Riddles Part 4: The Spider

Intro This post is continuation of my series on riddles, which consists of thedse posts: -Riddles Part 1: Riddles in Dark Chambers -Riddles Part 2: Riddles and Imagination -Riddles Part 3: a History of Riddles But it is also a continuation of the post on the 4 elements as present in 3 tasks of the Tri-Wizard Tournament in The Goblet of Fire, the center and interpretive key of the series and the predictive key to the forthcoming 7th book. Pitting the Elements in The Goblet of Fire In talking with a friend (our friend Nathan's wife J, talking with her after narrowly beating their oldest son in sudden death over time "win by 2 points" in ping pong, 25-23 in a game to 21 ... he'll beat me soon since I have pretty much topped out my pong game and he still has so much room to get better) and telling some of what I have been writing on here recently about the 4th book, I came upon a very good recap and further development of that post on the 4 elements in the 3 tasks. Harry wins the 1st task by pitting air against fire. In the 2nd task it is important that only Cedric (Hufflepuff/Earth - who, notice, is the one Harry saves from Krum's Imperius driven Cruciatus in the maze in task 3) gets more points than Harry, but even more important that Harry really wins the task (having arrived first to the hostages, while having done it with the greatest "handicap" at the start - having been awakened by a very excited house-elf only 10 minutes before the task begins) by overcoming water with earth (gillyweed being a plant and thus an earth element). But then, the 3rd task is simply the earth, the hedges of the maze. So, how does Harry beat that one? By answering a Riddle correctly, the Riddle of a Sphinx. The Middle of the Middle: The Spider and the Riddle So, what is the answer to this riddle found near the middle of the culminating task in the central book of the series? A Spider. (Did you like the incorporation of the middle clue in the riddle, the question whose answer is "D"? ) Keep in mind that another "chiastic tie" between books 2 and 6 is Aragog, the Acromantula: In book 2 we meet him, and in book 6 he dies. BUT also remember that Basilisks and Spiders are enemies (and in book 2 the former dies and in book 6 the latter dies) AND, importantly, remember what happens after Aragog's death: Sluggo, a potions master, gets some of the venom. I would say to look for this venom and whatever potion can be made from it to play a key part in book 7 and Voldy's downfall - in amongst all the other elements I have predicted LOL. Also note that Ron (Sulfur/Biological Soul) is an aracno-phobiac ... bad dreams and all. ASIDE: Keep in mind, even if I am right about every single one of my predictions and am able to pat myself on the back for the results of my advocacy of using arithmancy vs divination to predict such things, I will always have been eagerly awaiting book 7 just as much as anybody else NOT for the reason of being able to say "I told you so!" but for the sheer thrill of reading how she did it. The story itself, the actual flow of events she writes, will be as much of a thrilling revelation to me as to anyone else even if I am right about every single one of these elements. The story itself has a life of its own, and that is the most exciting thing. But I would say this element here could show a key to knowing the elements in what is to come. Find the central things in book 4, and in particular in the tasks (like the fact that air and fire are paired in task 1 and Water and Earth in task 2, just as Gryffindor and Ravenclaw have common rooms in towers and Slytherin's and Hufflepuff's are both below ground), and in particular the 3rd task, and then look out into the corresponding pairs of books (2-6 and 3-5) for these elements and what things surrounded their occurrence in the paired books. This might give clues to what will happen. Maybe even then go out to book 1 and see what is there and there might be some clues as to the corresponding "book-end" that will be book 7. Good Luck, and may the best wizard or witch win :)

Move over, Rufus Scrimgeour!

I guess if you're a vampire like Jonathan "the Impaler" Starkey, stalking is the crime they are going to get you on. But the reason I had to post a link to this little piece of "weirdo news" is not because he is a member of the Vampires, Witches and Pagans Party. Nor is it because I'm intrigued by Minnesota politics. It was this line: "Among his proposals was one that would use impalement to execute murderers, rapists and terrorists. " That reminded me of Rufus Scrimgeour's "tough on crime" stance in Half-Blood Prince. I don't know, I kind of like the public spectacle aspect of impalement. But for Pete's sake, Mr. Starkey, do you think Americans, even Minnesotans, are ready for a vampire to be Governor? They should have started with a Pagan or Witch - I'm sure there are plenty of those in politics already. Heck, I'd vote for Hermione....

Gnostics and Numbers

Since I have done the big post on the centrality of book 4 to the 7 part series, this post has to do with a contrast in GOF that I think is emblematic to a core tenet of the series as a whole. The Battle of the Classes In book 3 Hermione leaves Divination as a class in favor of Arithmancy and I think there is a huge significance to this for the meaning in the series as a whole. In fact Hermione makes a special point of saying to Ron and Harry, when they are complaining about Trelawney's class in book 4, that they should have taken Arithmancy with her instead (as opposed to something like Ancient Runes, the class she contrasts to Divination on the basis of being really interesting in book 3, or at least in the third movie) Divination So, I have the word "Gnostic" in the title - why? Well, mainly because it provides alliteration with "Numbers" and I like alliteration a lot (the "g" in "gnostic" being silent). But Gnosticism is a trend that goes all the way back past Christianity and the word "Gnosis" itself means "knowledge." In the time of early Christianity the heresy of Gnosticism was a dualist heresy (saying that matter was evil and only spirit was good - a denial of the true redemption of the Incarnation), and they rested their claim for authority to teach this in their claim to possess "gnosis," secret knowledge that had been passed down to them from true secret disciples of the Apostles, stuff the other and larger mass of Christians wouldn't know because they were not chosen like the gnostics. Divination is a grasping at this same type of "gnosis" but in a forward direction (the future) rather than a backward one (the past). Aside: When the term "Agnosticism" was coined the term was developed specifically with these heresies in mind, claiming that it (Agnosticism) was really the answer to such things, rather than an opposition to revealed Truth in Christianity, which was more what it really was. Arithmancy So, what does Arithmancy deal with? We don't get a whole lot of really clear description of the class in the books but the meaning is pretty clear on the surface. You don't even have to go back to the fact that the Greek word for "number" is "arithmos," you can already see the similarity with "arithmetic," which deals with, of course, numbers. I believe I have described somewhere on this blog the role that numerology plays in the Judeo-Christian Tradition (in the Hebrew, for instance, every letter has a numerical value - eg if you add the numerical values of the word for father and the word for mother, you get the numerical value of the word "yeled," or "child"). There is a significance to the fact that God created the world in 7 days and that the 7th day was the Sabbath. When St John begins his Gospel as an account of the New Creation in Christ he does so with a sequence of 7 days, culminating in the wedding feast of Cana on the 7th day; and he picks up this theme of the "wedding feast of the Lamb" in the book of Revelations, which would require a whole upper-level course in Arithmancy to understand (Augustine went round and round in his later life on whether the Eschaton is to be the 7th day/age of the world or the 8th - that which transcends the 7 days of creation like Baptism replacing circumcision as the 8th day ritual - you should be able to tell from that which one I think it is ;) ) Aside: JKR2 will be very interested in the consideration that Chaim Potok, from the contemporary Jewish side of the Judeo-Christian Tradition, uses understanding of math and numerology as a way that Reb Saunders gets to know Reuven Malter in his book The Chosen. So, in short, based in the Biblical and Judeo-Christian mindset, numerology is a much surer path to truth and understanding than Divination is to "knowledge." Dumbledore's Focus and Death - and A Riddle DD, as we all know, dies (or at least appears to) atop the Astronomy tower. Astronomy is a prime example of gaining "gnosis" through the Divination of watching the stars (a pathway to knowledge best reserved to mythic creatures such as centaurs, not to humans) ... Instead of worrying about prophecies DD chose to spend his time unraveling the Riddle of Voldy through uncovering the details of the history of his perverse numerology. I wonder if in book 7 we will learn of some numbers we should have paid better attention to in the "Lightning Struck Tower" chapter? A Riddle? Here's an interesting thing to ponder (and it may sound a little mechanical in places, because I just thought of it, but it sound like fun so I will throw it out there and anyone can feel free to tell me whether they think there is something there or whether I'm barking up the wrong tree): The fountain that is smashed in the ministry had 3 magical creatures aside from the beautiful witch. Centaurs are diviners and house elves are workers - but what about Goblins? What do they do? ... (those among you practiced at puns must to be able to see this one coming) - they "crunch numbers." So, at the top is humanity, the witch, and at the bottom the workers, and in the middle - number crunchers and diviners. We have heard a ton in book four about Professor Binns being droning on about the Goblin wars and rebellions, and they're chasing Bagman around like crazy in book 4 - I wonder if this is a precursor to them playing a role in book 7. If I spoke gobbledygook I might know LOL (I missed that one on the quiz, what language goblins speak, and also what the word "bladvak" means ... Ironically a day later I heard the answer to both questions driving down the road listening to book 4 on tape LOL) Actually I am pretty sure they will play a role in book 7, as will the house-elves and the Centaurs, because now that that fountain has crumbled it must be rebuilt but in a true fashion, it is a central symbol to the series ... it's just in my theory that it will be because they are "number crunchers" that I worry about my thoughts on the goblins holding water - and as we have seen from all the talk of the 4 elements, if it can't hold water it's not much good LOL

The Same Side of Two Coins: Complimentary Literary Approaches

Preface This post was originally part of the post I did on Chiastic structure in the 7 book series and book 4 as the center of that sturcture and thus the intepretive/predictive key to the series. I have split this out into a spearate post for readable lengths and because I believe what is discussed here warrants its own post. "Two Sides of the Same Coin" "Or, being as there are so many of us ... the same side of two coins." - Richard Dreyfus as the king of the acting troup in "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead." Pauli and I appeal a lot to the work of John Granger on the Alchemical stucture and so I wanted to help the reader understand my own particular approach to the literature and how I understand the relation it has to that of somebody like John Granger's. For, they are really quite complimentary (which is why reading his work was such an eye-opener to me for understanding the works and seeing how they connected with the approach to Biblical Literature and to literature in general, that I had already considerably developed). The element of Chiasm that I discussed in the post of which this one was originally part is found most in Classical Latin and Biblical Greek and Hebrew, at least more overtly than in the Medieval period. In reality, I think, the medieval alchemical structure was a distinct instantiation or development of what is at the core of Biblical chiastic narrative and literary structure. These two approaches (alchemical and chiastic) really are both two sides of the same coin because that core is really the same side of the two coins. Thus, both Biblical themes and language and Alchemical themes and language find their place in Harry Potter, not simply in disparate images and elements, but in the very same images and elements. Granger emphasizes the Alchemical/Medieval more and I the Chiastic/Biblical, but we are both striving together after the mystery of the "one thing." (and I have to give Granger huge credit for the breadth of his work, he does an immense amount in drawing out the Classical literary sources behind Medieval Alchemy and how they appear in Rowling too). Two Lungs in One Body As regards somebody like John Granger and somebody like myself, I see a unique instance of complimentary Christian approaches to explicating literature such as Harry Potter. From what I understand Granger is Eastern Orthodox, and I, as stated in my profile and in some comments, am a Western, Latin Rite Catholic scholar. I believe the congruity between our approaches represents an instance of what John Paul II, in his 1995 Apostolic Letter "Orientale Lumen: The Light of the East," referred to as "the Church breathing with both lungs" (Eastern and Western). In fact, Granger himself is an interesting "cross" in that he is an Eastern Orthodox scholar specializing in Western Medieval literature. As far as my own approach to the Tradition behind the medieval literature on which Rowling draws, I too meld approaches from my background as Catholic scholar - particularly I use both the "Biblical Theology" approach that focuses on the narrative instantiation of the "Deposit of Faith" (which is properly speaking "Inspired" with a capital "I" - ie "The Bible") and the "Dogmatic Theology" approach, which is properly speaking (viewed from a Catholic perspective) "infallible" (divinely guarded from error in faith and morals), but in regards to its nature is focused in a more "discursive" understanding of the same "Deposit of Faith" (such as discussions of sacraments, etc). Both paths are distinct strands in the Tradition of Catholic Christianity and the Judeo-Christian Tradition that stands behind and flows into the medieval lit that stands behind Rowling's work via her path as a Classics major in college, which is her main source of material from which she builds the Harry Potter series. In short, there are "crossings of lines" that are not "horrible crosses" - all working back to the great crossing (NOT blurring) of the lines of divinity and humanity in the Incarnation. Addendum 3/21/2006: The Incarnational Approach to Literature under 3 Headings So, I am finally getting around to writing this addendum. This involves both my own approach to the literature and that of John Granger, as discussed above, but also that of the commentator known as "Red Hen." These comments that follow along the lines of what I have said above about the approaches being complimentary rather than competing, including RH's approach, but it is more than simple complimentarity - it is complimentarity as 3 parts to the 1 Incarnational Approach. In short, I see these 3 approaches (RH's, my own and Granger's) as complimentary precisely because they represent, respectively, the body/flesh, the spirit and the soul - together yielding a wholistic Incarnational approach. (NOTE: getting myself into big trouble here, sounding like a "tri-partite" anthropologist, when I have clearly stated I am "bi-partite" ... I might be able to explain why I still hold the BP position and see it as congruous with what I'm saying here, but even if I am able, not here.) Body I'll start with Red Hen. His/Her commentary is, as I have noted, the most in depth/complete that I have seen on the physics of Rowling's HP world - thus it's extremely fitting and telling thta here the works are refered to as the "Potterverse." This of course carries with it it's own dangers, but, at least at base, they are only dangers and not neccessarily acualizations of the dangers. But it is just and right to note that JKR2's concerns about beating this theorizing to death are just - to become focussed in the physical in an isolated way leads to the materialism of "Scientism." (And I'll note here: RH can be a bit frustrating, but I think it is because the material can be frustrating - that is to say that the physical universe itself does seem at times to being doing its damnedest to defy any form or logic or anything that makes any sense what-so-ever ... as a construction worker I have often thought that there is no occupation in which you can see more redily the curse of Adam, the curse on the ground and the physical universe. :) ) All this is to say simply that RH focusses on the material part of the Potterverse, the "body." As I have said before, there is a "psychic" element in Rowling's physics (meaning a strong focus the impact of the "soul," as a distinct concept from "spirit," on the physical) and RH is, I think, in tune with this and brings it out well. But it must be noted that to move beyond the mere physical, for "body" to become the "flesh" of the human person, requires the other parts of the whole approach. But the physical is important in its own right; the Incarnation impacted and assumed up into itself even basic physicality. To miss this point in the Incarnation is to stand dangerously on the thresh-hold of the path to Gnosticism (whose central tenet, across all of it various manifestations historically, is the concept that while spirit is intrinsically good, matter is intrinsically evil). Spirit My contribution is that of the spiritual side of things. I specialize in the spiritual meaning behind physical details and psychological interactions, especially present in the use of Biblical imagery, whether it be directly taken and consciously intended, or mediated through the use images and motifs from Medeival literature, which in turn adapted the Biblical images as well as instantiated Medeival Theological concepts into concrete image forms. The Soul Granger represents that mysterious meeting place of spirit and body - the human soul. Granger's focus and speciality is Alchemical literature and Alchemy is all about the pursuit of the Golden Soul. The White of pure spirit does not reign supreme (which would be Gnosticism), and neither does the Black of pure matter (which would be materialism). I know I have mentioned it a number of times, but one of the heresies of the early Church was that of Appolinarius, who taught that Christ had no human soul and that the Logos simply took the place of a distinctly human soul. From a Christian standpoint I think it is significant that this teaching was condemned at the first Council of Constantinople in 381, the very same council which put the finishing touches on the Nicean Creed, which has been the central Creed for Christendom ever since. The defining mark of Christian Theology is that it is Trinitarian, rather than simply Montheistic, and it was these 2 councils that defined the teaching on the Trinity: Nicea (325) established the divinity of the 2nd Person and First Constantinople (among other things) established the divinity of the 3rd Person. And I do not think it is mere coincidence that the latter council also established the importance of a human soul in Christ.

"X" Marks the Spot: The Goblet of Fire and Chiasm

Introduction: the "X" This post will focus on the 7 book Harry Potter series as what is known as a "chiasm." This structure is named for the Greek letter "chi" which corresponds to the English letter "X" - which is, of course, a "cruxt," and what I will write in this post has mainly risen in my mind as a result of our recent considerations of the image of the "HorCRUX." At the center of that "X" is the book I have been listening to recently, The Goblet of Fire. "X" Marks the Spot. A Chiasm is a literary device used in Biblical and Classical literature (In the introductory year Hebrew Class I took I asked the professor about a particular sentence we had to translate, whether it could justifiably be called a "chiasm" and his reply was "yes, well, they pretty much had chiasm on the brain"). In this device there are usually at least 4 or 5 main elements that arranged in an "X" formation. The elements of the top leg correspond to the matching elements of the bottom leg, and the key element is at the cruxt. In a 5 part chiasm the 3rd element is the central one, but in a 4 part chiasms there is not a single central element, but rather the central element is the connection between the 2nd and 4th parts. In a chiasm the "movement" is both linear and quasi-cyclical because there is a literary progression along the line itself but that movement is also seen in a "deepening" or "development" between the first and second elements of the corresponding pairs of elements. As I will discuss below, a chiasm can be very extended and have more than 4 or 5 elements, like, say ... 7. In which case the 4th element would be the cruxt ... but more on that in a bit. Examples of Chiasm Perhaps the best way for me to tell you what a chiasm is would be to show you (my writing professor in college always said "don't tell us ... show us!"). When I took an introductory intensive course in Hebrew (which was the setting of the above quote on "chiasms on the brain") I wanted to give the professor a special gift because it was his last course he was teaching at that university. I had been working on an idea for a wedding present to give various people I knew who were getting married, something that was not only unique to my skills as a scholar in Biblical studies but also meaningful to myself and the people as a gift specifically tied to the Judeo-Christian heritage of the faith we shared together. The idea for such a wedding gift was, using the Hebrew and Greek Fonts I had on my computer to make a guide to use on a light table, a parchment colored sheet in a frame with the poetic benediction from the book of Numbers in Hebrew (BHS - Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensia), Greek (LXX - the Septuagint), Latin (BSV - the Vulgate) and English (RSV - Revised Standard Version). Each one then had an inscription including the Hebrew text from Genesis 12:3 spoken by Yahweh to Abraham, "By you shall all the families of the earth bless themselves." So I did a special one of these for Dr. Vall (and then we all signed it and had it put in a nice frame and blessed by a priest), but I came up with a different inscription for his, I made up a chiasm. In Hebrew it reads (transliterated): "Amein, Tsadiq Hu, We-Aman." And the English translation is: "Truly, Righteous is He, and a master craftsman" (it was after the words "to Dr. Vall" but all of it was backwards, right to left, as Hebrew is written). Now, the "We" attached to the end of the last word is really, in Hebrew, simply a conjunction that can be attached to the beginning of words (so it means "and") and thus the first and last words are both from the AMN root (which carries through all the way into English, by way of Greek and Latin, in the word "Amen") - and there is a progression in the connection: What is "truly"? It is Truly that he is a master-craftsman. But there is also a linear progression through the inner elements of "Righteous" (Tsadiq) and "He" (Hu) - which are a pair because it is he who is righteous - and it is through being righteous that he is truly a master-craftsman. If Blogger had the capability for indentation I could write it out for you in actual "X" format, but hopefully you can get the picture from this description: A = Amein B = Tsadiq B1 = Hu A1 = Aman If you wish to see further examples of my use of/thoughts on chiastic structure, go here and here to see how I find it used in common prayer, and here also is another example of where I see chiastic structure in the first "Ring" movie, that may be helpful by way of example on what I am talking about with chiasms. (I recommend at least taking a look at the first of these posts, since it contains a more graphical demonstration that may help one get a better grasp.) "X"s and "O"s The image of "X" or "cruxt" marks a work as particularly Christian. In Pauli's post on "Elendil's Sword" there is a great exposition of G. K. Chesterton's thought on the image of the Cross vs the Eastern (meaning Buddhist) symbol of the circle. I highly recommend reading that post, but for here I simply wish to note that this element of chiastic structure, I believe, marks Rowling's work as distinctly Judeo-Christian along these lines. Goblet of Fire: "X" Marks the Spot. So, as I have been saying in various posts promising this one (and will say again in a couple more I have on the draft-dash board), I think book 4 is central to the series. But first let's look at some of the ways in which the corresponding pairs match up to see if they really do correspond. Books 1 and 7 In book 1 we have the famous speech by Snape that has spawned the "stoppered death" theory, and (if this theory is right - or even if it becomes correct maybe that say, Snape actually did shoot Dumbledore up on the tower but he's still alive because Snape had him loaded with a death stopper to prevent his own AK curse from killing him) then that will be revealed in some central way in book 7 (the progression is obvious, first I only told you I could do it, but then I really did it.) I also think, with John Granger, that Quirrel's characterization of Snape as a "giant bat" in book 1 will be fulfilled in a book 7 revelation that Snape is indeed a Vamp ... but we have come under heavy fire from the "trans-pacific forces" of Pauli and JKR2 on that one, so were are simply biding our time until the release of book 7 when we will be able (I am more than confident) to pounce with our "I told you so!" artillery LOL. Books 2 and 6 In books 2 and 6 are the only places we actually meet Tom Riddle, in the former it is in the diary and in the latter it is in the pensieve. Here there is a progression from a shade such as the diary horcrux (that is really sort of a disconnected version of Voldemort and has to learn what Voldemort has actually been up to) to seeing Tom really in action, the real events of his life the went into his real rise as Lord Voldemort (in a wonderful irony, it is the former instance, the diary horcrux, that is a real existing thing and the latter that is less substantial as a memory - symbolizing, I think, the perverse backwardness of Voldemort's progression to being less of a person, rather than more of a person through becoming a better person). We also have a very interesting release of "authorial data" connecting books 2 and 6 - JKR has said that the first place she considered using a chapter like "The Other Minister" was in book 2, but where did it finally find a home? Book 6 - probably because of some core connections between the 2 books and book 6 being a deepening of the themes of book 2 such that an image with broader, and thus deeper, implications, such as the other minister, fit better in book 6. Books 3 and 5 In book 3 we have a very real threat of depression and despair in the form of the dementors, but it is still, for Harry, only a vague threat. In book 5 though, we have a dementor really about to suck out the soul of a family member (even if it is only porky Dudley) and Harry's more concrete turn to a dark mood that makes even Dumbledore's touch feel like it burns his skin. Book 4 So ... what lies at the center of this 7 part "X" that is J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series? Book 4: The Goblet of Fire. Charles Williams (friend of CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien) once said (in an unfinished essay called "The Figure of Arthur," which he reportedly read to Lewis and Tolkien in Lewis's chambers one afternoon, and which can be found in the book commonly called "The Arthurian Torso" - which I have recommended to Whitney over on her "Rialb's Blog" and am hoping she is able to find a copy of) "you can disagree with the medieval European mind as much you like and hate it as much as you like, but to say the Grail in the Medieval continental Romances was not meant to be the Cup of Christ is simply bad scholarship - the medieval European imagination was, top to bottom, Catholic, and thus, top to bottom, completely caught up in the Eucharist." (That's a rough paraphrase). Keep in mind this is the characterization from a scholar steeped beyond belief in medieval literature, his characterization of THE literary source for Rowling (medieval European imagination). So, look at the Goblet of Fire - A Cup in which champions are chosen for a battle that symbolizes the battle of human life, a cup full of fire - the continually burning "life" that discerns and weighs all humans as champions. For medieval scholars, fire was the symbol for the inner life of the Trinity. Along the lines of "sacramentality" and their validity in vows that I have discussed some here before, note that the Goblet constitutes a binding magical contract that cannot be broken, even though Harry was in no way involved in his name being in it, his will never even entered the matter (any more than does that of a baby being baptized). Even if Barty Jr is like Ciaphas the High Priest in that he is plotting murder, he is still a valid wizard, just as Ciaphas had a valid prophetic office as High Priest and fulfilled it when he uttered the true prophecy that it is more expedient that the one should die for the many. And this cup has a fulfillment in a later cup, the Tri-Wizard cup. Notice that it is through the actions of the evil one (Barty Jr port-keying the trophy cup) that it becomes a pathway to a Via Dolorosa in a graveyard, to a ritual of blood letting and blood receiving - just as through the temptation of the evil one, our first parents fell, and through this God became man and walked the Via Dolorosa to a bloody death on a literal "HorCrux," on a horrible tree of shame called the Cross. ("O Felix Culpa, Oh Happy Fault") When Harry's and Voldemort's wands connect through the Phoenix song, they are lifted high into the air - "And if I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto myself."

The Dust of the Ground: 4 Elements in 3 Tasks

Then the LORD God formed the man (adam) of the dust of the ground (adamah), And breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. -Genesis 2:7 This post fits into the context of the big post I have been promising on the centrality of Goblet of Fire to the 7 book series but it is a separate post. I only mention that connection to emphasize the importance I see in the content of this present post. In the 3 tasks of the Tri-wizard tournament each of the 4 champions faces the four elements. 1. In the dragon you have both wind/air and fire. Only Harry engages the dragon on these terms and thus only he really fully confronts it. He chooses to deal not only with the danger of the fire, but does so by utilizing his prowess in the air and getting the dragon to breach its own protection of the eggs with fire by appealing to its affinity for riding the air to try to catch Harry. 2. In the 2nd task you have the water element. Notice the anti-thesis with the air element in that it is Fleur (Beauxbatons arriving by air and their immediate connection with house Ravenclaw) who has trouble with the water demons. 3. The final task is the earth in the form of the maze of hedges and it is this that I wish to focus on. Given the centrality of book 4 (which I'll establish in the forever fabled forth-coming post LOL) I think that this provides an interpretive/predictive key to the nature of things in the final chapter of the series. As Aristotle said, "what is last in execution is first in intention." The Last task will have something big to do with the earth element. Cedric Diggory's death, as a member of Hufflepuff, will take on new meaning/symbolism in how, in book 7, Harry answers the final and larger riddle of the earth element the way he answered the Sphynx's riddle in the maze. And this is one of the reasons I think Neville will play a key role in book 7. What was the earth-bound maze made of? Hedges ... plants (and very deadly ones at that). And who deals with the magical uses of magical plants? An Herbology Wizard. And who do we know who excels in Herbology (and little else)? None other than the "other candidate" for the prophecy unveiled in book 5 - Neville Longbottom. Think about it, given the connections between the water element and Slytherin and the cunning of the serpent ... what is Neville's pet that we have discussed at length recently? A Toad, an Amphibian ... A dweller of both Water and Land.

Merlin the Wizard

Well, I took one of those tests Travis linked to. 11", Ash, Phoenix "An ash wand signifies growth, balance, and protection. The phoenix tail feather as your core means that you have the capability to be an extremely powerful wizard or witch and that you will defend those you love at all costs." pretty cool if you ask me, I'm into ashen things (Especially Ash Wednesday - love the "redemption" of Cain's mark on the forehead - cf Bono's line from "In God's Country" on The Joshua Tree: " I stand with the sons of Cain, burned by the fire of Love.") -Wisdom: scored a 26, which is only in the 1 percentile range for "My Age and Higher" [MAaH](told you I was a blast ended Skrewt - how do you think my wand became so ashen? LOL - apparently losing buttocks is not the only thing Mad Eye Moody should warn us skrewts about concerning carrying our wands in our back pockets [see OotP]) -Bravery: 55 percentile for MAaH - "Where angels fear to tread" eh? (maybe because they're wiser?) -Emotional: 15, 26 percentile MAaH (not sure what to make of this category) -Martyrdom: 16, 27 percentile MAaH (wait ... doesn't this relate closely to bravery?) -Knowledge: 73 percent (81 percentile MAaH) -Obsession: 61 percent (86 percentile MAaH) -Spells: 87 percent, 58 percentile for MAaH - "Full Wizard" "Wow! Impressive. "We can expect great things from you." You must have read the books several times or are just really good at remembering which spell does what." (actually, knowing Latin helps a little - she was a classics major after all) The DD pic above is the one I got with my spells score - pretty cool pic to get for that, but I mainly put it up out of fond memory for Richard Harris, the truest DD - may he rest in peace. I tried to do the "really hard test" but lost interest pretty quickly LOL They need to have a test for understanding the meaning :)

Book Recommendation: George Weigel, "Cube and the Cathedral"

I have not read this book at all, but I have read this author and the title looks great. I am working at a friends office at the school where he teaches, doing editorial assistance on an encyclopedia project on which he is co-editor and really managing editor, and I just happened to see the book on his desk. It is The Cube and the Cathedral by George Weigel, author of Witness to Hope, the famous biography of Pope John Paul II. I have read an article by Weigel on a similar topic entitle "A Better Concept of Freedom." The Title of this book sort of follows Chesterton's contrast in the images of circle/ball vs cross, but seems to move in the direction of Weigel's own emphasis on the Via Antiqua vs the Via Moderna. I bring this up because one of the reasons I love Rowling is that I think she is a great example of how a post-modern is helping to re-introduce some of the health of the Via Antiqua (terms V.A. and V.M. borrowed from lectures by Dr. Scott Hahn.

Alchemical Symbolism in Superbowl 40

I'm going to watch the Superbowl rooting for the Pittsburgh Steelers, my hometown team, but also keeping an eye out for all the great alchemical symbolism which this game must provide. Why? Primarily because I'm a weirdo who can't tell the difference between literary fiction and a sports game, but let me explain anyway. In looking at the team symbols, this game will be a clash between the 4 powers of the earth. The Steelers obviously represent fire and earth, after all, iron is the "earth metal" (check out 3rd paragraph here) and you need some pretty hot fire to turn it into steel. Obviously the Seahawks represent air and water. I don't know anything about their team other than that they've got a great QB (Hasselbeck), a great running back (Alexander) and a killer defense. Well, I suppose you'd need those 3 things to get to the big game; the Steelers have 2 great running backs, Parker is the "fire" with his speed (along with the volcanic pro-bowler, Troy Polamalu on defense) and enormous Jerome Bettis, as the "bus", is definitely a land vehicle. Supposing a quarterback's passing game is determined by an affinity to the air element, Ben Roethlisberger might be a veritable Griffin, i.e., king of air and king of earth. His passing game in the post season has impressed most people even though his rating for 2005 is about equal with Hasselbeck. Maybe it's because he choked in the post-season last year. The water element in football I would associate with flexibility and cunning. So I would look for these qualities to be exhibited primarily by a football teams defense. A "quick poll" on the Seahawks site asking fans how will they beat Pittsburgh has fans overwhelmingly voting for "The Defense" over the Quarterback, Running Back and "offensive line". So there you have it, the alchemical question of Superbowl XL. Will the soaring Seahawks rust out the infamous Steel Curtain or will the Steelers' hot steel cook those seabirds like Thanksgiving turkeys? We won't have to wait until book 7 to find out. I promise I'll provide the analysis of this titanic battle on February 6 and hopefully my predictions here will be enough to make Professor Trelawney proud.

An Acknowledgement: The Imperius Curse, Free Will and Human Dignity

I owe JKR2 an acknowledgement for her unwavering insistance on Harry's prowess with regards to the Imperius curse. As DD said of Neville in book 1, it takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies ... but even more to stand up to your friends. I have been "re-reading" book 4 (I put that in quotes because I have been listening to it on tape while doing some driving) and had forgotten the very emphatic scene where BC Jr, faking being Moody, sets Harry up as an example of fighting the Imperius, and indeed runs him through a number of times of the exercize in front of the class, and in doing so actually helps Harry to hone this power to the point where, I would say, that it is possible that the only 2 people who could effectively use Imperius on Harry would be Voldy and DD, wizards of that height of power (although DD would never do that). Social Criticism I have an important post/piece in the works on the centrality of book 4 to the 7 stage development of the series and so I think, since this occurs in book 4, that this element is key to Rowling's outlook and an important aspect of her central theme of death. The similarities between Harry and BC Jr regarding their prowess in overcoming Imperius (cf a few paragraphs below) indicates, I think, a central aspect of this book by itself, but that the place of the book within the series as a whole also lends that aspect a centrality in the whole project. Even though it may only be out of "acting the part well" BC Jr still partakes in a validly true role as a teacher. There is, of course, the aspect of mimicking Moody's personal traits, but BC Jr goes beyond this ... even if it is as a ruse, still he does a good job as a teacher. I think that this indicates a possibility of redemption, and I think there are small hints of this in the book - such as when Harry passes task 1 (the dragon - just listened to that today) the way Rowling describes "Moody's" joy as common with the other Hogwarts teahcers just seems to me like it is real, like Barty might not be just faking it, like he (meaning BC Jr himself) might actually be partaking in the naturally good joy of a teacher who has seen a student perform well something in which they have mentored them. And BC Jr really does have something to offer Harry as a mentor, which I think is a point Rowling makes rather well. Think about it: Harry is not the only one who should be praised for conquering the Imperius - we find out by the book's end that BC Jr eventually overcame the use of it on himself by his own father. These are just hints, just small beginnings, and they do not stop BC Jr from carrying through his plan to put Harry in the hands of Voldy. But once the plan is uncovered and BC Jr is under lock and key, there may be possibilities ... but we will never know, for he was kissed by a dementor under the very eye of the great "buerocratic savior" Fudge. The possibility of the slavation of a soul was completely cut off by bumbling self-righteous arrogance. I do not think it "accidental" that Rowling has McGonnegal warn the fake Moody "we do not use transfiguration as a punishment," in the same book as she has an actual dementor's kiss fully performed ... I think it is intentional. There are arguments in favor of the "death penalty" that really do not rely on the idea of using death as a true penalty, but on the pragmatic consdieration of it's possible effectiveness for assuring the inability to commit further similar crimes, and these arguments constitute their own separate debate. But in this instance I think Rowling is saying that a psychic death like that dealt by the dementors should never be used as a punishment (ie, not speaking of "death penalty" as a "precaution" but properly as a "penalty" - a thing which the wizarding community has no real problem with allowing the possibility of by having the dementors as the gaurdians of Azkaban and which Fudge stands idly by and watches happen in person). Agree or disagree with Rowling as you like, but it seems to me that this is what she is saying through the literary connection of various "punishments," the similarities between Harry and BC Jr with Imperius, the fact that, regardless of his conscious motivations, BC Jr does actually do a good job of teaching and the fact that the redemptive possibilities this might imply are comepletely killed by the dementor's kiss, which has buerocratically been allowed into the wizarding penal system. I think she is emphasizing the dignity of the human person this way and in particular by emphasizing the connection of that diginity with human free will, which she symbolizes in Harry's and Barty Jr's ability to resist the Imperius curse. As I have been getting to know BC Jr better in this re-reading, getting to know him through how he imitates Moody, I have been all the more genuinely saddened by the knowledge that he will suffer the fate he will at the end of the book.

Serpents and Simpering

This will be the first of probably many short posts on my part coming from thoughts and observations in listening to book 4 on tape - just bits and pieces that occur to me. Two such things just occurred to me in listening to the tapes during an hour and a half drive (3 hours round trip - since I needed to do the drive anyway, great to have the opportunity or being able to get a good chunk of "reading" done too) . -The Basilisk and the Cockatrice: As I noted before, in the development of mythological creatures through the history of the western tradition of literature the Renaissance version of the Basilisk is the "Cockatrice." Interestingly Hermione points out to the others over breakfast that probably the three heads of the participant schools will be judges of the Tri-Wizard Tournament. Her evidence for this being the practice is that in 1792 the three school heads were chased by a magical creature involved of one of the tasks that broke lose from that program and went on a rampage - and that magical creature was a Cockatrice. I think Rowling is probably aware of the shift in "character" involved in the literary development of the creature and symbolically views them as two distinct stages in the identity of the one creature but that this is an identification that is missed by many - in other words they may have foolishly used a cockatrice not having paid attention that it is really simply another form of a Basilisk. -Bartimeus Crouch: Since I am used to hearing Barty referred to simply as Barty, I had not really ever thought about his full first name: Bar-Timeus. Literally, within the Christian Tradition and a sa combination of the languages of Aramaic and Latin, I think this would mean "Son of Timidity." (but this is open to argument and actually argument is welcome since this is just something that has struck me off the top of my head and I would greatly appreciate thoughts from other camps as far as other etymologies of the name as used in the real world that might help shield from disapproval any who have this name in real life). The "Bar" is the Aramiac for son and usually used in surnames (like the word "son" gets used in other cultural heritages, such as in the name "Erikson" etc.). It could be argued that there is no reason to suspect that Rowling knows this since Aramiac is probably not in her repertoire of languages, and I would agree except that it is somewhat known through the Western familiarity with the New Testament, where Peter is specifically referred to as "Simon Bar-Jonah" and even I as a teenager had hear that this was some sort of reference meaning "son of so-and-so" (in this case a father named Jonah or John). Given her characterization of Crouch Sr, it also seems likely she would choose this name intentionally - but that is just my initial impression.

Giants and Gin Part 2: Hagrid the Red

I have recently been re-reading The Magician's Nephew and I have already posted on some of the things I noticed in The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe concerning the origin of Jadis (Giants and Gin part 1). Here I mainly wanted to note Jadis' stature as noted in TMN and some other connections with the concept of Giants that I think relates to Hagrid as half-giant and the role he may play in the 7th book (I have also noted before the issue of Hagrid's heart and, in that context pointed to Travis' blog entry on the final stage, the "red stage," of Alchemy). In the Judeo-Christian Tradition "giants" have played a specific role: -Genesis 6:1-4 tells of the origin of "giants" (literally "nephilim" or "fallen ones" - from a general myth that the giants fell to earth, combined with theire "fallen" state as very evil - also "gibborim" or "mighty warriors" and "men of the name/reknown" or, in other words "men with a giant name/reputation") as believed to be descended from marriages of lesser gods with human women, and this serves as a prelude to the desciption of race-wide rampant wickedness and particularly violence. -In The book of Numbers 10 of the 12 spies sent to "case" the land of Canaan were scared by these same "giants." -Goliath, the Philistine slain by the boy David, was one such Giant. -This element of "stature" has usually been represented in literature by an unusual physical stature such as that of Jadis in TMN. However, the "evil" or violent nature of Giants has also been symblized by an element of having six fingers on one or both hands. When I showed Pauli a paper concerning the fact that the "sixth day" and the number six in Genesis represents the kingly aspect of humanity (distinct from man's preistly aspect) and that in Revelations the number 6 comes to represent the kingly aspect divorced from the priestly, and thus evil ("beware the number of the beast, for it is a human number, it's number is 666"), Paulie noted to me that Goliath had 6 fingers. Aside: This element of six fingers has also been used in such movies as "The Princess Bride" and "Gattaca." In the former the evil Count Rugen (wonderfully played by Christopher Guest, of "Spinal Tap", "Waiting For Guffman" and "A Mighty Wind" fame) has six fingers on his right hand; and in the latter there is a piece of music that can only be played if one has six fingers - which is I believe a possible referent to the violence of the genetic engineering the movie concerns by way of a reference to the final violence of the City of Cain in Genesis four, characterized by the fathers of technology as well as art such as music, but also characterized by the final polygamy and violence of Lamech. Hagrid In addition to being my nephew Gilbert's favorite HP character, Hagrid "the red" (Rubius) may play a key role in book 7, a role hitned at in the end of Book 4 and in book 5 with the coming of Grawp, who is pure giant. Voldy counts on the giants to be on his side but I am betting that Hagrid, as the red stage and as half human with a great big ol' heart, and his reformed brother, will play a central role in undermining that plan of Voldy's. In short, I think that Hagrid's huge heart and his role in the "red stage" will have something to do with his being the redemption of the giant race through his being half human, and also through his choice to help Grawp have a better life. PostScript I have not found any significat instances of the six fingered thing in HP, or more specifically in Hagrid's character - I basically mentioned it to sort of fill out some of the image history of giants as "evil." But on the matter of Gattaca, check out the imdb page for the guy who wrote and directed it, Andrew Nichols, who also wrote another of my favorite movies from a different genre, the Hanks movie "The Terminal." - good writer.

"Crossing" the Line

I just heard a great line relating to the meaning of "cross" in "Horcrux" A friend went to see "Walk the Line," the movie on Johnny Cash, and he and his wife loved it. His final comment was: "Anyways, I liked the movie a lot - and hope to walk the line more often than I cross it."

Newman's "Illative Sense"

Since I have made reference a number of times on this blog to John Henry Cardinal Newman's "Illative Sense," I thought maybe I should give a brief over-view/definition, since it it not a very commonly known thing. By way of maybe some broader background that may help to get a better grasp - my introduction to it was in a class on "Reason and the Heart/Faith." The focus of the class was an examination of ways other than strict deductive reasoning that we can also have "true knowledge," such as "inductive" paths. The best way to describe the "Illative Sense" as one of these "inductive paths to true knowledge" is by giving the primary example that was used for it in the course. If you have a scholar who has immersed himself in medieval Latin texts, you might put before them a text that is purported to be from say the 5th or 6th century, and they might tell you "I don't think so ... it doesn't feel like it." They may not be able to give you an explanation complete with notes on the particular style of specific elements and instances in the text and cite textbook definitions and "authoritative" expositions of Latin from that period that the specific elements do not conform to, but this does mean you should not trust their intuition. There is a certain "authority" in the fact that they have immersed themselves so heavily in primary texts from that period that they have a "feel" for it. Upon further study they may be able to provide you with more concrete arguments, but you should not withhold trusting their opinion simply because they have not yet provided you with such (or maybe never do). That "feel" or "intuition" is a prime example of the "Illative Sense." It is in this sense that I say Rowling may have more of an "illative sense" for how to combine these elements in story form, rather than a "reasoned out" plan. (another example of such "paths" to true knowledge, as studied in this course, was that of "divine charity as an objective characteristic in the world" - that approaching the world through charity not only puts you in a better subjective stance with regards to the salvation of your soul [under the categorical heading of "soteriology," the study of salvation as such] but it also puts you in a better stance objectively in regards to epistemology [which is the categorical study of "knowledge" or "how do we know," under headings such as "knowledge" vs "true beliefs" and "opinions"] because, being created by God, who is Love, the universe has charity objectively in its nature and you are objectively better suited to "know" that objective nature if you approach it with a corresponding charity. I mention this other "path" [which is not in competition with the illative sense - they can work together, and both work with valid reason] because it relates to one of the primary themes in HBP, Harry's advantage over Voldemort in being able to love.)

What of Thee, oh Toad? : Toads and Basilisks

Introduction This post will serve the purpose of several comments I was going to make; but the first thing that I must admit is that I stole the first part of the title (the question) from Pauli ... it was the name of a post he had in draft form that eventually was worked into his post on Neville's Toad Trevor, which was a great post and the main purpose of this post is to follow up on it. The other comment purpose it serves is a comment I was going to leave on your site JKR2, under your post on reading the magical creatures work, and also connected with another thing from a previous comment interchange we had on your blog. You had asked what the word "chimerical" meant in regards to the Basilisk eventually becoming the "cockatrice" in Renaissance literature. Here is a link to the wikipedia page on the actual chimera creature ... and ... here is a link to a page on the Basilisk/Cockatrice in its later form that sort of let's you see(literally - notice the picture at the top of the page) why the Cockatrice was eventually too unbelievable of a character for continued usage (it works for good symbol-types such as the Griffin and Hippogryff but not as well for evil symbol-types - I think in the good types, when they can give the creature a unique character that symbolizes the mysterious marriage of the elements and can also function in a unified way it works but in the evil types it is difficult to get the elements to link up and it becomes more like a "circus freak" image - both the Basilisk and Chimera classically being symbols of evil) Of Toads and Basilisks I'll discuss briefly below how I think Trevor, Black and the Basilisk, as representative of Slytherin, are related symbolically in the work (building off Pauli's excellent observation of the close connection between Trevor and Sirius in POA), but there is first a much more direct link in the actual mythology of the Basilisk. According to the wikipedia article on Basilisks they, "were supposedly born out of a rooster's egg that was hatched by a viper or toad." ASIDE: There is a real lizard called the Basilisk - and this is mere speculation on my part - but I think maybe the name being used of this lizard MAY have something to do with the fact that it can run on its hind legs, like a human ... which is sort of a direct reversal of the curse on the serpent in Genesis 3 - but this is admittedly just my own speculation. It is important to note here one subtle nuance of the material that Pauli brought up, particularly that, with Hermione's help, Neville saves Trevor from taking a potion. A while ago we commented on the nature of potions as a wandless magic and some further considerations of the serpent as "cunning" and more recently I have commented on the possibility of Helga Hufflepuff possibly playing some role in keeping Slytherin at Hogwarts as part of the school ( this is in both the post itself and in some of the later comments in the thread ... and in the other post linked just preciously to this, there are comments on why potions still exists as a class at Hogwarts). Thus, Neville not only saved Trevor from some possible physical damage but also did so by saving him from being under the influence of potions as a wandless magic, which is to say he kept Trevor from the "Basilisk side" of his own toadly nature. This is much like the fact that Harry's saving of Sirius may be a continuation of a possible saving of Black by Harry's parents: It is precisely Sirius' affinity for characters such as James and Lily that earlier in life kept him from being affected by the "Basilisk leanings" in his own familial heritage. Of Orphans and Dark Wizards In the post linked above on Hufflepuff I noted the connections of the orphan imagery and in closing here I wanted to note a few other things about it as it relates to this particular topic of the connection between Neville, Harry and Sirius: all three are orphans of a sort and all have been made such by "dark wizards." Black is the most "figuratively" an orphan - his parents were actually alive etc. But he was terribly estranged from them precisely because of the "pure-blood" bigotry so common to dark wizards. Neville is the next in that line of "figurative" because he parents do still live - but they do not live with the mental vitality that they once had and their being tortured into insanity by Bella gives him a very real pain of an orphan. Harry is of course the "fullest" orphan. I think the levels at which these 3 symbolize the orphan is directly related to what Pauli was talking about as Neville being symbolic of the same "rescuer" aspect of Harry at an albeit more subtle/secondary level, but still a real and important level with really verifiable literary connections in the text. It is kind of like the minor recurrences of motifs that fill out the major motifs in a symphony. The fact that Trevor (via the mythical lore of the Basilisk) and Black also represent the "black" stage or element indicates the important role of the one who is orphaned but turns out to be a powerful aid, in restoring unity in the stages subsequent to the black stage. Notably, the last two (Neville and Harry) were made orphans in ways directly connected to Voldy. It has been emphasized in books 5 and 6 that Voldy made the prophecy a self fulfilling one for himself by giving Harry his powers on that fateful night that he orphaned him, and this is true even to the level of this connection between Harry and Neville as rescuers, since he not only directly made Harry an orphan, but it was his hench-woman who made Neville an orphan. And I think Neville will somehow fulfill this connection in a significant way in book 7. (Think of the other connection between Harry and Neville in GOF - who did Neville take to the Yule Ball? Ginny) POST-SCRIPT I should note here that I will probably not be able to elaborate much on some of these thoughts without becoming confusing. I think that these elements (Trevor, Sirius, the black stage, the basilisk, Slytherin and cunning, potions as wandless magic, the orphan theme) are playing off of each other in the work but I am not sure it is possible to discuss it discursively in depth without going into the "a man's brain is a bomb" territory, which gets kind of jumbled. I think that the elements really do work together in the work for Rowling but my suspicion is that even she may not be able to describe how in a discursively clear fashion (although if anyone could I think it would be she, she is a very clever woman, ... or maybe somebody more adept in this particular area like J. Granger - although it must be taken into account that while Rowling is using the medieval Alchemical structure as her main structure, many of the ways she has some elements connecting and develops them is post-modern as well). I suspect that her thought processes may run something like "this just feels right" - sort of like Newman's "Illative sense."

Toads and Forebodings

I've discovered what I believe to be some literary parallelism in "Prisoner of Azkaban". I include the 2 instances below along with my subsequent thoughts on the meaning. 1) The rescue of Neville's toad, Trevor, in potions class: Neville is having trouble with his potion. Snape threatens to feed Neville's messed-up potion to his toad. With Hermione's help, Neville's potion is salvaged, and Trevor is saved. Snape gets disappointed by Trevor's escape and deducts points from Gryffindor. Then he puts Neville down in front of Professor Lupin. Snape is made fun of in Defense against the Dark Arts. 2) The rescue of Sirius Black: Sirius is in trouble. Snape has helped the Minister capture him. The threat of the dementor's kiss looms - Snape had earlier threatened Sirius directly with this in the shrieking shack. With Hermione's help - and the help of her time-turner- Harry goes back into time and saves Sirius. Snape is once again disappointed by Sirius's escape and reveals to all that Lupin is a werewolf. Snape is criticized as unbalanced by the Minister himself. (Note: Although Snape is involved here I'm trying to avoid any "Snape speculations" here. I'm willing to believe that Snape might be good, but I don't particularly like the "Snape-is-really-a-nice-guy" interpretation of his treatment of Neville, and it doesn't fit at all the desire to see Sirius lose his soul.) What's the meaning of these parallels? Parallels in literature are often meant to shed light on each other. According to this Levity page, "It is, therefore, clear that in Ripley's works the Toad symbolized the First Matter of the Great Work that was obtained in its first stage of Calcination or Nigredo." According to Granger, Sirius himself is closely aligned to the nigredo or "black stage" - hence the surname. (see here - and here especially, he states "The first stage is the nigredo or "black" phase in which the leaden material or "lead character" is loosed of all his formal characteristics and reduced by fire into prime matter or his essence.") Here is another clue which leads me to believe that this parallel is on track. Directly after the potions class, the Gryffindors go into their first Defense against the Dark Arts class. After Snape derides Neville to Professor Lupin as a blunderer, Lupin says to Snape, "I was hoping that Neville would assist me with the first stage of the operation. And I'm sure he will perform it admirably." Neville's admirable performance involves the appearance of the boggart-Snape in his grandmother's bathrobe. With a vulture perched on his head, poor Severus appears as a comical travesty of death-personified. Sirius riding away on Buckbeak is a more picturesque symbol of the triumph over death, but possibly no more apt. It can be seen in this that fate may have chosen Harry for greater life accomplishments, such as saving Sirius (and Buckbeak - and even Pettigrew), while Neville's role in preserving his toad from death by poisoning may be somewhat lesser. However, alchemically all these feats are part of the same "Great Work" and represent the same transformative realities. (Also: Hermione's role in this phase is really significant in these instances - I'll let others comment.)

Great Article on Horcruxes

On her blog JKR2 linked to an amazing article from Mugglenet on Horcruxes and Slavic Mythology. Many of you may have already seen this article but if you have not - check it out. Also read down through the comment thread between JKR2 and myself - I'm really excited about this article in that it represents some of the first information I have seen on the textual background of this key Rowlingian/Potterian image. I have been trying to figure out what the literal Latin meaning of "Horcrux" is. The "crux" ending is, I believe, the same as the etimology of the English word "cross" - as in the "cruxt" of the matter meaning the "center" or central thing or intersection. The "Hor" is a little harder to figure. I don't believ it comes from the word "hora" which Latin picks up from Greek vocabulary, which means "hour" as in a particular appointed hour (the Greek term is that used in the NT of "Christ's hour" not having yet come, or when it comes). I think it comes from the verb "Horreo" which is synomous with the verb "Horresco," both meaning "to shudder or dread" and both related to the adjective "Horribilis" which translates into the English "Horrible," which is of course related to "horror." So as near as I can place it it literally means "horrible intersection" "horrible cross" or "horrible meeting/combination" (as in an unatural combination or cross of things like a physical object and a portion of somebody's soul) or something along those lines but I have not yet lit upon any particularly siginificant deeper meaning to this, one that would elucidate a particular quality of the term that shows something specific about Voldy's character/agenda. ... Any suggestions anyone? There is also some interesting speculation (I think in this comment thread, although it may be another) of the question of what the resulting situation would have been had the diary Horcrux achieved substantial material presence and Voldy also regained his body as he did in GOF ... would they have been friends? I don't think so.

The Big Book 7 News!

Here's the best news we've all heard today, folks. The seventh and final Harry Potter book will be done by the end of 2006! This of course gives us a limited amount of time to get our inane theories into blog-electrons so they can be proven wrong. Then after book 7 we can set ourselves to do some real analysis without the hand-wringing over what will happen to our favorite characters, which in my case is, of course, Trevor the Toad. (But more on that later....) We'll also probably cry because it's the last book, but we won't admit it because we're dudes, right?

Why Not Potter-napping?

Ok, Here is a consideration I just thought of and I think it presents some of the strongest physical evidence for the "Good Snape" theory. When Snape hit Potter with that invisible whip spell, he pretty much beat his butt beyond any challenging of that ruling. Plus, with that mountainous death eater there (whom I shall refer to as "turret-gun-blouter-boy") ... he pretty much has Harry out-gunned until Buckbeak intervenes (Hagrid NOTABLY, in the text, being pre-occupied with saving Fang). Why didn't he just Petrificalus Harry and Accio or Levicorpus him or something to just outside the gates where he could apparate with him? "But, he may just not have thought of it!" you reply? ... I don't buy it - not of a wizard as cunning as Snape. I think he had to know his timing well, like Dumbledore atop the tower. He had to know that intervention could come at any moment - so why waste his time blasting out his feelings for Potter on him when he could have kidnapped him and saved the spite for later? (I think his livid state come subsequent to making the choice to follow the path of not kidnapping Potter but not being able to resist the opportunity to throw a few jabs, and then he gets caught up in his own emotions a little once he's into the situation and Potter calls him a coward) It would have been in no way a violation of Voldy's orders (that we know of) like turret-gunner-boy hitting him with the Cruciatus was. How appreciative would Voldy have been to have Potter delivered to him on a platter like that (like he had him delivered in book 4 ... only this time he'd know about Priori Incantatem and use somebody else's wand or something like that)? I think Snape has some explaining to do with Voldy to get out of not doing that one. Either way, I think it is pretty conclusive that Snape is protecting Harry ... whether due to a UBV or to his own core commitment to doing the right thing.

Snape: Bound by multiple vows?

Since we've been piling up comments about differing opinions on vows in a recent post, I figured I'd link up to this post on LaShawn's site which speculates that Snape also made an unbreakable vow with Dumbledore. Merlinus, you may fire at will!

"I will sing, sing a New Song"

I am a huge fan of U2's song "40" especially since they have been closing all their shows on the Atomic Bomb tour with "Yahweh" segueing into "40". But this post is not on U2, it is on "The Sorting Hat's New Song" chapter from Order of the Phoenix. I originally started this as a comment in the thread on the post on verse versus prose because I had looked up the fifth book song in responding to a question from JKR2 in that thread, but decided this is too good not to make into a separate post. In looking at the Sorting Hat's song from Book 5 a couple things stood out to me. 1. I think the song must be REALLY important because it gets its own chapter heading, and a title that indicates an important change, "The Sorting Hat's New Song." (emphasis added) 2. I think that there is a clue that something big will be revealed about Hufflepuff and that Hufflepuff will play a big role in reconciliation. Of the four heads she is the only one not to "side with" a particular group or type. There are two recountings of the four dispositions, in the first they speak and in the second they act. This is much like the 2 creation accounts: Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. The first focuses on God's word of power ("And God said, let there be ... and there was"). The second account focuses on what it was that He did in creating: He created the world in relation to Himself and humanity in a unique relation to Himself, a covenant (according to some the number 7 is used in Hebrew as an idiom for making a covenant, you "seven" yourself to another in a covenant). If the four founders and houses correspond roughly to the four elements (Slytherin to water, Gryffindor to Fire, Ravenclaw to wind/air, and Hufflepuff to earth) then their founding of the school is in a way like the creation of the world (although I do not mean this in any way as ascribing a quality of deity to the founders, or anything idolatrous like that). Since they also correspond to the 4 "humors," their founding of the school is also like the creation of the human person. In Hufflepuff's section of of acting (the second of the two recountings) she is described remarkably like a patron of orphans, taking in those who found no home with the other powerful wizards' houses ("Good Hufflepuff, she took the rest, And taught them all she knew"). Keep in mind that Harry is an orphan AND his owl is named after the patron saint of orphans, St Hedwig (this information thanks to Father Roderic in his Harry Potter podcast series over at www.catholicinsider.com ... although Father Roderic has been focusing more on the Chronicles of Narnia film recently). Combine this with the fact that in Goblet of Fire Harry's co-champion for Hogwarts, Cedric Diggory, is a Hufflepuff ... I think there is something really big going to be revealed about Hufflepuff in book 7 and that HP (Hufflepuff ... Harry Potter - is there a connection? now there is some really wild speculation, LOL) will play a big role in the restoration of unity to the four houses and the school. Postscript: Here's a REALLY wild speculation - Cedric dies. What if what is going to be revealed is that Hufflepuff died in self-sacrifice to try to achieve unity between warring Salazar and Godric and her death was part of the same ancient magic that Dumbledore used with Harry's mother and that somehow this magic, and particularly Helga Hufflepuff's participation in it, will facilitate something, be necessary for something, in the final reconciliation. I think that it is highly significant that Hufflepuff was a woman.

Good theory from the "Dumbledore-faked-his-death" camp

Mirvink has provided us with a good theory on how Dumbledore may have faked his death with Snape's help on the lightning struck tower. This originally appeared as a comment under the Sharp-Shooter Snape post. <mirvink> I do not believe that Dumbledore is actually dead. I think that he and Snape faked his death to aid in the downfall of Voldemort. Here are my reasons and evidence. 1. "And for the first time Dumbledore pleaded." - It is not in Dumbledore's character to be afraid of death. Several times in the books Dumbledore states that there are worse things than Death. In book one after Harry defeats Quirrel Dumbledore says, "To the well organized mind, Death is but the next great adventure." 2. Dumbledore's emphatic defense of Snape - "I trust Severus Snape completely." Over and over he has stated this. Dumbledore is a shrewd and wise man. To say such strong words, he must have more reason than just hope that Snape is true to his word. While Dumbledore does admit in book six that his mistakes tend to be larger than the average person's because he is cleverer than the average person (all in reference to book 5), he must have real reason not to doubt Snape. 3. The "Avada Kedavra" curse - When used, as seen in book 4 on the spider (by Moody) and Cedric, it hits the victim and then they die. The victim does not float up in the air like Dumbledore. But, you may protest, there is no defense against the Killing Curse. While that has been stated, we have seen Dumbledore deflect the killing curse in book 5 using a statue. Also, Fawkes defended Dumbledore, but it did actually kill him, but being a phoenix, he came back to life. Also, and more importantly, Bellatrix LaStrange tells Harry (when he tried to use the Cruciatis Curse on her) that in order for an Unforgivable Curse to work, you have to really mean it. What does this tell us? That Snape could have uttered the Killing Curse, but used another spell (mentally) to raise Dumbledore up, over the wall and out of sight. Here Dumbledore could have transfigured whatever (since he used to be the transfiguration teacher at Hogwarts) into a likeness of himself or used the Draft of Death (the sleeping potion so strong that it appears you have died). Then a body is buried (body wrapped so you cannot see the face), Fawkes sings a sad song to add believability and a picture of Dumbledore, a sleeping Dumbledore, is added to the Headmaster's office. This all gives the appearance that he is gone. Why? So that Voldemort will now act with less caution and Dumbledore can work against him. 4. The problem of the Unbreakable Vow - Snape said he would help Draco. He did. Snape hesitantly said he would finish the job if Draco couldn't. Here’s the problem, but also an important point. When he made this vow, he paused, thinking, then said "yes". If he had not killed Dumbledore at that time, would he have broken the vow? No. Narcissa was not as careful as she thought she was being. She never put a time frame on the statement. Technically, even though Draco did not finish the job, Snape only has to kill Dumbledore if Draco fails completely, but never says when he has to kill Dumbledore. Snape's quick mind could have recognized the fact that he did not have to kill Dumbledore in any specific time frame and thus agreed to the vow. Also, Snape told Dumbledore about the vow, which would have allowed them to work out a plan. If, and I’m completely guessing now, Narcissa hears of this, then she may release Snape from the vow allowing him to continue to act as a super spy who is aligned with Dumbledore. Having said all this, J.K. Rowling has written the whole thing so that there is still evidence for Snape being truly evil and Dumbledore being duped and dead. Looking at both sides, it looks like a 50/50 call. But looking at the cleverness and character of Dumbledore, I cannot see him going out so easily. He is much too great of a wizard. </mirvink> I like this theory. I was thinking that the first time Harry sucessfully pulls off a non-verbal spell it's "Levicorpus" which he uses on Ron. It doesn't seem to hurt him at all. Maybe this was the spell he used to toss Dumbledore over the edge "like a doll" the book says. Also, doesn't he appear to hover for a moment? Anyway, I still think that Dumbledore wanted Harry to have that Half-Blood Prince book. I mentioned this before in my Cuts & Shortcuts post in regards to Sectum Sempra. Thanks, Mirvink!

Cleaning up with Joseph Pearce, in Verse and Prose

Ok, so I am at my place of residence in good ol' Weirton WV and have been cleaning up a bunch because I have accumulated way too much crap over the past however many years and I want to get things way stripped down in plenty of time for the (hopeful) move when I head to work on a Ph.D. So, I came across a number of unmarked audio cassettes and decided to pop them into a handheld tape recorder I have to see what they were and the first one was a recording I had taped of a "debate" (at which I was in the audience) between Joseph Pearce (whom Pauli and I have mentioned before, and his biography of Tolkien, as well as others, can be found on Amazon ... good stuff) and Henry Russel (a literature professor from Ave Maria College in MI). The debate was after only the first Lord of the Rings movie had come out and was over whether Jackson had "desecrated" Tolkien's epic. The Main Point The point at which the tape was when I popped it in (after I turned down the variable speed so that Pearce no longer sounded like a woman talking in a hurry) he was making a great point. In defending the exclusion of Tom Bombadil from the movie, Pearce noted that, as sort of "unfallen nature," Tolkien always has Bombadil speaking in verse. So my small project for the next while will be to go back through all 6 books of Potter and carefully read the songs of the Sorting Hat. I think that Pearce is right that "verse is pre-lapsarian and prose is after the fall" and that some of the most interesting parts are delivered in verse. That is why the word "prosaic" has a negative connotation such as "dull" (*Merlin said, notably in a prose format* LOL)

Good blog entry by Travis on characters "turning good"

Travis is off and running in 2006 with this great post based on character comparisons between Harry Potter and the Narnia books. Sparked by Rowling's statement about her favorite Narnia character, Eustace, he pulls out some great insights and clues about Draco, Narcissa, Snape et al.