A Church in Godric's Hollow

Where to Find Me

2009-06-03T17:04:00.000-07:00

Time forbids regular posting here--and has for some time. I do post regularly elsewhere, though. Come visit me at A Light Inside. Sometimes I even talk about Harry Potter. :)

If you like wizard rock, you can find my music here.

UPDATE: I've joined the Blogengamot at The Hog's Head Pub! Do come talk Potter with us.

See you around!

Announcing

2008-06-03T22:44:00.001-07:00

The newest wizard rocker on the block ...

me.

Stop by the Myspace if you've a chance and catch the music of Library Lily and the Tales of the Bard, perhaps the longest and geekiest name in the entire wrock tradition.

Full seven-song album coming soon.

All Hallows' Eve, All Saints' Vigil, Samhain, Halloween

2007-10-31T17:09:00.000-07:00

Growing up, my family didn't celebrate Halloween. We shut off the lights, made brownies, and watched movies together. I loved and looked forward to that sweet secretive time.

Over the past few years I've looked a little more into the holiday itself, and according to my understanding, what we have today is derived from the placing of the Christian holiday "All Hallows' Day" or "All Saints'" to coincide with the Celtic celebration of Samhain (actually, All Saints' is November 1, but as with all Christian solemnities--including Sundays--observance begins on the evening before). Samhain, supposedly, was a day of the blurring of lines between the spirit world and the physical world; appropriate, then, for the placement of the day meant to celebrate the Communion of the Saints, which is (partly) the idea that in Christ, we who live in the world now have a living union with "those who have gone before".

I'm still not sure how I feel about Halloween itself. You won't find me--a Christian--celebrating Samhain, naturally, despite the fact that the word itself fascinates me (it's pronounced SAH-ween--gotta love those old Celtic words.) All Saint's Vigil I am delighted to keep. Mostly, I think Halloween is just an overcommercialized nothing-holiday itself, but gives the kid in all of us a good excuse to have some fun. I can respect the decisions of people to either celebrate it or not.

But for those who love the world of goblins and fairies, on Halloween or otherwise, this piece by Michael Spencer ... er, The Great Pumpkin ... speaks eloquently about the glory of fantastic imagination. Enjoy. And Happy Halloween :-)

Good Thoughts

2007-10-27T16:16:00.000-07:00

Worthwhile reading: this excellent piece by John Mark Reynolds. Here are a couple of clips:

"When J.K. Rowling announced that the Harry Potter books had intentional Christian images, I was getting ready to write on the topic. It was interesting to hear her thoughts, but she had already written seven books full of Christian images.... she was confirming what anyone could have known (or at least very strongly suspected) who reads a great deal of mythic or magical literature."

Also, in regards to the statement that Dumbledore was gay (given in response to a 19-year-old woman's question as to whether Dumbledore had ever been in love):

"No.

He is not, at least in the books.

He is also not heterosexual. As a reader and interpreter of the text, I am given no textual reason to care or to identify his sexual preference."

Bingo.

Thanks to the Hogwarts Professor, who is liable to grow weary of my being grateful, for the above link and for introducing me to the quote below.

"Do you think I am trying to weave a spell? Perhaps I am; but remember your fairy tales. Spells are used for breaking enchantments as well as for inducing them. And you and I have need of the strongest spells that can be found to wake us from the evil enchantment of worldliness which has been laid upon us for nearly a hundred years."
C. S. Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"

Rowling's Revelations

2007-10-20T13:59:00.000-07:00

Ten years and seven books, and as far as controversy goes, Joanne Rowling kept as quiet and mysterious as the fabled sphinx that turned up in Goblet of Fire. This week, she has set her fandom spinning twice--and in two very different directions.

I'm not breaking news to many people here, but there are people reading this blog who will probably not have heard either bit of news anywhere else. For anyone who doesn't know, then, Rowling claimed a few days ago that yes, there are Christian themes in her books, and claimed even more recently that the Hogwarts headmaster, Albus Dumbledore, was homosexual.

In response to B, who has already asked my thoughts, and to those who read this who will be very concerned by the latter news, here's my take on things.

Not long ago, I posted these words on this blog:

"I do feel it important not to make J.K. Rowling out to be a champion of evangelical Christianity in the way evangelical Christianity usually proclaims its heroes. Her claims to faith in Christ I will gladly respect and acknowledge; likewise the symbolism and ideas she has incorporated in her stories. But to demand of her a specific set of convictions or political principles is asking quite a lot of someone who has been rather reticent about the details of her faith."

Of that, I retract nothing, nor would I have even if she had never commented on Dumbledore's sexual preferences. She wrote a superb story that--it seems obvious to me--appeals to what could be called 'the Christian in all of us'. It has also seemed obvious to me (more by what I hear of her life than from her books) that she does not necessarily interpret her faith in the most orthodox manner. But when I speak of orthodoxy, I refer to something much more longstanding and Biblically-founded than the evangelical mood as represented by Laura Mallory.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has a section on homosexuality, which seems to me both strongly Biblical and beautifully compassionate:

"Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.... Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection."
--The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2357-2359, emphasis mine

I couldn't add to that in expressing my beliefs about homosexuality itself; nor would I dare take away from it. In case anyone thinks my beliefs too hard on homosexuals themselves in claiming that they should never act on those desires, I can only say that I have--no, not I, the Church itself has--an equal problem with heterosexual acts either prior to or outside of marriage. Now that I've offended just about everybody, let me go on :-P

As far as Dumbledore himself is concerned: while I am sure the slash-fiction crowd will have a heyday with this, I am grateful that Rowling didn't make a big deal out of it in her books. It is not appropriate matter for young children, despite the fact that of necessity discussions of sexuality can't be held off for too long in this world. We know Harry was not treated as an object by Dumbledore; Rita Skeeter hinted at a "sinister" aspect to the Harry-Dumbledore relationship, and Harry felt dirty and defiled just by her insinuations. And while Rowling could come out next week and tell us that Dumbledore had regular liaisons down in Hogsmeade, we see no hint in the books that Dumbledore was anything other than celibate. I have no problem with celibacy.

Dumbledore is one of my top 5 favorite characters, in which list he is joined by Harry, Lily, Hermione, and Dobby. He has a sense of humor that rivals Mr. Bennet's [from Pride and Prejudice] in brilliance and supersedes it in innocence. He is also both capable and guilty of wrong moral choices, and Rowling has herself described him as "Machiavellian"--but I will still defend him against those who think of him as too cold and manipulative.

As to whether the Harry Potter books are suitable for Christians, even Christian children, the answer is yes. Certainly there will be those who disagree, but I firmly believe that the general objections are based on a failure to understand the purposes and meanings of literature and also a failure to either a) read the books, or b) read them without a vendetta.

In response to Rowling's comments about Christianity in the Harry Potter books, I have been journalistically trumped by Johnny over at Sword of Gryffindor, who did a beautiful job with this post. But to leave a note of my own on the subject: I both believe and agree with Rowling when she claims that to her "the religious parallels have always been obvious" and that "those two particular [Bible] quotations he finds on the tombstones at Godric's Hollow, they sum up — they almost epitomize the whole series." As B said in the comment box of my last post, "Myth, religion, mystery and brilliant storytelling are abundant [in the books]." There is Christianity there, but it is revealed symbolically, not allegorically or didactically; as someone who has wrestled long with the literary and evangelical failings of most "Christian fiction", I am really grateful for a series of books that comes at faith with more than zeal and good intentions.

Joanne Rowling's worldview may not match my own on every single point; more than that, it may fail in some aspects to meet the standards of the Bible and the Church. What the Catechism calls "Christian perfection" is, however, a goal to work toward with desperate faith and conscious humility, not something that humans are liable to come upon naturally. While humans will be imperfect, so will their books be. But her books point at Christ, at truth; not perfectly, but certainly better than most.

Corrections, Congratulations, and St. Hedwig

2007-10-18T17:45:00.000-07:00

This past Tuesday marks the feast day of St. Hedwig of Silesia, after whom Harry's owl was named. I enjoyed coming across her name in the church calendar.

One brief correction to my Podcasts post is worthy of note: Kim from SpinnersCast tells me that do like to get into theorizing and have done so in their past episodes. Other than Fr. Roderick's, they were my most recent discovery, so I haven't had the chance to experience much of their work yet! I am, however, beginning to catch up with the back episodes as I really enjoy their show.

Finally, I would like to offer my congratulations to John Granger, Travis Prinzi, and the others who caught the Christian content all the way through the Harry Potter books and have this week been openly vindicated by J.K. Rowling. I just finished Looking for God in Harry Potter (by John Granger), and am thoroughly ashamed to admit how much I missed. Jo Rowling practically had to hit me in the face with it: it took Deathly Hallows for me to realize that Harry Potter was more than just a great good-and-evil story that couldn't help aligning to Christian ideals now and again. Granger's book explained the depth of her intentionality with this series. His books are well worth the read; and so, if anyone reading this has the slightest doubt, are hers.

Podcasts and Working Internet

2007-10-16T19:38:00.000-07:00

This post comes to you from my very own computer, which to my utter delight is finally back online. Addiction or not, I really missed the internet connection, and despite shivering in this little room, I'm clam-happy blogging and listening to Ministry of Magic off Myspace.

A little recording, a little copyrighting, and hopefully someday I'll have my own wrock up. Three songs in, I find it thoroughly fun to write.

From wizard rock to another online enjoyment I've discovered lately: podcasts. My job allows for quite a bit of headphone time, depending on the complexity of whatever I'm working on, and I find podcasts a little less exhausting than music and not generally more distracting (though I might have to listen to a segment a couple of times to understand its point). Here are my favorite Harry Potter-related 'casts:

The Hog's Head Pubcast, hosted by Travis Prinzi of the Sword of Gryffindor, is both very well produced and the most intellectually interesting that I've come across; it is, therefore, my favorite. It also helps that I agree with him most of the time, which is not necessarily true of most of the others. Travis spoke at Prophecy this year and posted a couple of his talks; the one on Voldemort was especially good. If anyone ever wondered if details matter, I can answer that by saying that one of the very coolest things about Travis's program is his introduction: "... Aberforth will pour you the drink of your choosing, and let's talk Potter." I do love talking Potter. But it isn't just the details that make the 'cast; the professionalism, interesting topics, and well-reasoned thoughts mean that I really look forward to finding an update from the Hog's Head on my iTunes.

Father Roderick's The Secrets of Harry Potter, now hosted by Br. Giles Baker, also gets into hidden meanings of the story. I thoroughly enjoy this cast, despite the fact that it often follows the movies more closely than the books and I--ahem--hate the movies. The information priest and monk present is intriguing and the hosting quite good. Fr. Roderick's The Daily Breakfast is one of my non-Harry staples; how can anyone not like listening to a Dutch Catholic priest who would podcast and videocast at the same time while watching Alec Baldwin pull a car-parking-wrecking stunt in front of the Letterman studios?

Greg and Penny, over at Harry Potter Prognostications, run a very likeable theory-based podcast in which they often bicker lovingly, like Ron and Hermione. Most of the time I find myself wanting to stand up and argue with them too (all in good fun of course). Their latest post covers everybody's favorite snake-slayer, Neville Longbottom.

SpinnersCast devotes itself in a lot of ways to wizard rock. The more I listen to them, the more I enjoy their show; the crew there doesn't seem to get too much into the deeper side of Harry Potter thought, but they have fun and play good music.

The final two, MuggleCast and PotterCast, run by MuggleNet and the Leaky Cauldron respectively, were clearly designed to appeal to the sort of fan who expresses enthusiasm by screaming and jumping up and down. I am not that sort of fan, nor was I even in my teens, but both podcasts keep me well amused. The casts of both shows have their pop-culture facts down and Melissa from PotterCast recently did an intriguing interview with Laura Mallory, which deserves its own post. I do wish Jamie Lawrence's school had better internet, because he was the one on MuggleCast with whom I generally agreed most often; Jamie also introduced me to Oliver Boyd's music, for which I am very grateful.

That covers my main contingent, and I now need to go spend some time with my non-internet-related life. Happy listening, to all who are so inclined.

Techno Never Gets Old

2007-10-10T17:21:00.000-07:00

Can I just say that I love Ministry of Magic? Their songs just keep making me smile.

This post comes to you courtesy of my work computer, as I am still waiting for internet at home (as well as my mixing bowls and my roommate, who are still at the old apartment.) The delay is not the fault of either Comcast or of broadbandoffers.com, but the fact that my roommate and I have to coordinate very different schedules and visit the Comcast office while it's open.

Looking for God in Harry Potter is an excellent book. I'm 98 pages in and learning lots.

More posts (with more cohesive thought) coming soon. I promise.

Notes

2007-10-03T21:17:00.000-07:00

I am moving over the next two weeks. My Harry Potter books are packed up beside their shelf, although I left the box open for quick access. John Granger's books came the other day and I decided not to pack them at all. They can go in my book bag, which gets about as much work as Hermione's.

It intrigued me to find in Looking for God in Harry Potter that Jane Austen's Emma is one of Joanne Rowling's favorite books. Over the last year, as a loyal Austen devotee I have developed a strong appreciation for Emma (especially Mr. Knightley, who is not unlike my beloved boyfriend.) I keep picking it up to re-read the ending. Good, solid strength of character has grown on me throughout the past several years, and Mr. Knightley demonstrates this very well. Emma develops it, and Jane Austen writes so brilliantly that she charms me every time. It doesn't surprise me at all that her writing appeals to JKR, whose work charms me in many of the same ways--sweet musical prose, sly humor, and strong characters with a certain purity of heart and mind despite flaws.

Back to the subject of moving: hopefully this will not affect frequency of blogging too much. But if it does (as it might, since my internet accessibility will depend on dealing with Comcast, which has been dreadful since broadbandoffers.com screwed up my account), don't give up on me.

Anonymous Comments

2007-09-30T16:06:00.000-07:00

... are now allowed. Thanks, "B", for letting me know that they had not been.

Wrock It

2007-09-28T21:27:00.000-07:00

As something of a musician myself, I have finally had to look into the newmade genre known as Wizard Rock, or "wrock". For anyone who doesn't know, Wizard Rock is simply songs about the Harry Potter stories or characters, usually done by bands with names like--well, like Harry and the Potters, the group that brought Wizard Rock into audible existence.

The genre has its pros and cons, which are not necessarily the same to all people. For those who couldn't make it onto American Idol, the wrock world is wide open to anyone with a mic line in on their computer and an idea for a song about Harry. Of course, for those of us who think the audition weeks of American Idol are a waste of time and sarcasm, this means a lot of unnecessary sifting through to get to the good stuff. But hey, it's all in good fun.

Once you get past the bad and the ugly, though, the good can be very good; even, in some cases, downright impressive.

Harry and the Potters and The Remus Lupins, two of the most popular groups, deserve mention; especially the latter for their screaming rendition of Hedwig's Theme, which, despite the fact that I don't care much for screaming rock, proves that they have some talent.

Even better are The Ministry of Magic--at least, if you like electronic music as much as I do. In case any of you wondered if the Lily was something of a geek, the answer is yes. Their "Accio Love" about Ron and Hermione made me so happy today that I felt it necessary to listen to it several times. That particular piece features the vocals of The Moaning Myrtles, a female duo that generally does piano-based work. The quality of their recordings is not quite on par with the Ministry of Magic's, but the talent is there.

The best thing I have heard in Wizard Rock has to be Oliver Boyd and the Remembralls, a group of one member--Christian Caldeira--whose music, I think, could make it on radio easily. Songs like "Train to Nowhere", "Bridge to the Other Side", "You Don't Know Jack (About Magic)", and "Lupin's Tale" (sung for Tonks), took me totally by surprise. The lyrics, vocals and instrumentals, arrangement, and the recordings themselves are all of professional quality. Anyone who likes Matchbox Twenty and/or Harry Potter should love Oliver Boyd.

It should be interesting to see how the genre does and whether it has any staying power. Whether it does or not, I'm definitely going to contribute a couple of songs to it one of these days. My Korg Triton has just about everything necessary to back me in such an endeavor, and I've been writing songs since I was seventeen; there's plenty in Harry Potter to work with, and hopefully I should be able to put together some good stuff.

Christians, Sanctity, and Harry

2007-09-23T14:01:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I finally ordered John Granger's Unlocking Harry Potter: Five Keys for the Serious Reader and Looking for God in Harry Potter (available at the Store of Gryffindor through Amazon). I've never read either, but have read and listened to enough of Mr. Granger's work to decide these were must-reads for me.

As usual, I scrolled down and read the reviews on each. Perhaps it should not have surprised me that the first review on Looking for God in Harry Potter was a vitriolic piece of undiluted spite against Christianity. It amused me somewhat, especially since the reviewer called the well-read and intelligent Granger "some dolt christian fundamentalist puke", called Christians ignorant in a sentence that used the wrong terminal punctuation, and referred to the Christian finding of Christian ideas in books written by a professing Christian as a "ruin [of the] the sanctity of ... the Harry Potter novels."

John Granger's intellectual prowess hardly needs my defense against an attack like that; his work can be freely read at his blog. People with sense, and without vendettas, should have no problem appreciating his thoughts, even if they disagree with his conclusions.

As someone who also looks at Harry Potter from a Christian worldview, I found the review somewhat interesting, though not particularly worth notice as an insult. It left me with a few thoughts that seemed applicable here at my blog, especially since even the name and subheading of this little corner of the blogosphere refer specifically and openly to my faith.

First, there is no intent here to offend or insult anyone. I have a Jewish friend who loves the books as much as I do; the Harry Potter series was not written in the genre of evangelical "Christian" fiction and anyone can freely enjoy it. My conversations with this friend about Harry have expressed multitudes of things we do have in common in our delight over the books. Her Judaism does not offend me at all, and I hope the reverse is also true. We have not felt the need to argue about it, at least.

Second, Christianity is my perspective, my vantage point, my life. It has had too many good effects on my heart, mind, and actions for me to wish not to admit to it. I could leave out most reference to my faith in my blog here; in fact, I considered making this blog a place of simple whimsy. Ultimately, though, I felt that the scene in Deathly Hallows in Godric's Hollow, in the graveyard by the little church--one of my favorite scenes in the series--represented something of my own heart. Its Biblical references and the light and music of the church, though Harry in his despair cannot comprehend it at the time, provide an anchoring point between Harry's past and future and certainly caught at my imagination. Anyway, if I see the series--or any of life--through stained-glass ideals, I shall not apologize for the fact.

Third, I do feel it important not to make J.K. Rowling out to be a champion of evangelical Christianity in the way evangelical Christianity usually proclaims its heroes. Her claims to faith in Christ I will gladly respect and acknowledge; likewise the symbolism and ideas she has incorporated in her stories. But to demand of her a specific set of convictions or political principles is asking quite a lot of someone who has been rather reticent about the details of her faith. I don't think this is at all what Mr. Granger is doing, of course, or I wouldn't have bought his book. It appears to me, also, that most of the people likely to make this mistake still think Harry Potter teaches Wicca to little children. But it did seem worth noting.

Finally, if anyone has had an experience with Christianity that led them to such a level of hatred against us, against our doctrines or principles or people, I am sorry for that. Christianity is the faith of men and women, and men and women often do terrible things. Its moral values will also certainly offend those who have not the same conscience. But I believe in Christ; I believe in our doctrines and principles and people, and this makes me who I am. Christianity is my limiter and my safeguard, my tradition and my hope. I will not pretend this does not exist, nor will I pretend that it does not affect the way I see Harry Potter or any other article in the universe.

To those who do not see this way, I can only say this: By all means, enjoy the Harry Potter series. I would not suggest that they are the property of Christians. Perhaps, if we are lucky, you will come away at least with some understanding of why we would look for hope and guidance and salvation to one who gave his life for us out of love.

Notes

2007-09-20T00:06:00.000-07:00

The chicken-and-ham pie turned out superbly. I am very much obliged to the Floo Network and all its recipe sources and plan to attempt more of their dishes, although shopping for British ingredients is even more difficult than converting milliliters to cups. A little research enabled me to find caster sugar--or something similar--under the name of "Baker's Sugar", but suet and kidney are a little harder to come by.

Thanks to Matthew over at Sword of Gryffindor for this one: the most beautiful Potter-art I've ever run across. As a Lily fan, I loved "A Different Kind of Bravery (2)"; as a romantic who pulled for Ron and Hermione since book 1 and Harry and Ginny since book 2, "Sunlit Days" and "Now or Never" also landed among my favorites of Marta's work.

Dumbledore and Morality

2007-09-16T20:54:00.000-07:00

After midnight last night, in an unreasonable half-asleep state, I discovered the Floo Network, the recipe page of which got me thoroughly excited. Chicken-and-ham pie at my house tonight! It was rather tempting to try my hand at butterbeer, too, but my boyfriend--who will be here for dinner after helping lead the kick-off night for youth group--will prefer real beer.

Mark Shea has written an excellent piece for the First Things magazine in defense of Harry Potter. I enjoyed it from start to finish, especially this line: "Failing to show that Harry was the spawn of Satan, the charge “Harry lies and bends the rules and gets away with it” was then granted Most Favored Damnation status—as though books like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn did not exist and were not classics of the English language. "

Towards the end of that article, Mr. Shea talks about "the only really intellectually respectable basis for Christian criticism of the series: Snape’s killing of Dumbledore on Dumbledore’s orders." Indeed, after my first read of Deathly Hallows, this one problem stuck with me. I certainly believe, as Mr. Shea says, that it was a wrong moral choice, and my children will definitely hear that such an action--or request for action--is not right.

I cannot add much to Mark Shea's words, except to say that in noting Dumbledore's admission that he intended Snape to end up "with" the Elder Wand, it seems common to overlook the fact that when Harry faced Voldemort after King's Cross, Harry explained much more thoroughly what Dumbledore had actually meant to do:

“Aren’t you listening? Snape never beat Dumbledore! Dumbledore’s death was planned between them! Dumbledore intended to die undefeated, the wand’s last true master! If all had gone as planned, the wand’s power would have died with him, because it had never been won from him!”

In other words--unless I'm really misunderstanding something here--Dumbledore never really intended Snape to end up as master of the wand. He meant for all ownership of the wand to die, for its power to be nevermore accessible to Voldemort or anyone like him. Which, to me anyway, casts a little more light on why he asked Snape to kill him. Though I still cannot completely justify that, he acted on the idea that had his death been directly caused by Fenrir, Bellatrix, or Draco, the wand would have been shortly in the hands of Voldemort. Of course, Draco did wind up master of the wand--but due to the manner in which he mastered it, nobody noticed but Harry.

Drawing from the above conclusion, Dumbledore's request of Snape may not necessarily have had anything to do with fear of a painful and protracted death at the hands of Fenrir or Bellatrix. He gave Snape that excuse, but he had a very good reason to keep Snape from any knowledge of the Deathly Hallows: namely that the Resurrection Stone was in Dumbledore's possession, and we all know who Snape would have liked to bring back. A visit from Lily Evans from the afterlife would probably have led Snape to repeat the history of the second Peverell brother.

Enough theorizing for one night. That chicken-and-ham pie needs to come out of the oven right about now.

Farewell, Madeleine

2007-09-13T22:32:00.001-07:00

In Googling A Wrinkle in Time to figure out the name of the planet Camazotz, I came across the news that Madeleine L'Engle had left this world just days ago.

I know few details of her life, but if her books speak much about her--and art always does speak of the soul that creates it--she was a woman of both great intellect and great heart.

A Wrinkle in Time and its sequel, A Wind in the Door, have few equals among young-adult fiction for spirited characters and beautifully dramatized truth. Meg's work as a Namer in the second book, at the time I read it, taught me as brilliantly as does the courage in Rowling's stories.

Mrs. L'Engle has gone, I am sure, to a better place--but will be missed here.

Love in Deathly Hallows

2007-09-13T22:02:00.000-07:00

At the end of Order of the Phoenix (which Deathly Hallows has finally forced into becoming my second-favorite book in the series), among Dumbledore's revelations to Harry is that of the one power Harry has "which the Dark Lord knows not."

In the year and a half between my first reading of the books and the release of Deathly Hallows, I wondered in what way love would triumph over Voldemort. The idea reminded me strongly of Madeleine L'Engle's A Wrinkle in Time, which climaxes in Meg on Camazotz, standing alone and unarmed in the presence of It, desperate to save her little brother. She had been told that she had one power that It did not have, and that "this something is [her] only weapon".

Her only weapon, as she quickly realizes, is love; the same power that took Harry to the Department of Mysteries to save Sirius, and the same that took him into the forest to stand defenseless before Voldemort and accept death. The same power that led Lily to stand between Voldemort and her son--that brought Snape to his knees before Dumbledore in the storm--that woke Dumbledore from the dream of power with Grindelwald.

Love, written all through the Harry Potter books, is fulfilled most clearly in Deathly Hallows. It may be nerdy, or merely girlish, of me to think this way, but I find myself intrigued by the differences in love itself as seen through the various characters. Several parallel stories, marked by particular contrast, stand out to me. Here are a few of the many such that could be made:

Lily and Petunia. "Rooting for the underdog" would probably have created Petunia Evans a lot of sympathy, had we not known what she became by the time we hear that story. Petunia began with a very natural longing for the abilities her younger sister possessed; also, in her eyes at least, Lily got preference from their parents because of those abilities, which of course added to the emotions. We would not have had this story of Harry had Lily been spoiled by the extra attention and Petunia been strengthened by trial, like Edith and Elnora in Girl of the Limberlost. In the end, though, it was the advantaged child who understood love most clearly. It could be argued that Petunia, despite her affection for her son, never truly managed to understand love at all.

Albus and Aberforth. Aberforth may have started off life as the better man, but that apparently did not last long beyond the death of Ariana. By the time Harry meets him, Aberforth has consigned himself to bitterness and cynicism. "Sadness is easier," says Claire in Elizabethtown, "because it's surrender." Aberforth has mostly surrendered, at least as concerns the best parts of himself; fortunately for both himself and Harry, he retains a hint of fighting spirit.

Albus, discovering that he has loved too late, devotes his life to defending the true principles that he had once failed to understand. He respects the freedom of Dobby the house-elf, champions the rights of Muggles, shows mercy to Severus Snape--yes, he does--and spends the last fifteen years of his life fighting for Harry's. It is a common response to Deathly Hallows to say that Dumbledore "used" Harry, but that is a pretty wild read of the story: Dumbledore knew enough of Harry's enemy to know that Harry would surely face the Avada Kedavra again, and dedicated himself both to bringing down Voldemort (for the protection of many lives) and to ensuring Harry's final survival.

It is particularly interesting to note here that Aberforth's idea of love suggests selfishness, whereas Albus's encourages self-sacrifice.

Snape and James. Arch-rivals in a manner even more intense than Harry and Malfoy (after all, Harry and Malfoy weren't competing for the hand of a fair maiden), Snape and James provide an odd contrast in the books. Both of them did a lot of wrong in school, especially to each other. Again, however, it is the favored child who ultimately understands love more clearly. James Potter may have wasted little affection on Severus Snape, but he cared enough for right and wrong to save his rival from a terrible death; an act of mercy Snape would later fail to reciprocate to Sirius. Even where Lily is concerned, James loves better; he sheds the arrogance that nearly deprived him of any chance with her, and when the time comes, he willingly dies for her and their son. Snape's love is myopic and possessive and does not succeed in affecting his course of action until he fears for her life, his own actions having jeopardized her; beginning from the choice he makes then, he is slowly and tortuously transformed. At the end of his own life, love finally triumphs over bitterness and for the first time, he looks into Harry's eyes and sees Lily.

Kreacher and Wormtail. Both of these characters were shown mercy, well beyond their deserts. Kreacher, however, loved one person: Regulus Black. Wormtail loved only himself. They had both been loved: Regulus died for Kreacher; Sirius shouts at the end of Prisoner of Azkaban that he and Lupin and James would have willingly died for Wormtail. Kreacher had betrayed Sirius to his death, and Wormtail, Harry's parents; neither of them merited any favor from Harry, and both received it. Kreacher's love, and Wormtail's lack thereof, directed each to his own destiny.

Two conclusions strike me from the above comparisons: first, that those who have been loved well will more likely choose to love; and second, that humans learn from guilt much more easily than from bitterness.

Comments welcome.

Meditations on "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows"

2007-09-08T11:51:00.000-07:00

(originally posted on my personal blog Sept. 1, 2007)

Fair warning: This is a very long post, and it contains massive spoilerage about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. These spoilers include more than just the ending; they include key scenes from the story. If you have not yet read the seventh and final installment of the Harry Potter books, and if you ever intend to, this will ruin it for you--go no further.

* * *

The flu has its advantages. I hate the feelings of it--queasiness, headache, weakness, cough, congestion. But almost nothing else gives me this anymore: the excuse to lie down all day and read novels.

I have been a novel-reader all my life, and have attempted nearly every genre. Murder mystery, Western, romance, classic, juvenile, sci-fi, historical fiction, literary, fantasy--I've read, and enjoyed, something in each.

Occasionally I come across a book that is something more than entertainment; more, even, than entertainment that gets me thinking. The books that get me thinking are rare enough. Orson Scott Card's Speaker for the Dead was such a book--I thought it over for weeks afterward. Catherine Marshall's Christy was another; when I get to the line "The joy of the children was in his voice" it generally brings tears to my eyes.

Rarer still, however, is the novel that lifts me out of my petty, selfish struggles and into its pages--this greatest of all types of fiction. A book like this causes me to wrestle on its stage alongside its characters. When I close such a book, it leaves me unfit for reading any other story for awhile; its sense of completion and the strength of its resolution prevent me from being willing to visit other fictional scenes of chaos and climax. The book itself becomes, for a time, sufficient beyond all other books save one--and that one is the very real story of God and all of us.

Charles Dickens' The Christmas Carol is, for me, one of those greatest-of-all-novels. Charlotte Brontë's Jane Eyre is another. Jane Austen scored twice with Pride and Prejudice and Persuasion. There are only a few more I can think of. Among these, of course, is the Harry Potter series.

They say Joanne Rowling had her moment of inspiration on a train. I wonder if that train took her into, or out of, King's Cross Station.

* * *

I require time, solitude, and silence to deal with some of my deep questions. Not, of course, that such dealings are not acted upon by outside forces. Sometimes the sky helps, with its vast outward-opened expanses of light and color and the infinite. At other times it is the loving understanding that I know to be present in my life even when I am by myself. Always there is God--at my best I firmly believe this, working in those mysterious ways of his. Often, those ways turn out to be good stories.

* * *

In the silence of my own room yesterday, head too sore to tackle non-fiction, I completed my third cover-to-cover read of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

And I loved it, the way I loved the first HP book that whole blessed first week a year and a half ago. I loved it the way I loved the scene in Dumbledore's office at the end of book 5, where Harry shouts and throws things and Dumbledore explains the prophecy and the power Harry has "which the Dark Lord knows not."

Love. It could seem, at the end of book 5, almost too cheesy to be believed. But "In the end it mattered not that you could not close your mind", says Dumbledore to Harry. "It was your heart that saved you." Voldemort, as evil a villain as ever walked and talked and killed among the pages of fiction, found inexpressible torment in attempting to possess a grief-consumed Harry, who expected death to reunite him with the godfather who died for him.

* * *

J.K. Rowling quoted two Bible verses in book 7. She did not quote John 15:13. She did not need to. Her story said, clearly, "Greater love has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends."

Of many examples of sacrificial love revealed throughout the first six books, that of the appropriately-named Lily (considering the linking of lilies to purity and to Easter) proves both salvific and prophetic. Lily stands in front of her son's crib, arms flung out to protect, and pleads with Voldemort to kill her instead of her son. Oddly enough, that is what Voldemort--quite unintentionally--did; he killed her, and her act of sacrifice made it impossible for Voldemort to kill her son.

It was looking back on the sacrifice of Lily Evans Potter that made me realize, before the release of Deathly Hallows, that Harry would probably have to do the same thing. I was convinced that Harry would survive, though, if for no other reason than genre. JKR did not write an embittered, Hemingwayan drama. She wrote for an audience still innocent enough to believe that the good guys win.

* * *

I am an adult. I am well acquainted with the feeling of despair pulsing through my heart, poisoning my mind and emotions. Because of this, I hold ever-so-tightly to the childish notion that good will always triumph in the end. It is my link to sanity. This world does not hold perfect happiness for me anymore--the completely unspoiled, wonder-filled, Christmas-morning happiness that I knew as a child. It does hold great happiness and wonder, now; God willing, that will continue. But it is not perfect. That perfect happiness depends entirely on what happens after death.

* * *

"It is the unknown we fear when we look on death and darkness; nothing more."

Dumbledore says this to Harry in--I believe--book 6. The unknown frightens me much more than it ought. All my life I have been ready, willing, anxious to make my peace with whatever 'powers there be.' Perhaps my greatest fear is that I have made my peace with the wrong god--that I'll wake up on the other side of death to find that Jesus wasn't who he said he was and some other being would send me to a place of torment forever.

I cling to some very specific things to give me confidence in life after death. The illuminated face of an aging, blind monk, interviewed for the documentary Into Great Silence, as he said "A Christian need never fear death." The light in an old man's eyes as he sang of heaven, not two years before his own death. It is silly, perhaps, but I rarely doubt God when I look into the brilliant mystery that is the sky to me. I lean on the faith of others, and even on the stories of visions. I lean on the truths Rowling put into her books--"... the true master of death does not seek to run away from death, for he has accepted that he must die...."

I lean, for the protection and salvation of my soul, on the love-driven sacrificial death of one whom I believe to be--as He claimed--the Son of God.

"The last enemy to be destroyed is death." Joanne Rowling put those words into the finale of her series. They come from 1 Corinthians 15:26.

* * *

Here and there in Deathly Hallows, I find word choices which seem a little less strong, less smooth, than in the first six books. I wonder if the deadline, the pressure, put too heavy a burden on rewriting and editing.

But book 7 has hardly anything, really, to complain about. Throughout the first six books are scattered scenes of great power, bursting forth from the already strong undercurrent of the story. None of the books have so many of these as does book 7.

The action is all well-drawn, but action doesn't necessarily catch at my heart--or even my attention--like the emotional sides to the story, the character and relational development. One of the first times the story really gets at me is on Harry's birthday, when Ginny calls Harry into her room and gives him the only gift she can think of: one heartrending, passionate parting kiss. Ron's rude interruption and the obvious, though hidden, emotions of both Harry and Ginny added to the impact of the moment. It rang both true and deep for me. I'm a romantic; a romantic in love, at that. What can I say?

The scene in the graveyard at Christmas is magnificent: vivid, hushed; the light and caroling coming from the little church, the snow, the moments by the various graves. "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" is written on the grave of Dumbledore's mother and sister; Christ's words expressing Dumbledore's repentance. Harry's unveiled sorrow at the graves of his parents: Lily, her birthday three days after mine; she was three months older than her husband, which strikes me, I guess, because I am a little older than Lou. Lily and James, killed on Halloween; their son, alive because of their sacrifice, tasting despair; Hermione quietly conjuring a wreath of Christmas roses for Harry to lay on the graves.

Ron's return, his rescue of Harry from the icy pool and the Horcrux, and his battle with the Horcrux itself some minutes later--Ron has never hidden his emotions well, but here Rowling lets us see clearly what has tormented him over the years and especially in the previous months. At the end, the Horcrux is destroyed and his eyes are wet. It just makes Hermione's kiss, given much later, all the sweeter.

The death of Dobby and his burial was one of the best scenes in the book. It needed to be, as it became the turning point for Harry in his quest. But I loved the fact that the last words Dobby spoke were Harry's name; that Harry dug the grave by hand, without magic; that Harry and Ron and Dean buried the faithful little elf in clothes of their own; that while digging the grave, amid sweat and blisters and grief, Harry learned to trust Dumbledore even through incomplete information and to close his mind to Voldemort.

The whole chapter where Harry walks, willingly defenseless, to his own death ... is indescribable. His sudden, focused awareness of his living body, especially the frantic beating of his heart--"perhaps it was determined to fill a lifetime's beats before the end"--and the interaction with his parents and Sirius and Lupin through the Resurrection Stone--I held my breath and ached all the way through this; and when his eyes first met his mother's, it brought me to tears.

And Voldemort spoke the Killing Curse, and Harry winds up talking to Dumbledore in a clean, white, practically empty King's Cross Station. Dumbedore is living after death; Harry can choose to 'go on' in death or go back and attempt to defeat Voldemort, finally and completely. Harry hears the whole truth, at last, from Dumbledore; clean and unaltered, lacking the bitterness of Aberforth, the twisted nastiness of Rita Skeeter, and the blindness of Elphias Doge. That scene is beautiful and pure and hope-filled and symbolic on many levels.

One of the most poignant moments in the whole series--arguably my favorite--comes in the epilogue. To explain this, I must talk about Severus Snape. I am not one of those who thinks that Snape was the 'unsung hero' or the 'best character' in the series. Snape forfeited his right to Lily quite thoroughly; and, in later years, could not overcome his hatred of Harry's father enough to treat Harry fairly, even though he protected Harry for Lily's sake. But don't get me wrong: the courage Snape displayed, especially after Voldemort's return, the obvious changing of some of his principles, and his enduring love for Lily were beautiful things. He died looking into Lily's eyes, as replicated in her son. That scene, powerful in itself, was of course not in the epilogue. Neither, I might add, was further information on most of the characters--an act of both bravery and genius on Rowling's part.

What was in the epilogue was a scene between Harry and his second son, who resembles him closely--the only one of Harry's three children to inherit Lily's eyes. Eleven-year-old Al Potter, who has clearly inherited a lot more than looks from his father, is as fearful of being placed in Slytherin house as Harry was at the same age. Harry kneels to speak with his son eye-to-eye and calls him by his full name: Albus Severus. Harry's forgiveness of Snape--and of Dumbledore, for that matter--is complete; more than that, it includes honor and great gratitude. "Albus Severus, you were named after two headmasters of Hogwarts. One of them was a Slytherin, and he was probably the bravest man I ever knew."

* * *

J.K. Rowling, in an interview around the release of Deathly Hallows, described the book as being, in the context of her Christian faith, about her 'struggle to keep believing.' This is clearly, and beautifully, expressed through Harry's feelings about Albus Dumbledore.

Dumbledore plays a God-role to an extent here, much as Harry portrays Christ in other ways: not as a direct, Aslan-style allegory, but as a type. Harry finds reason after reason to distrust his old headmaster: Elphias Doge's determinate blindness, Rita Skeeter's slander couched in hazy facts, Aberforth's anger and his story, the sheer confusing difficulty of the task Dumbledore set Harry and the important information Dumbledore intentionally withheld. But in Dobby's grave, driven by the force of grief, Harry finds--not plain fact, but reason and will to trust. He chooses what to believe. The struggle is well-described here:

"That old berk [Doge]", muttered Aberforth, taking another swig of mead. "Thought the sun shone out of my brother's every orifice, he did. Well, so did a lot of people, you three included, by the looks of it."

Harry kept quiet. He did not want to express the doubts and uncertainties about Dumbledore that had riddled him for months now. He had made his choice while he dug Dobby's grave, he had decided to continue along the winding, dangerous path indicated for him by Albus Dumbledore, to accept that he had not been told everything he wanted to know, but simply to trust. He had no desire to doubt again; he did not want to hear anything that would deflect him from his purpose.

* * *

Joanne Rowling, you will probably never read this, but I must at least say thank you as I may. For submitting to the pressures, the deadlines, the hassles of fame and the dependence of fans. For sharing your creativity, your struggles, your humor and ideals with millions of people you will never meet. Your books have led me to an understanding of courage and love that has helped me face my own life and mortality; courage was a lesson I thought I had lost forever. You have played a role in the rebuilding of my faith and of my confidence in the ultimate triumph of good. And you have told me a beautiful story; one of the best, and one of my favorites, that I've ever found among fiction. I hope you enjoy your freedom and return to a more "normal life"; you have well earned that rest. God bless you.

Flashback: First Impressions of Deathly Hallows

2007-09-07T17:20:00.000-07:00

(originally published on my personal blog July 21, 2007 under the title "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows")

Having pre-ordered the book within three days of hearing that pre-orders were being taken, I was among the first group to run up to the shipping door of Village Books last night and exchange the yellow "Golden Snitch" for a copy of the book.

Rachael drove me home, both of us jigging with excitement, neither of us planning to sleep until we had some serious reading done. I haven't heard from her yet, or Chris, about whether they've finished it; although Chris, who as an East Coast resident got his book three hours before I did, left me a voice message at 4 AM his time to tell me to brace myself.

And, for the first time in my life, I stayed up all night. I finished the book.

Fair warning here, to anyone who is at all likely to take nightmares: I didn't stay up merely out of a need to know the end, although that helped. I stayed up because parts of it creeped me out so much that no way did I dare to face sleep without the resolution. Very little in the other books has affected me that way (granted, I didn't read any of them for the first time between midnight and 7 AM). This is no children's book, and it is very dark, so if earlier books left you unsettled, go cautiously; at the very least, don't read it alone or after dark.

Not enough people have yet read the story to justify me in posting any particular details, so I'll restrain myself from that. As to general thoughts on the story, however: at first I wondered if I would like it at all, and at one point felt furiously certain that I'd hate it, that there weren't enough pages left to contain an explanation that could justify what I was seeing. There still remains one decision a very important "good guy" made that I really struggle with, even disagree with.

But the other day I read a slice of an interview with Joanne Rowling done some time back. I had heard that she was a member of the Church of Scotland, that she claims to "go more often than at Christmas and Easter" (a rather cryptic remark that people will probably take a couple of different ways.) The interviewer, however, had commented on her books being secular. The article recorded her response as "Um, I don't think they're all that secular".

She wasn't kidding. They're not "all that secular".

Don't get me wrong--the main characters didn't suddenly drop to their knees and profess Christianity, not that that is what makes a story Christian. Nor is the story a clear and accurate descriptor of salvation theology, or any such thing, not that it attempts to be. What I will say, though, is that the allegory drawn is in its own way comparable to certain points in the most well-known works of those two venerable Christian fantasy writers, C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien....

and, after the final two chapters inspired me to that half-laughing, half-crying act that womanhood practices so naturally, I have to say that I liked the book.

But some time must go by before I can say more--others need the chance to read it. I need to re-read it, which will not happen immediately; there are three people waiting to read my copy, and I've put a lot of time into Harry Potter lately and should turn my attention to other things.

Happy reading, to all of you still in the process :-)

Flashback: Predictions for Deathly Hallows

2007-09-07T00:01:00.001-07:00

(originally posted on my personal blog July 19, 2007 titled "I'm No Cassandra Trelawney, But ...")

In about 31 hours, we will have the very last Harry Potter book.I’ve worked on predicting Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows since reading HBP over a year ago. Now that the release of the series finale is at hand, my “predictions” have morphed more into thoughts, but here they are. As you'll notice, I'm rooting for a happy ending:

Harry. I think he’ll lay down his life but survive. If I had to bet on whether or not his scar is a Horcrux, my bet would be no--but I’m weighing the lines “Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?” and “[Voldemort] … could not bear to reside in a body so full of the force [love] he detests” and it’s a tough call. Also, the “Lily’s eyes” factor is supposed to be very important; I think that will have to do with his seeing someone through compassion--Snape, maybe?--at a crucial time, gaining him some necessary knowledge for his quest to destroy Voldemort.

Voldemort. He’s going down, oh yes.

Ron. Does something great--I think he’ll take out some key Death Eaters or maybe even a Horcrux. He might even take part in a battle with Voldemort this time. He’ll be there for Harry, and live to tell the tale.

Hermione. That blessed logical brain of hers and her loyal heart will give us a sight of her courage in a way we’ve never seen it before. Then she’ll live to marry Ron, who will eventually get himself together where she’s concerned.

Ginny. She’s going to be there for some battle action. Like she’d stay away! I hope she casts a bat-bogey hex on a Death Eater or two in the process. She’s Harry’s girl for better or worse now, even though he’s felt the need to distance himself while hunting Voldemort (that distance probably won’t last all the way through his search.)

Dumbledore. There’s still the portrait in McGonagall’s new office! That will prove important.

Fred and George. J.K. Rowling has informed us that at least two characters die. These are two of my top bets. But if they go, they’ll go down in the proverbial blaze of glory.

Draco Malfoy. I think he’ll defect to the good side at the last minute and die a hero.

Neville. Also one of my top bets for getting AK’d, but I bet he takes Bellatrix Lestrange with him. If he lives, though, I think he’ll be the one to teach at Hogwarts. Herbology.

Luna. “Ravenclaw will have its day” in the tabloid editor’s daughter--the girl who believes in strange things but represents the house best known for its intelligence. I, personally, hope we get to see a Crumple-Horned Snorkack.

Hagrid. My other top bet for “most likely to die.” Which means that Hermione will inherit Grawp. But he’ll be faithful to the last.

Minerva McGonagall. Lives and reigns as good-hearted-but-strict headmistress of Hogwarts.

Percy Weasley. Likely to get knocked off early. He’d better make up with his mom and dad first, the git.

Mr. and Mrs. Weasley. Live to see their grandchildren--Bill and Fleur’s kids, Ron and Hermione’s kids, Harry and Ginny’s kids.

Viktor Krum. Poor guy doesn’t stand a chance with Hermione after Ron gets to her, but I bet he finds Harry one of the Horcruxes.

Nymphadora Tonks and Remus Lupin. If they live, they are sooo getting married :-D

Mad-Eye Moody. I think the old Auror will have one last good fight, and if he survives it, will get a good retirement somewhere--though he’ll never stop watching for Dark wizards.

Sybill Trelawney. It’s a very bad, bad thing if she gets out of Hogwarts. That will probably happen.

Peter Pettigrew. No way will he make it through this one. But he has a debt to pay to Harry before he gets what is coming to him. A very, very big debt. I don't think he'll jump in front of Harry to protect him, but I do think he'll thwart Voldemort in a somewhat more subtle way.

Severus Snape. Also going to die, but Harry is going to get past this anti-Snape vendetta. Too much of that is bitterness and not enough based on solid evidence. I think Snape is a double agent, all right; mostly evil, but as we all know, there’s something key about his role that Harry doesn’t know about yet (and neither do I.)

That covers my biggest ideas about book 7. I should have that book read by Saturday afternoon, if all goes as planned, and will look forward to posting thoughts sometime in the days following. Got predictions of your own? Let me know.

At the Gates

2007-09-06T00:04:00.000-07:00

Out of a desire to devote myself more to studying and writing about Harry Potter, without my personal blog getting forced entirely into subservience to wizardry, I have begun this site. More coming in the next several days as I move in some old HP-related posts from my other blog, add links to my favorite Harry Potter sites, and pour into text some of the ideas currently deluging my brain. I am LibraryLily. I shall return soon.