Narrative Perspective and Rowling's Writing

Rambling Preamble I just recently picked up CS Lewis' That Hideous Strength from my bookshelf absentmindedly as something to read on a subway ride down to Manhattan, and then again grabbed it tonight on my way out the door to work in case I found the physical arrangements of the security desk not quite as condusive to studying German as hoped (which is often the case since there are now 2 of us working this desk every night, and getting "set up" to do German is a little more involved than the random calls sometimes allow for - when the phone rings when you have the German folder out and all you have to clear it away sort of and grab the pad so as to write details of the call etc, as opposed to being able to just plop the book down quickly and pick it back up quickly when the phone or radio call is done ... and an additional added pleasantry tonight was that the supervisor, who is a big guy but pretty low-key and quiet, mid 40s or so, retired law enforcement, as all the supervisors are, saw me reading the Lewis book and read the cover and said "CS Lewis? ... that guy was really brilliant" - which was really cool; I think I made some small talk about that it must be a copy I bought in college because it is not totally beat up, and I picked up reading Lewis from my dad, who loved Lewis to the extent that when I went through his shelf copies of Lewis' works after he died they were all completely dilapidated from how many times he had read them - there are several night supervisors who have rotated in and out a week or two at a time since I started the gig at the beginning of the summer, but this is the guy who was on nights the week I started so I have worked with this guy off and on since the beginning of the summer, and have always gotten along with him pretty well on the professional level of superviosor and desk assistant, but it was really cool to have that added extra element of a shared appreciation of something like Lewis - nothing overdone ... he is a very "salt of the earth" kind of guy in his own quiet way ... but just that passing connection of it in the midst of every day work that you get every once in a while out of the blue with "salt of the earth" types- the type of thing you encounter in the trades, with a tradesman whose job it is to be "no-bones" business and efficient but you can tell is not defined as a person solely by being a "manual laborer" or a "ex-cop security supervisor" - the type of thing that is completely different from the "romanticazation" of the trades: the trades remain the trades and when in the trades a guy is focused on the trade, but he also takes time here and there for more and has his own unique understanding of some pretty deep stuff and writing ... you have some other very interesting types too, closest "other wordly" fiction fans, like a guard who is a complete trip, sort of out on the edge a little type, is behind on the Potter series at book 3 but was eager to hear how book 7 ended and was totally into the way it ended and then was tugging my ear tonight about a vampire series from the 90s by Harold Lumley ... total trip to talk to) Introduction Anyway, I was noticing something on Lewis' use of narrative perspective, in light of some of John Granger's substanital comments on "narrative misdirection" ... well, more particularly for this post, "limited omnicient 3rd person narrative" ... in the year before the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, and this lead to some thoughts on recent comments by Stephen King on the closing of the Potter series. So I thought I would jot it down here briefly. Lewis What I was noticing in reading That Hideous Strength is the difference, in the opening chapters, between the sections focussing on the Mark Studdock plot-line, and those focussing on his wife, Jane. The reason that I shifted gears from focussing on "narrative misdirection" to "limited omniscient 3rd person" in the last paragraph is atht I am not so sure Lewis is going for any type of misdirection, although I do think he is using 3rd person limited. Actually I think he is trying to make it pretty blatant for the reader - he seems to me to use the language of "thinking" and "got the impression" and "rather felt like ..." and it seems to me like the aim is not so much to "trick" the reader into a false impression of a completely omniscient narrative perspective, but to emphasize to the reader the fact that he is drawing character lines here. The difference that it seems to me like there is between the Mark sections and the Jane sections is that it seems like in the Mark sections the reader gets ONLY the "Markan Perspective" ... only ever gets to see things through his eyes and see what he can see and think. In the Jane sections, on the other hand, you find other people's perspectives, to which Jane would not be privvy, such as: "Dimble guessed that Brachton was going to seel the Wood and everything else it owned on that side of the river. The whole region seemed to him now even more of a paradise than when he first came to live there twenty-five years ago, and he felt much too strongly on the subject to wish to talk about it before the wife of one of the Brachton men." (That Hideous Strength, 30). Of course, Lewis' style is much different than Rowling's, and when I first read that, having over the past year (IE since the last time I read the book) thought a lot more about narrative perspective (and I must add a note of thanks to Dr Granger, since his discussion of narrative perspective in Harry Potter has been a main catalyst for such thought and inquiry in literature for me in the past year), I simply chalked up the presence of multiple character perspectives in the narrative to the general style difference, which also includes much more "intropsective" commentary of the actual "omniscient" sort. It was not till I went further along into the Mark Studdock scenes that I think I noticed, "well, in the Mark sections there does seem to much more a 'limited omniscient' or singular perspective quality to the narrative viewpoint." I should note that this post has actually been written piece-meal ... I have, since beginning this post, and since the last paragraph, finished That Hideous Strength. However the paragraph follwing this one was begun before before finishing the book but is, from about halfway through the paragraph, being finished now. Other than that I will not burden with the further details of the convoluted manner and timing in which this post has been written. What I will note is that as the book progresses the narrative technique in the "Mark/Progressive Element/Belbury Sections" broadens out and you get such chapters as conversations between Wither and Fairy Hardcastle or Frost without Mark present, or just on the DD with more truly "omniscient" narrative perspective. But I still think a case can be made that in the early part of the book, where the emphasis is more so strongly, directly and solely on the differences between Mark and Jane, one of the marked differences is this dominance of a singular perspective with Mark's sections, versus a more "open" disposition in the Jane sections Now, there is an explanation of the singular narrative perspecitve in the Mark scenes/plot that "differs" from what I am talking about here, but I prefer to think of it not as an "alternate" explanation (as in "either-or"), but as a complimentary one in which both explanations work and compliment each other on various levels of the work. The "other" explanation is simply the standard "mystery story" one: Belbury is the dark intrigue, so some hiding of detail and slower unveilng of the same is simply material plot pacing. If you spill on the beans on Belbury in the beginning you have nothing to keep your reader intrigued and pulling on. But then you do have that with St Anne's too (some intrigue about what Grace Ironwood and the Director and their crew are about and up to), but there is still more openness in narrative perspective that I think indicates a more open, honest, democratic (in the sense that Chesterton speaks of the "democracy of the dead" ... which is, for me, after reading Deathly Hallows, a VERY central theme in the HP series), and in short humble perspective in the group Jane finds herself being drawn into. And I think the "material intrigue" element can work alongside this perfectly fine without either being exclusive of the other. Rowling Anyway, on to Stephen King, JK Rowling and Harry Potter. King recently sort of "reviewed" the series (in some magazine or paper I saw laying around somewhere recently, maybe a Newsweek at the doctor's office waiting room? ... really can't remember), and in a generally pretty favorable light. He gives Rowling credit with penning some really maturely written lines in book 7, as well he should. He notes this as a progression in writing style and ability from the first book (I think the main one he noted is the stylistic pacing of a last line like "all was well"). Now, I do think it would be silly to deny that as a writer progresses there will be development in style prowess, and concordantly that development in skill is somewhat behind deeper style book 7 than in book 1 (especially as this series is Rowling's first major work published). In short there is some truth in King's read of the situation ... but I don't think that read completely covers everything going on. As Granger notes, we view most of the series from a perspective that is, yes, not limited to any character's first person perspective, but in reality it is not much farther 'above' the character of Harry than, "sitting on top of his shoulder." The thing is that in book 1 that shoulder is part of an 11 year old person, and in book 7 it is part of a 17 year old person - which carries with it its own intrinsic progression, or "improvement" in what I might call "aesthetically effective communication abilities." In other words, I think it is precisely the fact that Rowling has done such a good job of integrating the element of narrative perspective with the central element of the development of Harry's character (really THE theme of the series, along the lines of Granger's other work on the prodcution of the golden soul as the ultimate goal of the alchemical process), that makes it difficult to pin down a difference between, let us call it, "character development artistically rendered in the text" and, what I would call, "development of artistic prowess in the writing of the text," at least, I think, distinctly more difficult to pin down a difference quite as facilely as King's comments would lend to. (Although, all in all King's comments on the books were very positive, and it seemd genuinely so, even if he might have seemed at points in the past a little jealous of the rapidness of Rowling's success and things like that ... I think we're all a pretty content little, or not so little, family - my main goal in bringing it in was just to illustrate better the stuff I had been thinking on how Rowling worked the stuff really well - just more and more pleased with it as time goes on ... and also grateful to Dr Granger for his helpful expositions of some things in narrative technique that help me to see and to appreciate better the artistry going on in works the Harry Potter and That Hideous Strength).

The Stabat Mater ("Standing Mother") and Feminine Imagery in Deathly Hallows

The "Stabat Mater" image is one that orginiates in the crucifixion story in the Gospels and has been used in several recent movies. It means "mother standing" and refers to Mary standing at the foot of the cross, bearing witness: "so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too" (Luke 2:35). In the movie "the Boondock Saints" (of which I know Pauli is also a fan), as Il Duce and his twin sons prepare to finish off the great slippery crime lord in the courtroom they have highjacked, there is a woman in the audience who hides her face - Il Duce comforts her with something like "it will all be over soon, but for now you have to watch" ... in other words a woman being told "you must stand and bear witness to the justice." In both of "The Ring" movies produced thus far there is a teenage "Stabat Mater" in the opening killings by the demon-child Sumara: a teenage girl who is present to witness (in the first one, done most excellently by Gore Verbinski, of "Pirates of the Caribbean" fame - I like the Ring 2 and thought it had some great development of themes from movie 1 and some distinctive Japaneese style from the directore, but I likes Verbinski's actuall directoral work better - the girl in Ring 1 is the "Becca" character, who nicely becomes a "prophetess" from the experience, she can read the mark on Naomi Watts' character of having seen the video-tape). But in the Gospel account of the Crucifxion, Mary the Blessed Mother does not stand at the foot of the cross alone, she stands with two other women. The "Locus classicus" is John 19:25 - "Near the foot of the cross stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene." Ever since I saw/read Tonks in book 5 making faces for Ginny and Hermione at the table in #12 Grimmauld place, I was really impressed by what Rowling was doing with feminine identity/psyche. That scene impressed me very much as a young woman who is in a role younger and more "lively" (as an eligable bachelorette) than the mother figure, but is also older than the girls, a "grown-up," and who seems to be sort of "mentoring" the girls in being a girl who is really and truly interesting in a distinctly feminine way of "palyfulness" (which, given that little thing Rowling had on her site in the journal on wanting girls not to be duped and controlled by the "wafer-thin supermodel" image of femininity, I think is right up Rowling's alley). And, low and behold, in book 7 Tonks makes what I think is a very pointed return to a scene right alongside Ginny. "As the walls trembled again, he led the other two back through the concealed entrance and down the staircase into the Room of Requirement, It was empty except for three women: Ginny, Tonks and an elderly witch wearing a moth-eaten hat, whom Harry recognized immediately as Neville's Grandmother" (DH 624 - emphasis added). A few preliminary sideline notes are in order here. The first is that this is a really unique passage that sort of jumps off the page at you when you realize the "oddity," in realtion to the rest of the texts involving Ginny, that she is here refered to as a "woman." The second is, quite simply put, that Neville's Gran rocks and quite simply kicks *ss. But on to the specific "Stabat Mater" content of this post. These are not just any 3 women, they are 3 very representative women: a grandmother, a mother (and a new mother at that ... later we get the experienced mother of Lewis' wife-of-the-captain from Till We Have Faces, whose "wounds" are "where a woman's are when she has had eight children" ... in Molly's well-noted "NOT MY DAUGHTER, YOU BITCH!" [DH 736] ... Bellatrix's "What will happen to your children when I have killed you? ... When Mummy's gone the same way as Freddie" is a direct affront to the mothering feminine image, and directly after she [Bella] has been, pointedly, attacking particularly the daughters, dueling Hermione, Ginny and Luna all at once) ... and a woman who is a daughter, Ginny (specifically a daughter in the story ... obviously all women have been daughters, but we don't see, for instance, Molly's mother or Neville's great grandmother). These 3 women, representing 3 stages of feminine life, stand gaurd at the ROR end of the tunnel ... Gran Longbottom is even the one with the prudence to close the portal one Aberforth is no longer keeping post at his pub to guard the entrance. They all eventually join the fray, and one dies, but at this point, coming into the crescendo, into Rowling's great "battle rally" scenes that rival even Mel Gibson's horseback speech in "Braveheart," these 3 representative women "stand gaurd" together (Note that in the Gospel account, it is "only 3 wome" plus one man ... John , the "disciple whom he loved" ... all the others deserted in that hour). PS Oh, and on the whole thing of Aberforth - and all the aspersions of "fooling around" with goats ... this too, contrary to all the insinuations made by Rita Skeeter and others, has to do with a tender emotional connection with a female family member. The reason his patronus is a goat is revealed in passing and has to do with his love for his sister. So, in case any missed it: "I was her favorite ... She liked me best. I could get her to eat when she wouldn't do it for my mother, I could get her to calm down when she was in one of her rages, and when she was quiet, she used to help me feed the goats" (DH 565 - emphasis added). A final note - I REALLY like the "whispering woman" image Rowling employs. I do not have time to track down the myriad times that Hermione whispers meaningful things in Deathly Hallows, but the others that really stuck out to me are at the Burrow when, just before she kisses Harry, Ginny whispers something like "there's the silver lining I was looking for" and when the trio have despaired and cannot produce patronuses in the final battle and Luna's, Ernie's and Seamus's Patronuses appear (1 from each house except Slytherin) and Luna whispers the encouragement to Harry "We're all still here ... we're still fighting"(DH 649) ... (Ron is dead on: Luna is a really great character in these books). What it really reminds me of is Constantine's (Keanu Reeve's character in the movie a few years ago) description of the way the "influence peddlers" whisper in the ears of mortals - something like " their slightest word can give you just the encouragement you need, or turn your favorite pleasure into your worst nightmare."

Godric's Garden

I was on a trip this past weekend for an old friend's wedding in Pittsburgh and could not resist listening to some of Deathly Hallows on CD during the drive and so, having neglected to locate which bag I put my German pocket dictionary in when running late for work tonight I just grabbed Deathly Hallows and have been reading some from where I left off on the CD version and am basically up through getting back to the tent with the wand broken after Godric's Hollow. The person I work tonight with is on break for only an hour, which leaves me too pressed on computer time to write anywhere near an dequate post on this ... but this material is so dense in these chapters I am not sure I could write a thorough and clear exposition without a WHOLE lot more time to work it out. So I am just going to jot my thoughts rapidly. So, I will just say this: I am not sure this material can be thoroughly "exposited" at all in the first place, merely feeble attempts made at expositing it ... but I do not think that makes it any less real. This is merely to say that this is the type of material where, sometimes, discursive "reasoning" breaks down and the only way to express it is ... to put it in story form. The first thing right off the bat is to make one point overly clear: I am NOT accusing Harry and Hermione of a sin - I am saying I think the imagery here points to exactly how dangerous the material is ... perhaps a danger very necessary to risk, but nonetheless a VERY big danger (just like, as Harry points out to Dumbledore in the "King's Cross" chapter, investigating the hallows is not a sin like making Horcuxes, but as Dumbledore points out to Harry ... it is very dangerous). Some of this fits best with my angle on the debate JKR2 and I were having on a Harry-Hermione "possibility" in Ron's absence (or as I put it in that comment in the thread on the "Home Away From Home" post, there being a difference/variance/alienation between Hary and Hermione in that for him a relationship with Hermione was still definitvely out of the picture owing to his feelings for Ginny, but for Hermione, while it may not be concretely "in the picture" it is not definitively out of the picture the way it is from Harry's side). Returning to that image of Harry and Hermione disguised as muggle middle-aged man and wife (in other words, here is a realm where those nice little "shipper" questions connect up with larger themes by way of providing the "couple image" for the entry into a larger image source, the fall in the Garden of Eden): -A couple is in a graveyard that is sort of like a garden of snow and grief, pain of loss felt in cold midnight after going "deeper and deeper" into the graveyard. - The couple is then attacked by a snake who is the agent of a liar. The snake's "tactic" is "division" - speaking a language that only one understands, thus speaking only to one of them (with a great, and I think legitimately feminist, take on the situation by having it be the man to whom the snake appeals/speaks ... this is all on the level of image though: mechanically the sole goal of Naginni and voldy is to kill Harry, whereas in the Genesis story the goal is the seduction of the couple as a unit and thus the race) -The lure is "identity," and the guise it takes is "objective historty" - the snake hidden within the body of the historian Bathilda Bagshot. This is the central point ... identity: "In the day you eat of it you will be like gods, knowing good and evil." Harry only picks up on the "excuse" of looking for the sword from Hermione (DH 318 ... when she says something like "it's very likely it is there" he says "what's there?") ... Harry's real motivation is pinning down his identity through pinning down his history (as well as the role of Dumbledore and Dumbledore's history in those things). This is at the existentialist core of the works, just as these chapters are at the center of Deathly Hallows. In PS/SS Dumbledore told Harry that people have wasted away before the mirror of Erised, living in dreams, in Harry's case of what was lost in the past, and forgetting to live in the present. In CS Dumbledore tells Harry that it is our actions and choices that make us who we are, more than the "nature" we come to the table with (in other words, to translate it into Thomistic language, potentiality is not the same thing as actuality, potency is not the same as act) ... Here we see exactly how dangerous this all is, we see the snake hiding in the "historian" - the near death from trying to pin down a "static identity" - to pin down "material truth" as definitive. - In Genesis, the couple goes from being "naked (arumim) and not ashamed" to being naked and ashamed, by way of the cunning (arum) of the serpent in getting them to eat of a tree, ultimately resulting in the "alienation" of the curses in the second half of Genesis 3. In these chapters of Deathly Hallows, the wood of the tree is broken exposing the magical core, breaking the wood and making the phoenix feather, in a way, naked (the wand breaking, the symbol breaking ... but this is transformable, transfigurable - just as the symbol of the veil in the Temple is rent, but precisely at the moment when Christ, whom the Phoenix symbolizes, is naked and broken on the cross, but from this comes the mystery Hermione speaks of: "It doesn't mean defeating death in the way the death eaters mean it, Harry ... It means ... you know ... living beyond death. Living after death." [DH 328]). The result of the breaking of the wand/symbol in the attack of Voldemort's snake? "Her face glazed with tears, Hermione handed over her wand, and he left her sitting beside his bed, desiring nothing more than to get away from her" [DH 349] and "but never, until this moment, had he felt himself to be so fatally weakened, vulnerable, and naked" [DH 350]. Anyway, just some rambling food for thought. Merlin the Meandering PS Further thoughts on the "homecoming" theme as having a much broader range to it in the books - a range that includes the themes of "leaving home" ("for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife") ... Re-Read the language of Harry's thoughts upon realizing he has to leave Grimmauld Place because of Yaxley being taken there ... "Gloomy and oppressive as the house was, it had been their one safe refuge: even, now that Kreacher was so much happier and friendlier, a kind of home. With a twinge of regret that had nothing to do with food, Harry imagined the house-elf busying himself over the steack and kidney pie that he, Ron and Hermione would never eat." (DH 271). And for the other great house-elf, Dobby, "homecoming" meant death at the hands of Bellatrix and her dagger. Also, on what I would call "legitimately borrowed images" - borrowed with utmost artistic integrity - "tips of the artistic hat" as it were - when Yaxley tags along to #12 Grimmauld place, can anybody say "Jadis' escape from Charn on the coat-tails of Polly Plummer and Diggory Kirke in The Magician's Nephew"?

Dumbledore Deconstructed in Deathly Hallows

Ok, so this is a major post, or rather a post on a MAJOR question - the "deconstruction" of Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. I am writing this partly in response to Andrzej's question on the matter in relation to the Christian meaning of the works, and partly because, especially with the major Dumbledore backstory given in DH, it is probably the single biggest and hottest discussion topic concerning DH and has to be addressed. I have put this one off to the end (I will likely not post as much following this ... I need to hit studying German like a ball from the powder for the month of August) because it is the most controversial topic. A while back Red Hen was deconstructing DD and making predictions that book 7 would contain major material revealing DD to be a crotchety manipulator, and Travis Prinzi at Sword of Gryffindor was disagreeing and since the release of DH he has been saying that he does not have any problem with the treatment of DD in DH and does not see it as confirming RH's original dire predictions about the late headmaster of Hogwarts (on which I agree with him ... I haven't really read much of his stuff since the first comment out of the gate the week after the release, but that was his opening remark). So, in order to do this, I will be considering Dumbledore under 3 headings of what I think he is (3 roles he performs as a character in the works) and 1 that I do not think he is meant to be or perform. The last of these is a "Christ Figure." That is to say that I do not think he is meant to be ubiquetously defined by being an allegory of Christ (but I will discuss, then, where in the scheme of his character certain Christ-like actions fit). The 3 roles that I do think that he performs: 1. "Pure Spirit" in the alchemical crucible/ the "angelic problem" 2. A human being other than Christ, but informed by Christ 3. Allegory of a Bishop Pure Spirit and the Angelic Problem In his first book on the Potter series, The Hidden Key to Harry Potter, John Granger revealed one of THE central roles of Albus Dumbledore - "the white" "pure spirit" element on the top of the alchemical crucible, supported by a lot of great exposition of literary alchemy and alchemical structure in English literature and lots of text support for how Rowling has structured the series and the books on alchemy. The opposite of the whit/spirit element, on the bottom side of the crucible, is the black of pure matter (Voldemort). On the horizontal axis, on the left you have the red of sulfur (which I take to be animal soul - Ron's fiery red-haired nature) and on the right you have the silver of mercury, which represents thought as such and which I would put under the heading of "intellectual soul" (Hermione Granger to a T ... loved how she was so "mobile" in DH, so much more prepared for flight than Ron and Harry, very much like Granger's descriptions of thought as untethered). Humanity contains all of these elements and the goal of alchemy is to produce, in the middle in the crucible itself, the golden soul (Harry). A lot of times in our current culture, particularly in our experience of our Christian faith, we tend to think, unwittingly often, in gnostic terms. We tend to think of pure spirit, to the exclusion of the material and the biological, as the ideal. To be sure, God is pure spirit ("and those who worship him must worship him in spirit" - Gospel of John Chapter 4), but then he is God isn't he? And it must be remembered that the second person of the eternal Trinity did not "remain only God, or only spirit" - he became a human being in space and time, and with a material body the way the rest of us have material bodies (again, entering into mystery that our language cannot describe adequately and sometimes it is healthy to take a step back and remember the wisdom of Eastern apophatic/negative theology ... speaking of the persons of the eternal Trinity in time-bound language of verbes with tenses, like the past tense "did not" and "remained," is, in a very large way, really quite an absurd thing to do ... but it is what we have to work with in our state in this life - so chalk it up to the mysterious absurdity of being human). Literature is about humanity and humans are both spirit and matter. I would say that in light of the Incarnation this is exactly what Christianity is about too. The object is never to attain some state of pure spirit (even in our understanding of the eshcaton and heaven, it will involve the body in some form we cannot imagine, but still the body, after the resurrection), but to reach the right balance in the marriage of the two in our piebald, bifurcated existence (always love that word "bifurcated" too ... especially because I am a fan of Tommy Lee Jones and of some of Jim Carey's work, and while the 3rd Batman movie was kind of campy, I did love their work together there, especially the line where the Riddler calls 2Face, "oh bifurcated one!" - humanity is always bifurcated, 2Face is an image of what happens when there is imbalance and improper relation of the 2 sides). The problem that created beings who are pure spirit (IE angels) have had is understanding the piebald creatures known as humans, at least according to the Christian Tradition on why "Lucifer" fell. As pure spirit, like God himself, the angel should be higher than the human, as the logic goes purely on the level of logic. So why are the angels being told to be of service in helping humanity, as if humanity is somehow higher than them or capable of some more unique union with God? I think that Dumbledore's history with Grindewald is meant to demonstrate what happens when a human being mistakenly leans to the side of gnosticism, becomes too wrapped up in pure spirit, too wrapped up in the magical side of humanity, to the exclusion, or at least suppression, of the muggle side. "Invincible masters of death, Grindewald and Dumbledore! Two months of insanity, of cruel dreams, and neglect of the only two members of my family left to me." (DH 717)." In a way, the Christian brand of alchemy is the Incrantional answer to/against such gnosticism. The end goal is for both pure matter and pure spirit to be married again, but in proper relation. In the end both Dumbledore and Voldemort are gone, and only Harry, Ron and Hermione remain. Both Dumbledore and Voldemort live on in their good parts in Harry. All that could be salvaged of Voldy, even with Harry's valiant efforts at the end to try to get Voldy to try remorse, is the original good parts of the Slytherin element. Matter is by nature lower than spirit - not necessarily "wrong" where spirit is "right" - but there is a natural hierarchy. Therefore what remains of Dumbledore is himself, the whole person talking to Harry in King's Cross station. Voldy was spirit, was whole person, but forfeited it, and what remains, and all that can remain, is the basics of matter (but we can see the goodness taht remains in the Slytherin element in Harry's words to his son Albus Severus Potter ... I like that name, don't know if it was intentional on her part, but well could have been, since Rowling has shown disposition before towards thinking of names in their initials form, like RAB, and the initials that are used in labeling prophecies in the hall of prophecy, but the initials of Albus Severus Potter are ASP - a word for a snake, actually for venomous snakes, but we have seen in Slughorn's comments on Acromantula venom that even venom can be put to a good use through magic :) ... actually I think a son of Harry Potter and Ginny Weasely would be a good dose in house Slytherin to help it stay on the right track). But created pure spirit has its own pitfalls to watch out for, and I think Albus Dumbldore's story is a healthy reminder of that. Albus Dumbledore: "Regular Guy" Sorry, couldn't resist doing that subheading like a campaign slogan :) The point here is that one that I said about not being an allegory of Christ, but being the "stand in" (as is Harry and really just about everybody in the works) for the "everyman" of the medieval "everyman plays" - that is, all us human beings who are not Christ. ... but can be informed by Christ. Thus certain things that Albus Dumbledore does are very Christlike - including, since this is literature and literature uses symbols and images, on the symbolic/image level. Thus just before officially laying down his life (both relinquishing it in simple humility, a human being accepting the fate of our race, but also a human hero who sees an opportunity to effect some greater good by using his wits to time the place and manner of his actual exit ... but, as we have noted here before, there is a nice image of "being lifted" in death from the Christian tradition), he "drinks of the cup" of pain, from the basin of potion in the cave that voldy designed to be a tomb for any who entered, but of course DD does not stay in the tomb (as Christ did not, and as Christian Tradition teaches that we all will not eventually). But Dumbledore does not occupy this role exclusively, as he would were he an allegory of Christ. He shares the role with Harry and many others. Likewise he also shares their ability to make mistakes, to have foibles ... in short to be fallen humans in need of redemption. Bishop Dumbledore But I would not say Albus occupies no allegorical role whatsoever. Even Tolkien, who notoriously disliked mechanical allegory, admitted he had some of it in the Lord of the Rings (this comes from the edition of his letters edited by Humphrey Carpenter, I believe ... the book is at home so I can't be 100 percent on Carpenter being the editor, but I think he is ... and I am too lazy to hop on amazon right now :) ). Tolkien pretty much straight up admits that Tom Bombadil is an allegory of pre-lapsarian (before the fall) nature (that is why he always speaks in verse - verse is closer to a wholistic pure human expression). My reading of the matter would be that allegory itself is not bad in its proper place ... which is NOT being the defining characteristic of a character (at least a major character, and Bombadil is not really major to Lord of the Rings, albeit I love the character ... you basically find out that the reason he is not affected by the ring is the same reason he would not be the one to trust to get rid of it in the fires of Mount Doom, he would forget about it for the same reason he is not controlled by it - and his role is pretty much done except for a little bit of help getting out of the barrow wight's mound). Even here I would not call Dumbledore an "allegory" because it is simply that the allegorical element plays a role in the symbolism filled by a wholistic character. But on the "allegorical" level I would say that Dumbledore is a bishop in the Church, if you view the "institutions" of the wizarding world sort of like dioceses or patriarchates. I actually got this from Pauli a long while ago, in his comments about the different color robes Dumbledore wears and how the way Rowling describes them come off sounding like descriptions/details of episcopal vestments (indeed, with all the teachers and even parents, the way Rowling just sort of matter-of-factly rattles off robe color details sounds much like you would describe priests - wearing the green for ordinary time, red for martyrs' feasts etc). Actually the model of Bishop Dumbledore fits is more (tipping my hat to Andrzej here) Eastern than Western (and I am not sure Rowling would recognize and do this intentionally, but she might ... as I have always said she is a very intelligent woman ... and if a historian writing about Byzantine Christianity could wind up using a quote from Charles Williams' Arthurian poetry do describe the Eastern concept of the emperor in relation to the Bishop [the chapter detailing Eastern Orthodoxy in a well respected book we used for one class began with a quote from Williams' poetry on the procession of the people of the kingdom of Logres], the flow could work the other way too). In the West, in the Latin Rite, there is the Pope and the Pope has universal jurisdiction. In the Eastern conception there is not a single Bishop who is jurisdictionally the universal bishop. At leas in the early days (and I have never heard that it was officially revoked, but things got considerably tense between East and West, especially when certain "side events" of the crusades considerably weakened Constantinople, to put it euphemistically, and left the city very vulnerable when the Muslim Turks came through and thus the fall of the city into Muslim hands) the Eastern line was that, as a title of honor, Rome was "first among equals" - meaning jurisdictional equals in that each of the 5 ancient Patriarchates (Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem ... although I am not sure of the order below Rome, but it changed in a council or two's lists, which fact itself caused no small amount of tension ... now the Russian Patriach is considered among them but I am not sure of all of the history of the matter) were seen by the East as maintaining jurisdictional independence. The Eastern concept was more focussed solely on "collgegiality" - not that the West does not hold to the authority of the college of Bishops in council, but in the East it is the primary model, with a unified singular jurisdictional head existing only on the level of a patriarchate, not the universally. I would not call any of the ministers of magic we have seen "good bishops" and I think the bishop imagery is much less there with the minister position, but DD never seems to see himself as over-ruling the minister ... but he definitely does not place himself under his jurisdiction in the matter of how Hogwart's is run and in certain cases, especially where no crime has been actually committed (what was that that Fudge was actually going to charge him with anyway? ... simply building an army/group of underage wizards does not necessarily prove any plans to take force action against the ministry) he does not even personally remain under the minister's jurisdiction (something like "ahhh, I thought we might hit that little snag ... you are under the impression I am going to, what is the saying, 'come quietly?'"). And the Wizengamot and International Confederation are definitely more collegial images. But one of the primary ways that DD is Bishop-like is sort of universal to East and West ... he is a teacher ... and while he is correct in his teaching, he is not incapable of mistakes and sins in his actions. Notice that everything Dumbledore says about the horcruxes, about both the nature and the particulars of the magic that has gone on between Harry and Voldy is 100 percent dead on. When we get to the scar-crux material he states it boldly and matter-of-factly ... and he has it all nailed down. I'm still not sure about his reading that his dying without having the wand taken from him would do the trick to undo the Elder wand's power in the world ... the text remains unclear on that (the situation is one that never really exists, so cannot be confirmed or denied I guess) ... but everything else he is pretty much "infallible" on ... at least when it comes to magic (which is what he is "authorized" to teach). Matters such as predicting the volitional actions of human beings such as Draco disarming him or Voldy killing Snape are a different story though. He obviously makes some mistakes and miscalculations there - "infallibility" in the office of Bishop in the college of Bishops (or in this case, the collection of magical tradition) does not ensure total savvy or prudence (Dumbledore is rock-solid on how magic works and can predict what certain things will yield, even in unprecedented matters, but as far as historical facts like what Voldy did or didn't do, what magical actions he did in fact take, there "I could be as woefully wrong as Horace Belcher, who believed that the time was ripe for a cheese cauldron") ... and it does not ensure impeccability. The Last Enemy This brings me to one of the main things I want to say about "Christianity in literature." This relates to the semi-allegorical roles like Dumbledore as bishop, of which I have been talking just now, as well as Christ symbols and Christ-like action, and most particularly to that line of St Paul's on Harry's parents' headstone. In a certain way I see good Christian literature as a pointed "non-sequitur" - or rather a non-sequitur that points beyond itself. As I think could be demonstrated, there are no "Christ figures" in Harry Potter - Christ symbols; Christ-like virtuous action ... but no figures who fill out the role (Rowling saw to that in the wonderful epilogue: Christ had no earthly wife and family [unless DB's high-foreheaded, money-grubbing "fiction" is to be taken seriously in any fashion, as EITHER fact OR fiction, which I highly recommend against ... he did not write of a family, a husband and wife and kids working out their daily life together trying to be charitable, nor did he write even of gods - his "creations" are more like sickly little humans-turned-demigogues - truly "mediocre to the last degree"], and Harry has no ascension into heaven, or beyond the veil or whatever, but rather sticks around to marry Ginny and have kids with her). So there is no singular character within a story like this that fills out the whole role in a unified way. But there are plenty of things that we Christians believe require Grace ... virtuous action, not just normal virtue but self-sacrificial love and explication of it that relies on models developed throughout the Christian story of Christ. I think the role of such literature is as morality tale, mainly to examine what virtue excercized looks like. But this points beyond to some source of that virtue, some transcendent Grace. In these books we even get, I think, a lot of pictures of some of the interworkings of Grace itself in the way magic works (that is to say, from my perspective at least, that the images show a sacramental quality in the magic) ... but the source is conspicuously absent. Actually, the source was simply covered in a different book, and some great works of literature, like Rowlings', footnote the other book. Actually a lot of books footnote it through standard Christ symbols and the like, distinctive ways of speaking of self-sacrificial love etc. This one by Rowling though has a really nice footnote that is, I think, very clever in that it addresses the very matter of Christian literature. Harry finds two verses from the New Testament, one from the Gospels and one from St Paul on the headstones, respectively, of Dumbledore's family and of his own. In a world where religion operates regularly among muggles and right in the shadow of a church, though, Harry can't figure out what it means ... but they seem to him to be obviously very important. He racks his brain over them, and he even comes back to the St Paul passage in trying to convince Ron and Hermione that the deathly hallows are real ... but that is it. No more mention of them; no more tying out their meaning to the main plot action. Yet still they are there, and prominently. I think that what this relates to, or rather conveys, is the connection of the story, and stories of this kind, with the Christian faith. They are informed by the Christian faith and ultimately have to seek the source of their "magic" beyond their own bounds - in that ultimate story. But to have "direct" connections like actual allegorical Christ figures (as opposed to just symbols and plot elements and character actions that notedly specifically build on Christ images) lessens the story. I'm not going to touch Lewis' Aslan because I see some straight up allegory as all right, but I also think of the Narnia Chronicles as more of children's stories. Don't get me wrong, I love the Chronicles and I definitely think there are some VERY rich images there (and I also think that we listen to children FAR FAR less than we should "unless you become like one of these little ones ..." ... in fact a kid's voice was what got me to give Harry Potter a chance), but the images in the Narnia books I tend to think the richest and most striking are those not as easily tied out to the Bible or the Christian story by way of allegory (for instance, the Christian Tradition has much about the concept of God's eternity in relation to the world of space and time, such as the image of light and explications of how light is the closest thing we know [and also the most mysterious, as in is it particle or wave? etc] to complete rest and complete motion ... as something approaches the speed of light it will elongate in all directions of physical extension to fill all available space, like light does - thus ultimate rest through ultimate motion, and I have always loved Lewis' image of the human participation in that in the "further up and further in" chapter of The Last Battle, when they keep climbing the hill and hedges into ever newer interior gardens or whatever it is, completely fulfilled in the excitement of the ever-deeper movement of going in). I don't think it would be natural to have a complete Christ figure in such Christian literature any more than it would be natural for Harry or any wizard to completely get the source, meaning and role of the Bible verses on the headstones ... it would be sort of like looking at yourself through the other side of a mirror. It is what he is about but in a religious way that includes the world of factual history of which he is the flipside. Both are truth, fact and fiction, but flipsides of each other ... and the Faith itself, Christ, is the "side beyond the flipsides" ... as Lewis put it in his one essay, "Myth become Fact." To have the Christianity of the works tied out too tightly in something like a full Christ figure would spoil the character of the work as literature with a Christian quality to it. In truth, my respect for Rowling got even deeper with Deathly Hallows. Not only does she have a nice inclusion of this aspect in it (which I think is a lot wrapped up in, and in some way resolution of, what it seems to me Rowling would be talking about when she has said in interviews that the works have been very much about her working out her own questions about her faith and the Faith), but it includes a nice tip of insight on truth, fact and legend. "Whether they met Death on a lonely road ... I think it more likely that the Peverell brothers were simply gifted, dangerous wizards who succeeded in creating those powerful objects. The story of them being death's own Hallows seems to me the sort of legend that might have sprung up around such creations." (DH 714). This is not, I think, just a throw away line saying "well, you know how it is with superstitious primitive cultures and peoples who make up non-scientific, and thus 'false,' aetsiological tales to explain certain thing with a bit more voodoo excitement." Death, like the Peverells, is a dangerous character. In the end death is an enemy that will be defeated. On the natural level death is an objective evil, for soul and body created together to be separated. Yet on the mystical level of self-giving ... it is like that invisibility cloak that Dumbledore and Grindewald saw no real value in outside of completing the hallows (and Dumbledore's unrealistic idea of hiding Ariana in it ... but that at least is the beginning of wisdom, noticing that the uniqueness of the cloak is the ability to share with others) and that Jo2 and I were talking about a while ago as a very interesting and mysterious image that might fit the soul rather well (having the qualities of both fabric and liquid) - it is like Tolkien's idea of mortality as a gift to the second children. Death is both dangerous and mysterious, like the incredible magical giftedness of those mortals "who succeeded in creating those powerful objects"; so is it really "superstition" to make the connection between death and that kind of mysterious and dangerous giftedness ... or is it insight into deeper reality? I think Rowling is the type who understands that truth is not restricted to the realm of "fact" - that "the truth is stranger than fiction" but sometimes fiction is truer than "fact." The Final Note In the end I think the best, and most succinct comment (definitely more cogent than all of my rambling on on the matter here :) ) was that of Jo from Australia ... that despite the "deconstruction" provided by the backstory, the real proof in the pudding is in that conversation in King's Cross where DD asks Harry's opinion and advise - and most of all shows remorse - that human though he may be, with human foibles and all (his particular ones being, as I said, towards gnostic thinking), Albus Dumbledore is a human being capable, and indeed desirous, of redemption. The difference between Albus Dumbledore and Tom Riddle is not that one was an angel and the other not (I use that old label of somebody "being such a little angel" there intentionally ironically ... Dumbledore was "pure spirit" but kept to the truth in the end by repenting of the "angelic problem" - Voldy is really pure matter but as a wizard latches on to pure spirit and tries to master death and winds up the fulfillment of the "angelic problem" as a Satan figure ... this is of course on the symbolic level, and I still hold to my interpretation of voldy as personality disorder on the levels of "psycholgical realism" and "supra-individual/communal culpability") - the difference is that one yielded to remorse and repentance and actually tried to amend his ways and one did not. To be human, in the Christian scheme, is not to iradicate radically all possibility of doing wrong - it is to try to avoid evil but to be able to repent when one makes mistakes (I always loved that theme in Terminator 3, that the point was not to stop judgment day, but to survive it ... which is not to say that judgment day is good [in the movie, the machines taking over, created and given the ability to do so by misguided humans], but that it cannot destroy the ability to be human ... in Christianity we believe, though, that only way really to be able to repent and survive is through Christ ... but that gets back to those "Christ moments" and Christ symbols we were talking about, that are the place where the Christian element informs the Potter books) PS On the "everyman" quality in the books ... It is hard for one to say that everything one sees is something Rowling would think of ... not everyone has the same tastes in music or art or any number of things that inform such choices an author makes. But I love that Harry calls Albus Severus "Al" because it reminds me of Paul Simon's "everyman" song, "Call Me Al" (my friend Dom has a great theory that Simon has it for Dante ALiegheri and "Betty" for Beatrice, based on the line "he sees angels in the architecure, spinning in infinity" and the illustration of the "mystical rose" from the Paradiso in the set of very famous illustrations by ... whoever that guy was [any copy of the Divine Comedy - if it is black and white wood carving illustrations, that is him]). Simon has been very into the common human theme, with lines such as "who says 'hard times? I'm used to them. The speeding planet burns? I'm used to that ... my life so common it disappears. And sometimes even music cannot subsitute for tears.'" in The Cool Cool River ... but another line from "Call Me Al" that particularly relates here in this post is "I want a shot at redemption."

Magic "Like Fire in the Bones" in Deathly Hallows

I have mentioned a fair bit on here, particularly talking about issues of prophecy and such, imagery from the Old Testament book of the prophet Jeremiah (much stuff gleaned from a class I took on the book back in the Spring semester). The book and it's themes definitely played a role larger than mere "religion" or "Biblical Studies," a role in art, well into/past the late Middle Ages - with the prophet appearing in a number of medeival wood carvings and a famous painting by Rembrandt (I believe) - the time periods Rowling would have been studying as a classics major (and, as Granger ash noted, Rennaissance buff). I have noted a number of image sets that Rowling seems to like that are in common with Jeremianic images - the one that comes to mind first (outside of the one I am about to develop here, fire in the bones) is the death eaters circling the cage of Phoenix song in GOF specifically noted as being like jackals, and jackals are used a fair bit in Jeremiah as symbols of the desolation brought by the disentegration of the kingdom of Judah and also of God's judgment on Babylon, both cities becoming the "haunt of jackals." But this Jeremianic image to talk about here is much more dire. Compare Aberforth's retelling of his sister Ariana's story with Jeremiah 20:7-9. Going into this I would fist note something that in both cases could and will be disputed. I believe that the ambiguity in language owes to the greviousness of the event/image - with at least an allusion to (if not a full inclusion of, but I will explain in a moment what I mean) a sexual nature . In Ariana's case I believe the lack of detail but with presence of certain grave phrasings indicates something possibly sexual in nature or involving areas of the body direcly connected with sexuality (the boys were young, whether they would have had certain direct and violent criminal actions even in their mind to do, one should give the benefit of the doubt ... but it is possible for kids to pick up many other sexually tinged things, whether they be physical action or verbal taunts, as things to be used as weapons or in coercion). This is only a conjecture - but in such cases often the lack of detail (ANY detail as to the nature of the crime - as in not even "killed him" vs "slit his throat" or all the gorey details you find in works like the Illiad [everybody being split crotch to navel, bowels everywhere, eyeballs rolling around on the ground ... the Greek classics spare no details on war]) but with language pointing to something very serious is a sign of respect, the way instructors tell EMTs in cases of the victim of a particularly violating crime simply to wrap the victim in a blanket until reaching the hospital, and it is not necessarily for concerns of warmth, and while it may have some forensic protective value I suspect it is usually just as much for psychological considerations (the lack of detail is somewhat like the scene in Shawshank Redemption the first time Robbins' character is overpowered by the three men, the volume drops as the camera backs around the corner ... you know what happens, you don't need the details ... it is a sign of respect). I cannot say with certainty that this is what Rowling means by it ... in part I think it is because that is part of the respect factor. I do think that older readers are meant to ask the question, and that the very question itself is meant, for older readers, as a path to feeling exactly how strongly whatever it was impacted the girl, hurt her. Even if it is not meant to be indicative of a specificaly sexual inceident, I think the "lacunae" in details combined with the severity of tone ("It destroyed her") is meant to conjure that feeling: wounds inflicted by one human person upon another so deep that you do not speak of them or their details except where the situation requires it (like Aberfoth telling the trio the story and the dire effects the divide has), for to do so casually or idly, (or for profit - or the prophet? - as Rita Skeeter does) is to disrespect the person gravely. In other words the sexual allusion might serve not necessarily to say that the incident was indeed sexual in nature, but to portray exactly how deep of a wounding happened to Ariana - that is another possible interpretation of the text. In the case of Jeremiah the word used for "deceive" has a high occurence rate in other contemporaneous literature with connotations of highly invasive, often sexual in nature, violation. The use of the term in Jeremiah is, as one would expect, a hotbed and minefield of exegtical and interpretational problems/debates/arguments/barroom-brawls. The best core concept that I can find, especially given the following "fire in the bones" verse, is the invasion of personal space, meaning the very body of the person, no barrier at all, right into the marrow of the bones (a very effective image and word, "marrow" ... that was the line that stuck in my head more than any immediately from the second Pirates of the Caribbean movie, when one of the Dutchman crew says "down on your marrow bones and pray"). Ariana's Story (DH 564) [Aberforth Dumbledore] "They forced their way through the hedge, and when she couldn't show them the trick, they got a bit carried away tryin to stop the little freak doing it." "It destroyed her, what they did: She was never right again. She wouldn't use magic, but she couldn't get rid of it; it turned inward and drove her mad, it exploded out of her when she couldn't control it, and at times she was strange and dangerous." Jeremiah 20: 7-9 ("Jeremiahs complaint/Lament") NIV 7 O LORD, you deceived me, and I was deceived; you overpowered me and prevailed. I am ridiculed all day long; everyone mocks me. 8 Whenever I speak, I cry out proclaiming violence and destruction. So the word of the LORD has brought me insult and reproach all day long. 9 But if I say, "I will not mention him or speak any more in his name," his word is in my heart like a fire, a fire shut up in my bones. I am weary of holding it in; indeed, I cannot. "You shall know the turth and the truth shall set you free." But I think the message in Rowling's work, as Harry finds out in "the forest again," is that when the truth will set you free, is when they crucify you for it. But Harry is 17 years old and makes the choice himself. Ariana was 6 years old and deserved the "hidden years" our Lord had before his public ministry, or at least the 6 years Harry had at Hogwarts with the very direct attention of Dumbledore (even if he couldn't see it all the time). I think that Ariana's "fire in the bones" is Albus Dumbledore's greatest regret: his shame felt of the wizarding world bickering over other things while it should be working harder at better integration so that things like this dont' happen in the first place (like Aberforth said, "she was a kid, she couldn't control it, no witch or wizard can at that age."); at himself for being so wrapped up in Grindewald's world that he could not see straight to take care of his sister better in the aftermath. I will discuss more later the LARGE issue of the deconstruction of Dumbledore, but for here, this is the regret of Albus Dumbledore (and for the next post I will just say here, it is VERY important that it is a regret to him).

Blood Simple in Harry Potter

You know me, I love movie titles and quotes that I think encapsulate a point I am trying to make. I don't kow how many times I have used that one of Richard Dreyfus from "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern ared Dead" - "the blood is compulsory" - so I thought I would try a new one. This one - "Blood Simple" - is the title of the Cohen Brothers' first movie - "Blood Simple" (more of straightforward gore-thriller, not as impressive as some of their offerings after it, but still all right if you are a die-hard Cohens fan, unlike "Fargo," which really rubbed me the wrong way and I had to chalk up as "a place I diverge with the Cohens"). But actually this one is a little more apt for this post too by way of irony - in that what I will try to do here, explain my thoughts on the blood imagery in Harry Potter - is not exactly simple. So, since this is my first post on the matter of the blood imagery since the series has become a "closed corpus" more properly open for interpretive discourse, I will try to set out here some clearly delineated thoughts ... in other words to simplify the blood image a little for easier digetsion ("sorry, mate - just couldn't resist" - couldn't resist the vampire pun on mentally digesting the image of the blood). First, I see this whole thing in terms of 3 things: 1. Plot Element/mechanics/rubrics: The blood image as it functions as en element in the plot of the Harry Potter works is defined only by its being a carrier specifically of the protection Lily afforded Harry (and I had to use the word "rubrics" of course, because it means read- the red of the blood and the red of the Rubedo stage of alchemy). (All of this plays a role for me in the definitions I have in mind, and may get around eventually to writing up on here, of what makes Rowling's work so great and how it works so well, that the "working out" does not happen only on the symbolic/meaning/image level, that it also works like it should work on the mechanical/rubrical level. This was the case with the way the Expelliarmus spell worked on both the symbolic level AND on the mechanical level, where she made sure to tie out everything securely, and here on the blood image the same thing is true. This all ties into my concept of literature as "incarnational" - that the author cannot just make the "meaning" tie out in "Deus Ex Machina" fashion, but should have a real "participation" between the meaning and the mechanical, the magical and the muggle, the divine and the human, the spiritual and the material - not a conflation of the two as allegory does, but a participation as you find in good symbolist literature [part of the reason is that this thus frees it up to be truly symbolist, and not merely allegorical, because it can thus incorporate realms of "realist" literature]) 2. Image Source: The blood image, in the Judeo Christian tradition, has specific a images source, in which, in Biblical Hebraic thought, it is the carrier of the soul, the nephesh. 3. Meaning: Given what has been drawn out of the Potter books in research on the ways that certain Jewish concepts worked into the medeival European imagination (the material that Rowling would have studied as a classics major at Exeter) through medieval Jewry (2 examples: Delahie's paper on Jewish name magic, first instance around 11th century in Prague, in connection with the fear of Voldy's name in the wizarding world ... and what we have talked about before on this site in the Semitic origins of the "abracadabra" term and connections with Avada Kedavra as a killing curse) , combined with Rowling's comments on the "ridiculous amount" of research she did for these books, I would would say that the blood-soul connection is VERY likely to be in the meaning of the blood imagery in the books (what it, as a symbol, symbolizes), at the very least on the subconscious level, if not on the fully concscious level (but I think the latter is entirely possible, just don't know of any interview evidence to support it or anything like that). On with the Show The upshot of this is, I am not saying the blood technically functions as a horcrux in the story, that it carries a bit of Harry's soul into Voldy (which would be to conflate points 1 and 2). But I AM saying that I think that the close connection provided in text, in one of Dumbledore's statements that links/compares the borrowed blood and the horcruxes, or at least the scar-crux, between blood and horcrux images, combined with the Semitic concepts of connection between blood and soul, means that the blood-soul connection is part of the meaning of the image as a literary element, part of what it symbolizes. In short, while the blood is not materially/mechanically a horcrux in the story, I do think the horcrux imagery informs the meaning of the blood imagery in the books (and vice versa, but I am not going to go into developing that here) Specifics Point 1 "He took your blood believing it would strengthen him. He took into his body a tiny part of the enchantment your mother laid upon you when she died for you. His body keeps her sacrifice alive, and while that enchantment survives, so do you and so does Voldemort's one last hope for himself." (DH 710) Plain and simple, the main function of the blood as a material element of the story/plot is to carry the enchantment protection. Under point 3 I will list another place in text that I think affects the blood image on the level of meaning, but for here we must say that this is the official text explication of the material/physical mechanics of that particular blood in the story ... to carry the enchantment and keep it alive. Point 2 The point 3 general description above is where I actually alluded to the connection of this stuff with Rowling and her work, but here I will just give a basic rundown of the material I stated in brief in point 2 - In Hebraic thought in the Jewish Scriptures (our Christian Old Testament) the blood is the carrier of the soul. In Hebrew this is that the dam carries the nephesh. Here the best way to think of soul/nephesh is not strictly identical with the way we think of "soul" and "spirit" - as "not material." The nephesh is the "animating life force" of a body. After the flood Noah is told that the flesh of animals is licit to eat, but is commanded not to eat meat that still has its "life blood" in it, the blood that carries the life force. A "soul" in this sense is actually quite far from being "immaterial" since it is defined by animating a material body. The "materiality" is especially evident in the way that Hebraic thought came up with words for abstract concepts like soul) I am pretty sure I gvae some of this in another post or comment recently but I will do it again here just to have this post complete so nobody, including me right now :), has to go rummaging around aimlessly). In Biblical Hebrew vocabulary the words for abstract things of this nature come from body parts, such as the word for "mercy" being originally the word for a woman's womb. In many cases the connection is made through human actions of the body, for instance the word for "anger" being originally the word for "nostrils" - most likely because the nostrils flare in anger. The word "nephesh" for "soul" is originally the word for "throat" - and two possible connections inter-play here: one is the throat as the origin of voice and therefor communication, and the other is the jugular vein as the most ready way to kill by letting blood, which is the usual way to kill for ritual sacrifice. (Note: along these cultic lines note the prevalence of the silver dagger image. The silver dagger, as we have noted in HBP, comes from potions making. It is the instrument with which Dumbledore lets his own blood for the blood-tribute ritual in the cave, and it is also the instrument by which Bellatrix kills Dobby). Point 3 So, on the level of meaning, one of the things I always look for is conjunctions of images that are not strictly dictated dictated by the material logic of the physical plot (in which case, when such conjunctions they function together not as much strictly as images as properly symbolic, but as images as mechanical plot elements, and then it is the plot that is the symbolic element - it is not as much the images as iconic that are the symbolic as it is the movement itself of the plot that is symbolic). "without meaning to, as you know, Lord Voldemort doubled the bond between you when he returned to human form. A part of his soul was still attached to yours, and thinking to strengthen himself, he took a part of your mother's sacrifice into himself" (DH 710) The first part is the scar-crux and the second part is of course the blood ... and right after this DD refers to this all as "this two-fold connection." My basic argument is that such close conjunction of the blood image and the scarcrux image places already existing connections between blod and soul, and connections in a source that Rowling, if not consciously knowledgable of, then at least in some way hevaily affect by (Jewish/Hebraic thought coming into medeival European thought via a place Rowling is particularly concerne with - magic such as Jewish name magic, the abracadabra talisman and the like) - places this already existing connection as prime candidate for being heavily wrapped up in the meaning of the blood image in Rowling's work. Beyond that, point 3, the meaning, is actually a new subsection of this post called ... Blood Simple Basically, blood is, I think, in the Potter books, strongly an image that combines the soul as loving with the soul as suffering. It symbolizes, I think, the fact that it is the same act of making your self, your soul, vulnerable in love that also makes you capable of suffering. This is what I think is the core of that speech ... your suffering so greatly at the death of Sirius, your feeling like you are going to bleed to death from the pain of it, is the very thing that shows how greatly human you are, how much you are able to love. (Recall the blood tribute ritual in HBP in the cave: Voldy thinks letting your own blood will make you weaker, but then that is how he lost his body in the first place on that night in Godric's Hollow, thinking that Lily's entire letting of her own blood/life made her completely powerless to protect Harry ... man was he wrong on that one - and Dumbledore knows that the ability to let your own blood, to suffer willingly for love of another, is actually the most powerful magic in the world because it is what makes you truly human [human in the way Christ redefined, or rather transfigured, humanity in His death and resurrection]). All the blood images: Krum with a broken nose and 2 swollen black eyes, having lost the match they were already well on their way to losing anyway, but showing his unique talent in attaining the snitch; Hermione and Harry baptized in the blood of Grawp, the innocent giant who stumbled into the wrong clearing at the wrong time just looking for his brother (who just happens to be the "red character" of the series and has one of the biggest hearts in all the books)and happy to see a feminine face he recognized who might be able to help and got a face full of arrows from a bunch of nagging centaurs who couldn't work out their differences with Dumbledore; the thestrals who save the day drawn by the blood; the 12 uses of dragon's blood; Voldy using Harry's blood; Petunia as Lily's last blood relative (and the separation that it caused in blood for one sister to be born muggle and one magical); Umbridge's sadistically sinister quill (which, interestingly gives Harry his second permanent scar, which is mentioned and which he brandishes at several very pointed instances to Scrimgeour, once in the "A Very frosty Christmas" chapter of HBP and then "For the second time, he raised his right fist and displayed to Scrimgeour the scars that still showed white on the back of it, spelling I must not tell lies" [DH 131] ... twice, once in each of the 2 final books, the last 2 of the final condensed 5-6-7 trilogy, having gotten the scars in the first book of that trilogy, the scar received in the opening of the trilogy like the scar received in the opening of the series, received from a woman drawn to a horcrux, received by her forcing him to draw his own blood ... just the opposite pairing of the first scar, received being protected by a woman repulsed by and defiant to the death to the master of the horcruxes ...); Harry feeling like he is going to bleed to death from the pain of caring so much; the hot trickle of blood in the back of Harry's throat from Malfoy stomping on his nose as he lays in Malfoy's full body bind on the train; Harry walking into the start of term feast still covered in all that blood, Dumbledore striking blood from his own hand withered by the curse on a horcrux ... All of this in the series (and probably much more could be catalogued) I think points to that meaning in the image: that the horcrux image informs the blood image along the lines of the Hebraic thought on blood as carrier of the soul, and makes the blood imagery a VERY central one in the series. Epilogue on Souls I am only going to touch this very briefly (meaning only this once) and make one simple statement on it because far too much blood/ink has been spilt on it already ... but there is a comment to be made here on the issue of "Bi-partite" (body - soul/spirit) vs "Tri-Partite" (body - soul - spirit) anthroplogy. And that comment is NOT "Bi-partite is right." The statement is, as I have tried to say before, that the "part" langauge is really not the best to use when speaking of the human person. While we cannot avoid "part" in our world and there is something genuinely to be gained form language of "substantiality" - because we are creatures of substances and thus the language does reflect something real in us - we are not defined by solely this language, especially when it comes to the mysterious and mystical marriage of spirit and flesh, which was radicalized in the Incarnation. the statement is that the mark, I think, of truly good literature is when it bears witness to the how mystical is this mystery of the human persons we are. I think in Rolwing we see a pretty good example of such quality in literature- as I have said, some of her use of images fits tripartite and some of it fits bipartite, and sometimes in the same image/text we see the ambiguity that points to the mystery. Snape: "Souls? We were talking of minds!" Dumbledore: "In the case of Harry and Lord Voldemort, to speak of one is to speak of the other." (DH 685) Notice that dumbledore does NOT say "in the case ... they are the same thing." But if to speak of one is to speak of the other, are they not the same thing? The language is ambiguous, and I think the power of Rowling's art here lies in the ambiguity because it points to the mystery of the matter. If to speak of one is to speak of the other then "materially" they would be the same thing - but reality is not defined solely by the physically material, as materialists would have it. Some would say that all of this is simply "arguing about semantics" - but I would quote Chesterton (I think) - "Of course we are arguing over words, what else is there over which to argue?" Language and linguistics and semantics and syntax and all of that is what we use to convey meaning to one another (we have already looked at, in the post on Snape's memories, the very real difference it makes for Snape whether you are speaking of "the son of Lily Evans" or "Potter's son" ... but we enter there into one of those "sticky" subjects over which "conservatives" and "liberals," "traditionalists" and "post-moderns" etc love to figth each other hatefully - whether or not the "linguistic turn" of continental philosophy in the early 20th century, and its development of concepts of the role of subjectivity in "meaning," was simply a turn to "subjectivism" ... and all I would offer there is Dumbledore's/Rowling's words: "Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?" [DH 723]). Personally my concept of the matter is that "mind" is a mode of soul (mens a mode of anima, nous a mode of psyche), just as "intellect" is an aspect of "spirit" (intellectus an aspect of spiritus, cf Augustine's psychological model of the Trinity - for a more readily understandable synopsis of it read Frank Sheeds Theology for Beginners). I also think that "human soul" (intellectual soul versus merely vegetative soul or animal/sensate soul) is a unique mode of existence of spirit, that affects it qualitatively ... although even there I have to step away from the mystery in respect because large questions arise for the question of the Incarnation - corrollary to the questions into which Appolinarius ran and had his teaching condemned at the coucnil in Constantinople in 381 AD/CE. The question might arise here whether or not that statement, that to speak of one is to speak of the other, applies only to Harry and Voldy via some unique element in the story, and whether the passage indicates that everywhere else we are talking about 3 "parts" to the human person (in other words, that dumbledore's statement on Harry and Voldy cannot be taken as implying anything fir a general anthropology). The first thing I would note is that even if Snape would not be the first to admit it, Dumbledore would readily jump out of his seat to point out that he and Snape do not kow everything on the matter and even in what they do know they are not infallible. I would think that with the amount of self-deprication there is in the text by Dumbledore, it would not be too hard to establish that this principle of "not infallible" always enters concretely into anything Dumbledore says, although not necessarily always postively stated. And I would say that DD would probably be the first to say it ("not infallible) about anyone and everyone when it comes to the level under discussion here. "What you must understand, Harry, is that you and Lord Voldemort have journeyed together in realms of magic hitherto unknown and untested ." (DH 710) If magic is about what it is to be human, the potentials of the mystery hidden within our very beings, within our very bones (the "magical within the muggle" in the "real world") ... then such magical "inter-loping" (I love that word, "inter-lope," and I love using it in this seemingly unconventional way here ... for the journey really does spring from Voldy trespassing, and it is genuinely evil trespassing, but at the same time we human beings are also built for, not that level of trespass, but for always inter-loping in each other's lives in some way ... and my interest in the worst, of course, went through the roof, being a huge fan of Pirates of the Caribbean as I am, when I looked up "interlope" on dictionary.com and found that the word developed in England and was "first recorded around 1590 in connection with the Muscovy Company, the earliest major English trading company (chartered in 1555), was soon being used in connection with independent traders competing with the East India Company (chartered in 1600) as well") - such journeying is about going further and further into what really makes us human, what it is to be human the way all of us are human.