Voldemort and Invocational Magic (Lumos 2006 Material)

This is a sort of "reiteration/clarification/focus" on what I already sort of touched on, but maybe not in as clear form as I could have, in the post on Jeanne M. Lahaie's presentation on why Voldy cannot be named. In John Granger's Looking for God in Harry Potter, on pages 4-10, he gives the material on "incantational" verus "invocational" magic and how all of the magic in the Harry Potter series is the former rather than the latter and that it is the latter that is proper of actual sorcery. I would put it that incantational magic involves an incantation that kind of "operates" a faculty already invested in the nature of the world and particular person by the creator, whereas invocation calls on a specific deity (and all invocations to any spirit other then God/Christ ... is dark magic - with God it is prayer, with others it is sorcery [with Catholics, prayers to the human saints and the archangel saints are always formulated with specific reference of the saints praying to Christ on our behalf and acting only through the power of God, like the Saint Michael Prayer, "And do thou, a prince of the heavenly hosts, by the power of God, cast into hell Satan, and all the evil spirits that prowl about the world for the ruin of souls"]). In Lahaie's talk I began to realize, though, that finding this "fear of the name" in Jewish Name Magic (where one who does not like the deity will not speak the name for fear of calling the presence of the deity ... which is technically and properly a "taboo") reveals that there actually is the beginning of a believed invocational magic in Harry Potter ... only, through Dumbledore and Harry, Rowling is noting invocational magic as distinctly evil. In CoS, Tom Riddle says he crafted a name that he knew all wizards would some day fear to speak. While Dumbledore calls him "Tom" when speaking directly to him (possibly to challenge his ability to re-create himself as he sees fit by re-naming himself), the only other time he calls him "Tom Riddle" is in talking about his pre-Voldy stage. Other than that DD uses the name fearlessly and encourages others to do so because he realizes that although the taboo may be only the beginnings, beginnings that may never be actualized more fully, it is still the beginnings of invocational magic, of ascribing to Voldy a power and an "awe/fear-inspiringness" that he should not have. More Evidence Details from LaHaie's talk This line of thought that I am working here is built on this seeing . Lahaie did not go over this specific thing as the evidence I am going to speak of it as, but it is pretty much there from her material. The being she spoke of as created by the holy Rabbi to protect the people (from Jewish legends) was called a "golem." I thought that was what she was saying in the talk and once I found out that the papers are included on the disk I planned to look it up, but before I had done so I didn't want to use it in case I was mistaken, being as it presents such a close tie with Tolkien, which is what I would be arguing -- so I wanted to be sure so I didn't stick my foot in my mouth. The thing is, this is really good evidence that some of this stuff might be behind Rowling's thinking - it at least greatly increased the probabilities. Tolkien was a specialist in pretty much almost exactly the same area as Rowling. If nothing else I imagine she would have had to become familiar along the way with the background of the name Tolkien used for his "Gollum" character. And the characterization fits pretty well. In a sense Sauron and the ring created Gollum, in the sense of making him who he is (well, providing him with the means, the choice was still his in the early days) ... and, like the golem who becomes self-aware and sometimes begins to cause problems for the Jewish people he is supposed to be there to protect (which is why only a very holy Rabbi should make one, because he will be able best to manage said golem) Gollum really winds up biting Sauron in the rump. Frodo and Sam also, after a certain sense, helped in Gollum's fashioning ... Sam mistrusts him but is willing to use him as guide, or at least give in in the tension between himself and Frodo on the deal (but Sam's proposed way of "not using Gollum" is also not the best ... it seems he would opt to put the blade to the creature) ... in the end only (divine) providence can destroy the ring . I think in the end some of his own "creations" will come back to bite Voldy in the behind (and may already have begun to, as in some of the stuff on "backfiring slugs" we discussed earlier, with Sluggo definitely being one of those who is squeamish about the use of of the name). Voldy could definitely be said to have had a hand in "crafting" Wormtail, a very Gollum-like character. It's not a tight fit ... there are variations and adaptations. The main lines I wanted to draw out are that: 1). Invocational magic is typical of Voldy's styling 2). Being as Voldy is the bad guy, this means Rowling paints invocational magic (sorcery) as bad, and the good guy, DD, fights against it. 3). I think this specific thing is going to come back to bite his creepy behind. 4). (I'm just adding this here as further support and as fun) - Molly Weasley is right to worry about if Voldy and his Death Eaters will come after Fred and George for their obvious refusal to stand around quaking in their boots fearing to touch the issue of Voldy's precious name, with their "You-No-Poo" - Voldy will see it as messing with his power over the wizarding world ... but I pity the poor Death Eater who gets the task of doing the duo in - that poor soul is in for a rude awakening.