Open Hatch

[Rowling shows repentance] in Dumbledore. In Harry’s near death experience where he meets up with Dumbledore, Dumbledore gives a pretty heart felt confession. As to the use of the forbidden curses, Rowling makes it pretty clear that the worst of them, the Death Curse [Avada Kedavra], Harry won’t use flippantly. When he’s being chased by death eaters at the beginning of the book, Lupin insinuates that he should have used the curse since his life was in danger, but Harry tells him flatly that he doesn’t work that way. He’s not just going to fling that curse around whenever he feels he is in danger. And with the Imperius Curse, Harry does show remorse for feeling like he had to use it– Rowling doesn’t dwell on the point because the characters are in mortal danger at that point and don’t really have the time for a remorseful inner monologue– they’re being chased by Goblins and encountering a dragon and trying to destroy the Horcruxes which put their whole world in peril! Yeah, under the circumstances they’re going to make some rash decisions.

As to the use of the curses in general, I believe MOST of the cases in which it is used, it is justifiable because it is used in time of war (and let’s not forget that at that point it’s about survival) and there is a time when extreme measures need to be taken (Nephi and Laban, anyone?). In time of war, we Muggles do our own Crucio curses– they’re called guns, tear gas, pepper gas, tanks, bombs, grenades– and let’s not forget that most horrible of curses, the Atomic Bomb, which won the war against Japan. Against Voldemort’s Army, pretty much the wizarding equivelent to Hitler, the wizarding community took up arms against what they considered the face of evil. Many of the rules of war went out the window in WWII (including the previous ban of attacking civilian communities in Germany and Japan). It’s not pretty, it shows humanity’s viciousness, but at that point in the books, it was about survival. And the scriptures themselves show plenty of examples where God overrides his own rules when extremities have been pushed to their limits. I think Rowling is showing what would really happen in that community when it really came down to a war.

Concerning Snape, [his sacrifice was not lightly dismissed, but treated seriously] by Rowling. His death was “casual” in the way of the killing, because it was Voldemort who did the killing, and we’ve come to expect that from him, but then his last moments with Harry were quite touching and then (in the middle of the climax, mind you) she devotes an entire chapter explaining his life and showing that he was indeed a misused hero. I don’t consider that a dismissal, I consider that an eulogy. She was heralding what seems to have been one of her favorite characters. Harry even named one of his children after him! How many of your children have you named after your mother’s old boyfriends? [me: I’m named after one of my mother’s old boyfriends.] [A melodramatic deathbed monologue wouldn’t work there - what was given worked.]

[Rowling doesn’t condone any of the bad behavior of Harry’s parents.] I think it’s pretty obvious that she roundly condemns it (Rowling loves the sinner, while hating the sin). And we only see the bad side of them because we see them through Snape’s eyes, and Snape was desperately trying to show Harry that things weren’t as black and white as Harry had assumed. That doesn’t mean that they were moral reprobates, it just means that they made many of the mistakes a lot of people in high school do– cruelty in the name of popularity. And although many people have made that mistake, often they grow up, grow out of such attitudes and go on to be really decent folks. And in the case of Lily, she actually isn’t tainted by that particular sin– she doesn’t do anything for the glory of the crowd, she remains a true friend to Snape until she feels betrayed by him by what she sees as immoral behavior in his taking on the Dark Arts. An overactive sense of betrayal and perhaps a little bit of judgmentalism are the only sins Rowling pins to Lily.

The fact that Harry’s parents weren’t the saints of his childhood dreams makes the book all that more effective to me. They are no longer static ideals, but flesh and blood human beings who are imperfect and in need of Grace. This seems to be a theme in the last few books, as Dumbledore undergoes the same re-definition in Harry’s mind, not to mention that Harry has to come to terms with his own failings. Rowling, instead of cultivating attitudes of judgmentalism and moral puritanism towards her characters, instead shows sympathy for the worst of her characters and shows shadows in the best of her characters. This, to me, is one of the most moral worldviews that she could have taken, for not only is it more realistic and rooted in actual human behavior, but it also teaches forgiveness on the part of the reader. Too often, I think, we are too prone to label good guys and bad guys in our reading. Rowling pushes us out of our comfort zones there and shows that we are all mutts, good and evil mixed. But then she shows that eventually we can transcend that and do something truly good and powerful with our lives (some of the most effective examples being Snape and Dumbledore).

[Moral nitpicking over this book] disheartens me, as I think it damages a work that portrays so much goodness and spirituality: Rowling’s Christ and Grace imagery; her criticism against Lupin for considering leaving his family to re-live the glory days of his youth; the theme of forgiveness and redemption; Rowling’s criticism against those who would judge people’s lives only by the negative aspects; the breaking down of class systems and labels that happens in the books; the understanding that there is nothing to fear from the death of the body, but rather everything to gain from concern for the life of our soul; the power of loyalty and friendship; the power of courage; the power of love.

Deathly Hallows was one of the most edifying books I have read for a long time. I put that book down filled with love and light. The national market rarely receives such a moral work and even more rarely embraces it so heartily. I think it’s quite the feat that Rowling has accomplished and I don’t believe for a moment that she doesn’t deserve it.

This seems to be that writer’s core criticism, the center of her argument:
“As envisioned by Rowling, [Harry] walks the path of good so unwaveringly that his final victory over Voldemort feels, not just inevitable, but hollow.”

Essentially, she is unsatisfied because Harry didn’t brood, mope, and sin enough before he had his victory. Well, gee, maybe Rowling should be sorry. Maybe Rowling should have written a novel which she knew millions of children would read which contained references to adolescent sexual skirmishes, or perhaps Harry should have used sectumsempra! on Snape to leave him limbless. I’m exaggerating quite a bit for effect, though I think the writer of that article also exaggerated quite a bit.

I do not take to her argument kindly. I find it frankly demoralizing, quite ironically contrary to it’s claim to stand for higher moral absolutes. The charge of relativism regarding Harry Potter I simply don’t comprehend or see where that comes through in her argument. I don’t think support for it is there unless her arguments hold up, which they don’t.

The entire following paragraph sets aside that she places Harry in an idealized, misrepresented holy sphere, supposedly devoid of hesitation, which the books never place him in. She apparently misses Harry’s very real dark side and hesitation. If Harry is as idealized as she falsely puts forward, he’d be easy to rhetorically knock down. But Harry has detestable weaknesses, and multiple times the books make it clear that he dearly wishes to abandon course, jump ship, give up, give in, it expresses his raging resentments, he is often very rotten to enemies and friends, it expresses his desire to succumb to darkness: but also, and this is important, it expresses his clear decision to carry on despite it all. Harry certainly has his own great temptations to darkness, and his moral setbacks, and is not (of himself) invincible or ideal.

Now having noted that distortion, to engage her argument I’d say that I am for literature which depicts evil and allows characters to make awful choices.

Snape has a wonderful place in the books for that reason, by making us hate his bad behavior, by making us feel disgust. But her argument would have all literary characters at some point make not just bad, but really bad choices. She suggests Snape should have been the main character; Snape, who betrayed former schoolmates to a Dark Lord who murdered them, Snape, who is at times so inexpressibly cruel and hypocritical to turn your face as pale as his own. Snape creates a useful disgust in the reader, but should shock and indignation be the only and sum point of literature? In arguing that Snape should have been front and center she gives away her game: she would have literature only present characters who choose great darkness before choosing light: the format of this dogma is that all things must be x before y. This hint at an overly rigid literary rule alarms me. In the end it lacks principle. How? What she misses is that there are people who choose a right path without ever wavering into a terribly wrong path. Her implication is that all people inevitably will or must do great wrong at some point. It’s surely possible for anyone to do great wrong, but that sidesteps possibility and puts forward the idea of inevitable great wrong. That’s demoralizing and disrespectful of the nobility which humanity is capable of. The theory doesn’t apply to human nature (unless you believe Calvinism. I don’t) Suppose she were criticizing the Bible (be it regarded truth by many, and fiction by many). Then let’s take her argument against her (falsely idealized) Harry and frame it on a truer ultimate ideal:

“As envisioned by Rowling, [Jesus] walks the path of good so unwaveringly that his final victory over [Satan] feels, not just inevitable, but hollow.”

How does that sound?

I didn’t think so.

Speaking now from my own religious frame. Supposing we are to be the manner of men, or man, to use Jesus’ own admonition, that He is. Is it conceivable any of us might follow him and never fall into sins so great as, say, betraying a friend to a murderer? Maybe I’m very imaginative, but I imagine that is possible. And while I am cloistered in my library reading so many books on literary theory that I may not be aware whether such a person exists in the outside world, I have had occasion to think, by mere turns through the Bible, that it might be so. So maybe I could only choose for my sins, or my literary departures into darkness, as it were, such vices as Harry’s - a bit of unintended dabbling in dark magic, a fair amount of raging resentment, a fair amount of cruelty to friends, betimes wishing to give up the quest, but opting for the noble choice, forgiving, and carrying on.

Her theory - widespread among literature or media professionals - destroyed parts of THE LORD OF THE RINGS films. In the books, Faramir, Lord of Gondor, upon encountering the Hobbits and the Ring of Power, does not for a moment give in to any temptation to wield the Ring against the Dark Lord Sauron and his dark forces, but straightway sends the Hobbits on their way further into Mordor and Mount Doom; to get the temptation of the Ring away from himself, and in hopes they will succeed in their quest. But for the film, the screenwriters decided that isn’t dramatic enough. No, somewhere back in their story theory classes they either overtly or subversively assimilated a doctrine that all literary characters must first make really bad choices before making good ones. So they thought they’d take Faramir and have him trap the Hobbits, and his men-minions beat them up a bit, and when he learns of the Ring, lust for its power and attempt to seize it by force. This took a character who always chose the noble path and perverted him; took an unflagging standard of hope for the race of men and defiled it. So goes the fruit of overly rigid literary theory. Same thing with the first film of THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA. They took all of the aspects of the story that didn’t hesitate to do right and corroded and dehumanized them a bit for dramatic effect. It turned the thing into an entirely different creation; base, presenting the diabolical as an absolute necessity in advancing toward the divine. To youth, something as wonderful as the Narnia stories may as well be scripture. Look what we’re doing to wonderful creations by way of our thoughtless philosophies.

No, the diabolical must be allowed for us to advance on the divine, but it doesn’t mean that everyone will tread far into the diabolical before (or if) they turn to the divine.

Now as for this charge:

“Numerous characters get a pass for the bad things they’ve done, not because of any remorse they evidence, but apparently just because they happen to love Harry.”

Firstly, saying that the characters we are supposed to regard as turning from wrong to right did not evidence any remorse I disagree with. What about Snape’s presented memory where he was beside himself and bawling with remorse in front of Dumbledore? What about Ron coming back to Harry and saving his life? Should we hope Harry would turn on Ron and chew him out for cowardice and abandonment after that? Hermoine tried it, and I thought she was rotten for doing so. Oh well, I’ll forgive her and she couldn’t keep up her contempt for long in the face of Ron’s heroics. And of course Snape was still often a very rotten person even after his remorse (for reasons of his twisted psychology which Dumbledore briefly and amusedly illuminates at the end of book one, his remorse may have made him much less kind to Harry, if he still did everything in his power to preserve Harry from the many dangers threatening him). But Snape turned into something far better than what he had been. I don’t understand this charge. What is the expectation? That nobody should ever do bad things at all if they are to be regarded with human respect and forgiveness? To suppose that all characters must tread through terribly dark paths to ring with any authenticity, that begets a hopeless view of mankind; supposes there is naught but very dread despair before anyone can be alloted (if ever) happiness and grace; that humanity is doomed to terrible punishment and failure before it can have any hope. That view would be unnecessary and unforgiving. Of course the characters in the book had their unkindnesses and wrong choices, sometimes greatly so. All of us do bad things despite our best intentions because we are human. Speaking again from my religious vantage, which is the only place I can speak on what I think to be the topic here - grace and forgiveness - I can’t personally see any realistic conception of grace other than one that gives a free pass on bad behaviors so long as we are doing our best and continuously improving. Our best is unacceptable to God. What’s He going to do? Scowl at us? Be stingy and mete out forgiveness in the tiniest possible morsels with the greatest possible (or on the other side of that unrealistic coin - no possible) requirements? I don’t think so. His graces are far weightier than our measly penance. Intent and sincere effort are His only concerns; sincere and continued efforts at good cause Him to “pass” on the bad.

But I’ve realized what I’m arguing with: modern Christianity. If I understand correctly, Mormonism is the only faith which believes that Christ offers us grace in answer to our earnest labor (not all of His grace - a great deal of his grace is given freely no matter what we do; Resurrection, for example). I thought I’d read - and I may display ignorance - that most of Christianity believes there is nothing you can do to earn grace; that it is a gift given (or arbitrarily not given) regardless of what you do. That would lead to a plethora of confused views: 1. we’re completely hopeless and incapable 2. We’re supposed to be that way; that’s how we’re designed 3. the natural order of things is that we fall into terrible, unavoidable sin an misery; we can’t help ourselves; and since this is the right order of things, the degraded state should be focused on: our necessary evil, but 4. God will save us anyway, and depending on the doctrine, if we do this or that (which, baffling to me, I’d think would be seen as work with faith), or whether or not we do this or that.

Beh! Bad doctrine screws up interpretations of literature and life.

What is great about Harry Potter is his lack of hesitation to do right, despite his great desire to the contrary. That is nobility, that’s why we love Harry, and if that critic doesn’t see that light, she can just go on in her “noble” contempt for something truly noble - which sold more copies on its first run than any book in history
Please do me a favor. If you agree with my disagreement of that article, go to that syndication of it at Yahoo and rate it ONE STAR. Of course I wouldn’t mind my own article here being rated highly, but that depends on what you think.

1. Severus Snape is good. He killed Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore on Dumbledore’s own orders. The reason Dumbledore trusts Snape is that Snape underwent an unbreakable vow with Dumbledore. This is possible for both the good and bad side; do we not make vows to defend the right at peril of our life in wars? It was the surest way to show Snape’s penance. The only way for Snape to keep both his vow to Dumbledore and to Narcissa Malfoy is for Dumbledore to sacrifice himself; the oath to Narcissa was necessary to give her complete conviction of his loyalty. Dumbledore dead would seem to show Snape’s truest loyalty to Narcissa and/or Lord Voldemort. Except that Dumbledore knew this, and that’s why he ordered it: to protect Harry and Draco, and for that matter the Order of the Phoenix, all of whom are now completely convinced that Snape is evil. Also necessary, it was pointed out to me, because Harry is terrible at keeping wizards out of his mind, and if Voldemort reads what Harry is thinking and feeling, it again reinforces the idea that Snape is loyal to Voldemort. All of which places Snape in the ultimate position of double-agent, to play behind the scenes and lead Harry to the conclusions, resources, and powers he needs in order to defeat Lord Voldemort.

2. Harry Potter himself is the final Horcrux. We know that a snake can be a Horcrux; or Dumbledore seems to believe it is so. We know that Harry gained powers which link him to Voldemort by ill of V’s attack on Harry; this is why he can speak parcel tongue, why he would be good in Slytherin house, why he knows V’s mind at times. But it’s more than that. The reason Harry has those powers is because he has consumed one seventh of Voldemort’s soul into his own by virtue of his own power to comprehend, internalize, and vanquish V’s evil. V never got to creating a seventh Horcrux, or so he thinks: he wishes to make Harry his murder for his last and ultimate vie for immortality. Recall how Dumbledore said V has become so senseless he is unaware of damage done to the severed parts of his soul? That sets that up. What V does not know is that he already made a Horcrux out of Harry, and spelled his doom in doing so.

3. The opposite of a Horcrux, the power to cut off a part of a soul by murder, is the power to mend a torn soul (or heartbroken soul) by resurrection. Harry will wield this power. How many souls so far have fallen in defense of Harry against V’s Horcruxes? 1. James 2. Lily 3. Sirius 4. Cedric 5. Albus. One more will sacrifice their life for Harry - Hagrid would do that most probably - and then Harry has six sacrifices in his defense, six who have given the last full measure of devotion for him, six who have consecrated, who have hallowed their lives in death. That is the meaning of Deathly Hallows. The Half-Blood Prince speaks of one; Deathly Hallows speaks of seven. Do not all curses in the books have counter-jinxes or opposite charms? If by magic life may be taken, surely under certain circumstances magic may give life. Dumbledore said there is no spell to revive the dead; he is mistaken. When one who has been marked the equal of a Dark Lord by that Lord joins six others against the six parts of that Dark Lord’s murder-divided soul and then willingly gives his own, magic happens.

4. This one was not my idea, but I think it is right. Harry Potter is a squib. He was born without magical power; he acquired magical power through the portion of Voldemort’s soul which he acquired when V unknowingly made a Horcrux out of him. When V is gone, so is the part of Harry’s soul that marked him equal to defeat the Dark Lord, which was the sum of Harry’s power. When those are spent, even to Harry’s life, in defense of the wizards, and he with the six other Deathly Hallows are resurrected, he has no more life and magic to give: destroying the Dark Lord is his ultimate gift. And, to the contrary of all accusations that the Harry Potter books have anything to do with encouraging devilry, that is a powerful Christian allegory.

When the powers of Harry Potter, the squib, the mortal, vanish, he will necessitate a mend of the long mistakenly divided world of wizards and muggles, because while he has no powers to speak of anymore, he has been more in the heart of the wizard community than any wizard in history, and now being squib must more starkly face and comprehend magic everyday life more than any other wizard in history.

(And quite appropriately to such a tale, it will sell more copies than any single-run commercial work in history.)

I hope Harry has to rob a bank to get a Horcrux.

I have wanted to arrange and record a piece of music which has come to me in reference to Dumbledore’s death; I haven’t gotten to it but I hope to.

[11:25] Alex: Thus saith the [LDS] Church magazine Friend, in reference to some books it was reviewing:
[11:25] Alex: Warning: Occasionally, characters who are not members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will drink coffee or tea. Selections where this occurs are marked with an asterisk (*).
[11:25] MoD: hehe
[11:26] MoD: “Warning”
[11:27] Alex: Occasionally, unmarried non-members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints will engage in *naughty business in bed*. We regret that one fifth of the earth was populated this way. Alert your children.
[11:28] MoD: oh my heck!
[11:28] MoD: This is serious?
[11:28] Alex: No - not that last - I made that up LOL
[11:28] Alex: That you can wonder makes me seriously wonder.
[11:29] Alex: Yes, the Friend can be odd, but..
[11:30] Alex: Okay.. can I post this IM at my blog? [11:30] MoD: sure
[11:30] Alex: Okee.
[11:30] Alex: (skipping merrily on my way now..)

[he told me he had missed that I was talking about a magazine - he thought the latter quote was some actual book review.]