Oho! "Muggle Magic" and Gumshoe's excellent theory

Hat tip to Travis for pointing us to this most excellent, well-written, must read theory which presents the best case for the possibility that Dumbledore yet lives. Many references to possible "slight-of-hand" in book 6 on the part of Dumbledore and Slughorn make this piece an absolute delight to read as well as references to other "muggle magicians" in literature. One of these bears the name of Horace Goldin and he seems like a possible source for Slughorn's character. I'll let you read the article before commenting further -- let me just say that if this turns out to be true it will mean that in addition to the wonderful fact that Dumbledore lives, my boy Slughorn of Slytherin is not only a good guy (sorry, John Granger) but noble, daring and incredibly cool under pressure. "Oho!"

Symbols Revisited

I was going to post this as a comment on Pauli's most recent post on Kuyper and symbolism, but that one is back a little way now so I thought it might now get noticed as much there. I was thinking more on the symbolism thing because I was editing encyclopedia article the other day beginning with "G," including "Gnosticism" and in particular an article on "Political Gnosticism." The author of the latter article talks about a philosopher named Eric Voegelin who's theory/contention was that Gnosticism is the basic underpinning of much modernist thought. Then the author went on to critique Voegelin's position and list the major criticism's of it by other thinkers. I think Voegelin has something but I also think the issue is a subtle one that one cannot state too simply (this is in regards to my own comments on Gnosticism and symbolism). In regards to symbolism, though, I really think that what is at the heart of it is "participation," which I have discussed on this site before under the Greek term Methexis, which is in turn discussed as the sixth chapter in a book on 4th-century sacramental typology, entitled Mystagogy, by Enrico Mazza. The connection with Harry Potter is in what Pauli and I have discussed sometimes as the "sacramental" quality of some of the images in HP (such as the hidden, unassuming nature of the Leaky Cauldron leading to the big wonderful world of diagon alley). In short, I think symbolism is all wrapped up in and fulfilled in the Incarnation. There is a real participation between the higher realities and the mundane details of images just as, in Christ, human nature really participates in the divine nature of God, has a real communion in it. Like I said in one of my comments on Pauli's Kuyper post, I think there is a similarity between some ancient "ways of getting it wrong" and some modern ones: Particularly Apollinarius and Descartes. The former pictured the Logos as simply controlling the Flesh without it involving a distinctly human soul and the latter thought of the human person as a "ghost" (spirit) in the "machine" (flesh) - no soul. In short, the human soul (ie, Harry as the Golden Soul) IS that participation. Symbolism works so well to capture the human imagination because the human soul of Christ is THE key to the magic of the sacraments. The question of symbolism is indeed not one that should be taken lightly. Pauli noted that the Eastern Orthodox draw the line on symbolism at the 2 dimensional icon, rather than the 3 dimensional statue, and it is indeed an issue to be considered seriously. The ancient pagan religions believed too in "methexis," in participation. In fertility cult rituals (basically idolatrous worship) they believed that they participated in the creative power of the gods (this is officially called the belief in "emanation"). Contrary-wise, Israelite religious thought made serious distinctions regarding the distance between Yahweh and humans. And it was right, for that time, to do so. True participation, as the pagans believed they had in their worship, could not be attained until the Incarnation (from a Catholic standpoint, what they got wrong in fertility cult is gotten right in the fact that marriage is a sacrament ... but in Catholic sacramental theology all of sacraments flow from the one sacrament, the "Blessed Sacrament" - Christ Incarnate in the Eucharist ... and even in marriage, procreation is said to be the spouses "cooperating" with God's creative power, not the kind of participation the pagans thought of - marital love does not "cause" new life, but is rather the "occasion" of God creating new life - it is always God who creates the soul that animates the body). (I have worked here and there, in academic studies, on this, participation through ritual/liturgy, as a pagan concept that could not be fulfilled until Christ, in addition to what I think is a related concept in paganism that cannot be fulfilled, that of a priest acting "in persona" of a god, as the Catholic priest is said to act in persona of Christ in the Eucharistic liturgy and confession, etc.) In the end I think Kuyper is confused and detracts from the realization of the full implications of the Incarnation ... but I just wanted to throw this out there to say I think he has at least identified a core question and to say that there is fundamental question there.

Saint Mungo

100 points to the house of whoever deposits an essay (of at least 12 inches of parchment) on St. Mungo in the comments box of this post. Recently Pauli produced for me a bottle of "Merlin's Ale" that he had found at a store near where he and my sister live. It had been in the fridge at our friend Nate's house and I recently drank it because one of his kids came up and told me that their mother had told them to tell me that if I didn't drink it soon ... she would. Anyway, on the label it has some interesting lore-facts. One is that in some chapel near where Merlin legendarily lived in North Scotland (I'll put the names in the comments if nobody beats me to it ... have to retrieve the bottle from their house) there is a stained-glass window of Saint Mungo baptizing Merlin in some river near there. Which peaked my interest incredibly, but I am currently buried under a mountain of encyclopedia articles to edit, so I figured it would be fun to ask if anyone who stops by here knows any of the legend or see if anybody looks it up and pops it into the comments box for the entertainment of all. (Pauli) Update: Here's a picture, here's the source! Haven't found a link for the baptism photo. (If we have any Scottish readers, feel free to submit a photo!) Just found this on Catholic Forum's patron saints pages (great site.) I think he is usually referred to as St. Kentigern.

Snape Revisited

Just something that coalesced in my brain pan while listening to HBP, on whether or not Snape is a poison or a wine in the DADA potions riddle from Book 1. The litmus test (or at least one of them) has been, I think, agreed upon, as: "What did they teach as far as DADA? Was it good or bad, helpful or hurtful?" In looking at Snape's performance as DADA professor on this particular level I still have to come down on the "poison" side, because of 2 things. 1. We know from HBP that Harry expects to get bad marks on his essay on defending against Dementors because he disagrees with Snape on the best approach. We also know Harry is very good at defending against dementors because he drove off a hundred at once, and that casts Snape's insistence on his own approach in the "bad" category - it detracts from truly learning how to defend against dementors (and if Red Hen is right, this may be THE central question of the series in regards to DADA). 2. In HBP we also hear Snape say "and they [the essays] had better be better than that tripe I had to endure on resisting the Imperius!" Again, We know (from the central book in the series, according to the Chiastic structure theory, book 4) that Harry can resist the Imperius curse of Voldy himself, the most malicious and bent-on-control wizard of all time. Most of that class learned what they do know of resisting the Imperius from Harry's experience with Barty Jr/Moody in class and from Harry in the DA. Once again, Snape seems to be detracting from the students learning valuable lessons on DADA. Of course, that particular litmus test would cause us to rethink Barty Jr, I guess. We refer to him as a poison because he took Harry to Voldy, not because of his class lecture content. That's why I say I think it is only one of the litmus tests. Just some thoughts....

Draco Malfoy

My posts from now till book 7 is released will probably be less of the "whole system of things" kind of thing and more like this one, simply smaller character observations that occur to me as I haphazardly re-experience the books while waiting for # 7 and trying to get started on grad work in NYC and all. There may be some of the "symbols" material that coalesces in my brain from the books in the course of conversations and all, but the material that is still out there for me has to coalesce and congeal more in my brain now. So, these types of posts are from the congealing (don't you just love that word?) of more subtle things as I absorb the stuff on a level more like osmosis and let it simmer and bubble and age (since delving into the matter of the expansive potions master, ie Horace Slughorn, I'm really getting into potions imagery.) Anyway, I think Rowling has a lot going on with Draco in book 6. Of course, this is a bit of stating the obvious with his role in Dumbledore's death and everything that is revealed by Moaning Myrtle and his marked change of appearance, which has spawned the "Draco Wolfy-boy" theory and all, but I just wanted to call attention to a few other developments that one might tend to glance over at first read (or at least I did). Dutiful Draco I think that for all of Draco's posturing in the beginning of HBP and in his overheard talk with Snape about "who needs this school stuff" and "Like we need defending against the dark arts" ... he is actually a bit more accomplished than Harry in the rubrics of magic, including DADA. I should emphasize there the rubrics of DADA. Harry's intuitive grasp and habituation in love (not to mention his obviously larger experience against a full dark wizard, ie Voldy) gives him an advantage over Draco. But notice, Rowling again in HBP pointedly notes that Harry never "learned to do occlumency properly," when Snape is reading him for how he learned Sectum Sempra ("He knew what Snape was about to do and he had never learned properly how to stop it" or something to that effect). Now, Dumbledore also, as we know values occlumency, as he has become well practiced at both legilimency and occlumency himself. AND, Snape is a pretty accomplished wizard at both ... BUT, he can't crack Draco's mind ... not only has Aunt Bellatrix been teaching him, but he's been being a good student in applying himself to learning it - if he can keep Snape out (of course, one might argue that Draco is good at it because he is good at being duplicitous and Harry is just too darned honest to be good at it ... but DD is good at it too, and while I think there is that difference between Harry and Draco I think it is more multi-faceted and subtle than that.) Keep in mind too, Draco does manage to produce a hiccouphing potion for Slughorn without the aid of a book like the Prince's. Not a great one probably, but I would bet a bit better than Harry could have done without the prince's book. I think Harry is accomplished too, but he is a little bit more of a wild card in his application than Draco is. Trios I just think it's a really interesting tension she is building up in the characterization difference between Harry and Malfoy. For one I think she has a lot of sympathy for Draco (who has been abused much the same way as Dudley by the Dursleys, a fact which all 3 Dursley's cannot understand when DD says it to them at the beginning of HBP ... and I have noted before the connection I think we are meant to see between Draco and Dudders). But I also think we're meant to begin to see some of Draco's strengths now too ... DD isn't just "buying time" or placating Draco on top of the tower, it really was an accomplishment to mend the cabinet, and really quite cunning to get enemies in under DD's nose. And he isn't just psychologically bullying Draco when he says he's no killer, I think he means it as a real compliment. Granger has done some excellent work on the "trios" in Harry Potter, and I have worked some on Harry, Ron and Hermione as a trio of "psyches" (Biolological Soul and Intellectual Soul united by the Golden Soul). I think that perhaps Dudley, Harry and Draco are another trio that represent the problem of "coming of age," particularly for young men ... coming to grips with what it means to be a man (for other expositions of this theme: on the mythopoeic lines, Joseph Campbell talks about rites of passage in mythopoeic cultures in an interview with PBS journalist Bill Moyer that has been published as a book called The Power of Myth - and on the movie line, I recently watched an interesting film with our friend Nate's family called "Second Hand Lions" starring Robert Duvall and Michael Cain and Haley Joel Osment [the kid from Sixth Sense] that deals with the theme - not a "stellar" film but I liked it) Anyway, just some pondering on characterization.

Goblet of Fire Mistakes

I was just listening to HBP earlier in the week, and before that had watched the GOF movie with friends and realized some mistakes both times, so I though I would throw them up here just as sort of tidbits for thought. 1. I had said in a comment on one of Pauli's posts on the Priori Incantatem chapter of GOF that the potions position is the only one that gets refered to as "master" (pointing out the Neitzsche connection of "masters and slaves"). But I was wrong, or at least it is not a rule with no execeptions. In HBP, when Ron makes it snow in charms, in the Sectum Sempra chapter, rowling refers to Flitwick as the "charms master" ... I still think that the concentration of the term on the potions position with only one (that I know of right now) instance outside of potions, lends a certain character to the terms usage as regards the character of potions as a discipline (BTW, On a side note: this is a really interesting passage because their task is supposed to be turning vinegar into wine ... very Cana [water into wine] meets Calvary [vinegar on the cross] type of thing. In fact, it always interested me in GOF that in the weighing of the wands Harry's wand shoots out a fountain of wine. The Cana incedent, incedentally, was a favored of Johnny Cash, whom I have spoken of briefly here as a country mystic [official mysticism being, like alchemy, a distinct phenomena within several different religions]. In the Sony re-release of one of his prison shows, either folsom or San Quentin, he plays a song he wrote when he and June visited the Holy Land, after going through Cana - "He turned the Water into Wine") 2. In watching the GOF movie I think they goofed a major but subtle characterization thing. When Harry has one of the dreams they have Wormtail calling Voldemort "my lord Voldemort" ... I would love to hear if anybody has evidence to the contrary but I think that in the books it is between the lines that what Voldy wants is for NOBODY ever to refer to him as Voldemort, whether it is prefixed by "my lord" or not. I think he's into the whole thing of "everybody knows the name, nobody dares to think of him as Tom Riddle anymore ... but nobody dares pronounce the name either name either, the good guys are too scared to say anything other than 'he who must not be named' and the bad guys only ever say 'my lord' or 'the dark lord'" That's why Fred and George rule and why Molly is so scared reading their "You-no-poo" sign. Because the pun is based on the humor of the hysteria, the fear of Voldy. To take something like the "reverence" the ministry pays to Voldy and use it for a joke product is probably considered a huge insult by Voldy (I think it's also why Rowling probably loves that people have come up with short-hand like "Voldy") Y'all are more than welcome to provide what evidence you can that somebody (other than DD or Harry) refers to Voldemort by name in his presence ... it's just a theory that it's consistent throughout the works and that the script-writers goofed on that - I don't have the time right now to go get # 4 and look up the Riddle House killing of Frank Bryce)

Book ban appeal

That Georgia lady is at it again. Burn the Harry Potter books! Incendio!! Or, what's the word for the banishing spell? I would say that's a good way to ensure people, especially kids, read them, but they are successfully enough anyway, so it's just merely tying up the courts and making religion look dumb. I threw a comment on Travis's site awhile back about a theory about what is at the root of this Potterophobia. It has to do with an unnatural, unnecessary and dangerous, I believe, separation and dichotomy of symbolism and revealed truth. I link to a speech by the famous Calvinist, Abraham Kuyper, who asserts such a dichotomy in a speech. But I don't really want to call out Kuyper or Calvinists and lay blame on them. Albert Magnus, who is also Saint Albert and one of only 33 people who has been give the title"Doctor of the Church", had contemporary co-religionists accusing him of witchcraft and what-not long before Kuyper or Calvin or Rowling. This was due to his practices of alchemy and (gasp) studying Aristotle. He also supposedly created some type of Frankenstein monster (inferi?) as well as uttering the Medieval heresy "Natural science does not consist in ratifying what others have said, but in seeking the causes of phenomena." If you're like me then you like the simplest explanation of things. I think that moral problems often hide behind intellectual problems and that jealousy and envy of Rowling and her phenomenal books are behind the attack on them, not unlike the feelings which led people to refer to brilliant St. Albert and his greatest student, St. Thomas Aquinas, the "ape of Aristotle" and the "dumb ox" respectively. But although I submit that those who go to court over Harry Potter have some real deep problems, I'm sure there are plenty others who merely stay away from the books based on purely intellectual belief. Someday I would like to develop this thesis of the false dichotomy between revelation and symbolism being the ostensible intellectual basis of fundamentalist religious attacks on mythopoeic literature. But if someone would like to beat me to the punch, go for it, I don't really possess the topical depth of knowledge or the "free time" at this point, whatever that is

Slughorn and the Ring

OK -- I have, as I said, been listening to book 6 repeatedly while driving (only on about # 3 right now - I only do it when driving the 1.5 hrs between where I am staying while I work on this project during the weeks and my place in Weirton on the weekends). From these repeated listenings I'm trying to pick up things and think about them. On this present listening I am thinking that there is more to Horace Slughorn than meets our eyes in the book and that he is more involved than we think (could he even be RAB? who knows ... although if he is he certainly did not fulfill his own prediction of dying soon, or maybe he wasn't saying he expected to be dead forthrightly, simply that he was of such an age he did not expect to live to the point in time where somebody else figured out the riddle and undid the rest of the horcruxes ... all he was prepared to do was lend a helping hand with this one that had a potion protection ... if he said he thought he would be dead by the time Voldy found that this one had been swapped he obviously did not expect Voldy to kill him for doing the switching ... or maybe he just thought it would obviously kill him to undo the horcrux, as undoing the ring almost, or maybe did eventually, on the stoppered death theory, killed Dumbledore, and maybe he found a way to undo it without dying ... who knows). When Harry first meets Slughorn, Dumbledore asks Sluggo how he has been and Sluggo replies about old age and then uses it as an opportunity to make a comment that maybe, contra the claim he knows going to make (although he lets Harry do the talking), he isn't any safer with Dumbledore than elsewhere because the injured hand shows Dumbledore to be "losing his grip." And then you have Dumbledore say "but on the other hand," displaying both hands and Harry notices the ring, after thinking the hand spreading is saying that age has its compensation ... and the immediate ruse is the connection the reader is supposed to make that the ring is a compensation in the sense of being able to have such things as gold rings. I don't think you're meant to actually buy that ruse, I think it's just meant to distract you so that in giving you a clue Rowling also makes it easier to miss the clue. You have to be paying attention and not be skipping over the finer details to get to "the juicy part of the plot" (as I have done with this section up till this listening). Then "Slughorn's eyes lingered for a moment on the ring too, and Harry saw a tiny frown momentarily crease his wide forehead" (HBP 68). I think you're immediate "glossing over" reaction is supposed to be " Well, Slughorn doesn't want to be convinced to join Dumbledore, but DD is showing him something that does appeal to him, some fancy jewelry that appeals to his vanity as a sign of importance and influence etc and so that was sort of a point in DD's favor so you get a mild momentary negative reaction ... ok, get on with more juicy revelations." But I think something else is going on - I think he recognizes the ring. I think he knows more than just that Tom Riddle asked him about Horcruxes and so can surmise that the adult Voldemort was probably trying to make horcruxes. I think he has some more intimate knowledge that Voldy did make horcruxes and what some of them were ... at least that the ring was a very special thing to Riddle and therefore a foremost candidate for becoming a horcrux, as he knew Tom was interested in making them, and if Dumbledore has that ring, especially with the stone cracked, it must mean that it had been made into a horcrux and Dumbledore has undone it. In other words, when Dumbledore says "on the other hand" and displays the ring, he is making a statement that Slughorn reads loud and clear and that Dumbledore knows he reads loud and clear: "I am making progress, Horace, I have found one of them and destroyed it and am still here to tell about it ... it is possible to make actual progress against Voldemort, instead of just avoid him like you have been doing" ... and this makes Slughorn frown, because he would rather satisfy himself with the more comfortable (or at least less uncomfortable) notion that you really can't make progress against Voldemort, you can just stay neutral and out of his way. One of the key questions is: can you imagine the conversation between the two men in which Dumbledore asked Slughorn to give him the memory? How did he know the memory existed? With the way Slughorn altered the memory it seems unlikely that he would have gone up to Dumbledore and said, "Um, Tom Riddle asked me about horcruxes ... of course I told him absolutely nothing, because I know it's a banned subject." And if Dumbledore asked him if Riddle ever asked him about horcruxes, with what he says about Horace being able to resist occlumency and crafty enough to think ahead about veritaserum, it seems a wonder that Sluggo didn't just say "nope, never asked me ..." and that being the last DD was able to get from him (rather than a botched memory) ... unless there had been other developments and incidences that involved both of them talking about the matters, maybe with others. Dumbledore said the diary had been confirmation ... which would mean he had been thinking that already. So where did he get the idea? Voldemort had to have gotten the spell somewhere to actual do the horcrux ... was there a suspicious incedent involving him being partially discovered with whatever source he gained it from, etc.? And was there a pursuant conversation between Sluggo and DD in which DD got at least some hint, way back then (remember Voldy made the diary HC within the same year he first asked Sluggo about them), that Riddle had been after HC info? I think Slughorn is not trying to hide that he gave Tom Riddle material information about Horcruxes ... he did not, after all, give him the spell etc (although he did tell him it required murder, so I guess that is a material provision of information). I think the main thing he wanted to hide was his nonchalant way of speaking about it with Tom, as a matter of curiosity and study that "we more mature wizards" can talk about academically without risking any temptations, regardless of whether or not it is a subject banned by the headmaster (ok, I just looked at the scene and I do have to give Sluggo some credit, he was bothered bit by the end - "do I look like I've tried it? do I look like a killer?" - but it also looks like he was maybe a little cavalier going in and then realized he was in over his head.) I think that he had provided riddle with the info of horcruxing involving murder was already established between DD and him and DD wanted the memory for the finer details that Sluggo is either not sharp enough to catch the significance of or won't tell (Sluggo has probably been telling himself for years that, yes Voldy probably did make a horcrux, but not even he would make more than 1 so I really don't need to ... even though subconsciously he knows better.) Anyway, I think that at least what actually happened in the conversation when Dumbledore got the botched memory from Sluggo will be one of the revelations in book 7 and that there will probably be antecedent material revealed, maybe even some material involvement in the Horcrux drama by Slughorn ... and I definitely think we'll see him in person again in a crucial scene or two.

Laborious Libations

Well, It has been a while since I have been writing on here on Harry Potter. That is due in part to that fact that I have reached the stage of what I call "Dumbledorian Conjecuritis" ... where I have expended much of my intuition into the realm of hard fact (which is by no means to say that I have expended anywhere near a tenth of the possibilities of discussion that exist within the realm of the facts of the text, and some would say I have not done a very bang up job with those I have touched lol) and would be entering the realm of wild speculation that is difficult to hold together in a coherent sentence (well ... I mean ... wilder than my speculations already are) But it is also partly due to the fact that I am spending every waking moment (and quite a few unwaking ones) on this encyclopedia editing project, some of the contributors for which make me look like a good, concise and sparse writer :) But today a wonderful witticism knocked at the door of my brain and presented itself for consideration, which also gave me the wonderful opportunity of something light-hearted to throw up here that gives the reader a brief insight into the insanity sometimes visited upon editors by the authors they seek to wield into coherency and also indulges me in one of my favorite past-times - analyzing Rowling's thoroughly interesting names. The Libatius Borage Award But fear not, I will not bore you with any of the tedious details of the editing of this encyclopedia; the particular incedent from today is sparse in detail. I was going through one piece trying to fix some writing that was proving somewhat tedious and I told the friend for whom I am working on this project that the Secret Editorial Consortium of this encyclopedia project (ie, me) was hereby awarding this particular contributor the "Libatious Borage Award." Now I get to explain why I chose the potioneer author whom we meet in the Half-Blood Prince chapter of ... the Half Blood Prince, to name this prestigious award after - because I have listened to book six several times through now while driving and I always love this name (and I will note again, up front, this is not a serious "here is a theory of a deep meaning or prediction based on such" post - it is a "these names are a blast" post ... but I think that somehow, mystically, that sort of things carries its own profound meaning, just one that you lose if you try to "explain" the profoundness too much). Libatious Borage: Pioneering Potioneer or Pretentious Prat? A libation is a poured out offering, such as, in the ancient world, a cup of wine might be poured out to this or that god at the beginning of a feast in thanksgiving. Libation offerings of both wine and grain were very common and St Paul refers to Christ's offering as a libation, a sacrificial pouring out. In present day the term often carries simply the idea of an ample pouring out or intentional spilling out. "Borage," I believe, is meant to pick up the common "slangish" adding of the suffix "age" to the end of a work to make a noun out of a verb or even another noun, such as "oops, had a little bit of spillage there." So then, you have a libatious borage as, shall we say, a profuse pouring out of boring material ... which I would say might fit Advanced Potion-Making. But I think there is more, more that fits Borage's individual style of potion-making. If you take the "Li" and the "Bor" from the too words and put them together but with the accents the same as they were in the original words (with the accent thus on "Bor" - which the construction lends itself to thinking of because "Bat" does pretty much the same thing in the original word "libation") you get a sound an awful lot like the "labor" part of "laborious" ... which I think is what Rowling had in mind (although I highly doubt that she has worked it out thus consciously, simply because I think she probably has much better things to do with her time LOL) But think about it, LB's instructions, what Hermione refers to as the "official instructions" are pretty stinking tedious and do not yield the results that the HBP's do. I honestly do love Rowling's knack for names. Anyway, now you know what the minds of madmen do for fun :) And if that doesn't win me the LB Award I don't know what will, but hopefully it was at least a little fun. "See you in the funny papers" (100 points to the house of whomever can tell me where that one comes from ... you have to reach way back into the dungeons of mid 80s computer games for it) PS Apologies to any who happened upon this post in its unfinished form, I was the victim of "Cross-Program Confusion" (which is a bit like Jimmy Hendrix's "Cross Town Traffic") - in MS Word ctrl-shft-s is the keyboard shortcut for changing styles and I use it A LOT recently - when the idea of "Lilbatious Borage: Pioneering Potioneer or Pretensious Prat?" came to me as a sub-heading I stuck it in and was going to go to hit ctrl-u and ctrl-b to bold and underline it, but out of force of habit hit ctrl-shft-s ... which, in blogger, obviously is, or at least contains, the keyboard shortcut for "publish it, baby!" ... sorry bou'that. (actually just did it again going to bold and underline the PS heading ... sorry)