened to be a walking horcrux.
I was not the person who had this insight, but it's pretty brilliant! From this, it follows that-
If there is a Christ figure in these books, it is Snape (imperfect as he is). And Harry's virtue, and his heroism, lies in his recognition of Snape and his sacrifice. Ron and most of the wizarding world don't achieve this recognition, but we are supposed to see that Harry does.
That is possible. As I said, I don't think it's intentional, but it is quite definitely there; it's a part of what I (and others) have been calling the shadow reading, and it hangs together much better than the surface reading of the books. But I think there is a reading that is intentional, and Rowling herself gave us plently of warning about what, exactly, that reading is.
She said that she didn't like fantasy. She said that she didn't think she was writing a fantasy. She said that she intended to subvert the fantasy genre.
When I read this, back in the Time magazine interview, my reaction was like Terry Pratchett's - "what do you think you're writing? You have unicorns in your story!" And I didn't take Rowling's statement seriously. Now I think I should have.
Because one of the effects of these books, at least on me, was: "Gosh, now I hate magic." I didn't want to pick up, or think about, any book with magic in it. I was thoroughly disgusted with Rowling's magical world and disliked almost everyone and everything in it - with the notable exceptions of Severus Snape, Neville Longbottom, and Luna Lovegood. I even began asking myself why I liked fantasy, anyway. Magic simply corrupted those who had it, didn't it? It took me a long time, and a lot of analysis, to come back to the fantasies I truly loved and to see the difference between those works and Rowling's. But I still have a knee-jerk reaction against fantasy and magic, as a result of these books.
I now think my reaction was exactly what Rowling was after. Jodel and Marionros remarked, in a conversation, that Rowling seemed to be out to subvert the school story. Not so - in many ways, at least according to C.S. Lewis's definition of the school story (see my essay on Eustace and Harry for more about that), Rowling simply follows the pattern slavishly. But fantasy? She does actually subvert it, and that is just what she aimed to do.
And that's brilliant, in a way. I still don't especially like what Rowling did, but she did in fact fulfill a stated goal with these books. Which means that they are a good deal more coherent and purposeful than I had initially thought.
Just a thought.
There are two ways in which I think this could be so, one likely, and one perhaps unintentional. I'll start with the unintentional one.
I expect those of us on the lookout for Christian symbolism saw Harry as a Christ figure. I certainly did, and I was disgusted. But someone (was it Jodel?) pointed out that:
1. Snape's reaching out to Harry, rather than trying to save himself, was a choice - and a sacrifice. A deliberate one.
2. If anything was going to confer protection on the school and its inhabitants, the deliberate sacrifice of an acting headmaster doing his duty would be much more likely to confer that protection than the death of a boy who happened to be a walking horcrux.
I was not the person who had this insight, but it's pretty brilliant! From this, it follows that-
If there is a Christ figure in these books, it is Snape (imperfect as he is). And Harry's virtue, and his heroism, lies in his recognition of Snape and his sacrifice. Ron and most of the wizarding world don't achieve this recognition, but we are supposed to see that Harry does.
That is possible. As I said, I don't think it's intentional, but it is quite definitely there; it's a part of what I (and others) have been calling the shadow reading, and it hangs together much better than the surface reading of the books. But I think there is a reading that is intentional, and Rowling herself gave us plently of warning about what, exactly, that reading is.
She said that she didn't like fantasy. She said that she didn't think she was writing a fantasy. She said that she intended to subvert the fantasy genre.
When I read this, back in the Time magazine interview, my reaction was like Terry Pratchett's - "what do you think you're writing? You have unicorns in your story!" And I didn't take Rowling's statement seriously. Now I think I should have.
Because one of the effects of these books, at least on me, was: "Gosh, now I hate magic." I didn't want to pick up, or think about, any book with magic in it. I was thoroughly disgusted with Rowling's magical world and disliked almost everyone and everything in it - with the notable exceptions of Severus Snape, Neville Longbottom, and Luna Lovegood. I even began asking myself why I liked fantasy, anyway. Magic simply corrupted those who had it, didn't it? It took me a long time, and a lot of analysis, to come back to the fantasies I truly loved and to see the difference between those works and Rowling's. But I still have a knee-jerk reaction against fantasy and magic, as a result of these books.
I now think my reaction was exactly what Rowling was after. Jodel and Marionros remarked, in a conversation, that Rowling seemed to be out to subvert the school story. Not so - in many ways, at least according to C.S. Lewis's definition of the school story (see my essay on Eustace and Harry for more about that), Rowling simply follows the pattern slavishly. But fantasy? She does actually subvert it, and that is just what she aimed to do.
And that's brilliant, in a way. I still don't especially like what Rowling did, but she did in fact fulfill a stated goal with these books. Which means that they are a good deal more coherent and purposeful than I had initially thought.
Just a thought.
no subject
no subject
But the thing to realize is that all the other readings (including the naive, right-leaning pro-Gryffindor and Dumbledore one) are also present. And none of them - not even the shadow reading, and certainly not the pro-Gryffindor surface reading, hang together completely. No, the anti-fantasy one doesn't really hang together, either.
I don't expect any work of art to have a simple message one could write out on a teabag. But I do expect it to have coherence and an effect on the recipient; I expect it to communicate something. Rowling's work remains muddled to me. Furthermore, if she intended the anti-fantasy message, I don't like it. But I have to admit, if she intended that message, I can at last let go of the books because I can see where the author was coming from. I don't have to agree with her in order to understand her.
But I am not at all sure that she did intend this meaning. I wish I could be sure. It would be a huge relief to me if I could be sure that readers are not supposed to like Harry.
BTW, the pro-Gryffindor, pro-Dumbledore and Harry reading is essentially fascist.
no subject
I am 100% sure we're supposed to like him. Both the books and the interviews fully support that.
Imo it's possible both to like Harry and to see Snape as the closest to a Christ figure. But I have trouble seeing Snape this way - in a "touching" moment when DD asked whether he cared about the boy, he said he did all of it for Lily. (Why did JKR write it this way? It wasn't romantic or moving and just made Snape seem a heartless fanatic). If he started caring about Harry too, a Christ figure reading would seem more plausible. As it is, I have difficulties viewing him like that. Christ loved all people, not a Chosen Woman.
With whom is Snape on your icon? Harry?
Well, yes-
As to Snape as a Christ figure, I think it is still quite possible to see him that way. The scene you mention is clearly a part of Rowling's attempt to diminish the character - but it doesn't work as she intended, at least to me. Reasons? In that same scene, we see Snape's obvious concern for Dumbledore - a man who is in the process of betraying him to his death. We get the "only those I could not save" comment, which shows Snaps's moral growth so clearly. And, as Bohemianspirit has said, we get a strong feeling of misdirection. No, Snape doesn't like Harry. I do think he loves him. Did you read my paper on this? There is a difference between liking and love, and it's not a difference Rowling seems to appreciate.
But it's true, as I said above, that no reading of these books is entirely coherent. That's because the books are not. Snape as a Christ figure - I've said all along that he is too imperfect to really fit that role, but I still maintain that his journey makes sense as the slow, growth or an unloved and neglected young man into sainthood. The saints are all, without exception, imperfect people. All, without exception, are called to imitate Christ to the best of their ability. And we are all called to sainthood. But that's my theology; it probably isn't Rowlling's. Nevertheless, I maintain this is what she shows us in Severus Snape. She could also have shown us this in Harry, if she had taken the trouble to show the boy actually being sorry for wrong he has done, loving an enemy, changing his behavior --- but she didn't. She seems to think Harry is fine as he is and doesn't have to grow up.
Yes, that is Harry with young Severus in my icon. It's a part of a painting Sigune did for me in the exchange last year to illustrate one of my stories. Needless to say, I was thrilled with what she did!
Re: Well, yes-
No, Snape doesn't like Harry. I do think he loves him. Did you read my paper on this?
I read it now. May be he does love him in the end, according to this definition.
Re: Well, yes-
(Anonymous) 2009-08-01 10:26 am (UTC)(link)Sadly, it seems to be a difference not widely appreciated. There's also a difference between loving, or even liking, a person and approving of all of their actions and attitudes. Unfortunately, that seems to be even less appreciated. Was it Lewis who wrote about a terrible love?
Re: Well, yes-
Thanks for the comment!