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.