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.