Continue the Christain Symbolism discussion here. Here is a link to Part V.

davidenglish says


I agree that King's Cross is meant to represent a gateway to another world for Harry--the place where, for Harry, new adventures begin (whether one has a well organized mind or not). Prior to reading this board, I was not aware that JKR's parents had met at King's Cross, but it is obvious that this place would have special significance to her.

I am not sure I can see how a reference to Boudicca works here, other than the fact there is a tradition that her burial lies nearby. If there is a reference to Boudicca, what precisely would JKR be saying with it? I am not saying that it is impossible that there IS a reference--I just don't see what the reference would be telling us.

I tend to agree with roonwit's analysis. I do think there is a Christian reference here, and I have said it before. What does it add to the chapter? Well, I would say it adds to the parallels with the story of Christ's death and resurrection. I am very aware that my views aren't shared by everyone on the board. We go around and around in circles, and I don't see that we've really gotten anywhere. In the end, to quote from The Point, you see what you want to see, and you hear what you want to hear.

Three Kings? Maybe...

And I agree with you, that Harry is taught to accept his mortality, and not chase after immortality. But I am not sure that the message is counterintuitive to the teachings of Christ. Harry is taught not to seek to evade death. Immortality, as represented by the Hallows, is a hollow dream--but that isn't the same as true Immortality. Dumbledore does tell us what the afterlife is. We are left to wonder. Harry could have chosen to go "on" to somewhere, just as ghosts could have moved on. He chose to return to those he loved, to save them from the evil represented by Voldemort.

She didn't say the place worked well, she said the name worked well. There most certainly is a reference to the warrior queen, but that occurs in book 1, and at the very end of book 7. Those references are not the place name "King's Cross".

I think you're seeing the three Kings in toast, my friend! I believe we had a poster here a couple of threads ago who talked about straw man arguments?! This one appears to be a rhetorical beastie of that variety.

Smullyan, I looked again at Sorcerer's Stone and Deathly Hallows. Where is the reference to Boudicca? I'm just not seeing it... am I missing something? Other than the possible connection between Victoire's name and Boudicca? I'm not discounting a reference--I am just not seeing it.

Also, a nice distinction you are making between place and name....

And I don't particularly see a Three Kings reference myself, although I'd like to see the argument fleshed out (as well as Eileen and Merope as BVM references )

It would seem unlikely that AK does destroy the soul at all, unless we can assign a specific definition to the term soul. Something resembling Lily appeared to Harry when he evoked the power of the stone. I do not believe that Dumbledore had put some special curse on the stone to cause it to cast this particular illusion just to encourage Harry to go through with the plan. That is, Lily was killed by AK but her soul seems to be still existing.

Of course it is possible to define things differently. Many people believe the soul is mortal and can be destroyed. They generally see the human creature as having three parts: Body, Soul, and Spirit. Others distuingish only body and soul. The former group sees the spirit as immortal, but not necessarily the soul. From that perspective, we could possibly be seeing something like Lily's spirit, her soul having ceased when her body died (with the soul being the result of a spirit existing in flesh). For those who see two parts to the human creature, that would have been her soul Harry saw.

I see no reason to believe that Harry was hallucinating at this point, since the Snitch seems to be doing what it was intended to do--opening at the end so that Harry can use the power of the stone (before conveniently losing it in the forest). Something that was Lily, call it spirit or soul, was beyond the power of AK to destroy.

I think your point about the action of the AK on the body is interesting. It kills the body, but apparently leaves it physically unharmed; Harry was able to get up, brush off the leaves and dirt, and move on. So, how does that work? Is it a spell that simply separates body and soul (or body and spirit) without actually damaging either?

I'm not sure what Smully is referring to. And I've never mentioned toast in this entire series of threads.

The name works well. How? We have two words King + Cross. It's literally one of the most famous train stations in Britain, with only Waterloo, Victoria and Paddington to rival it. The name comes from a monument to King George IV, aka Hugh Laurie.

King's + Cross? So, if we say King = Jesus and Cross = Resurrection, then we see King's Cross as a metaphor for the Harrowing of Hell. But this is Harry's party and he's not really dead. So, we don't see any other dead people, except Dumbledore who says he's in Harry's head and the whimpering soul fragment, which had been literally inside Harry's head. It's an imperfect but plausible match.

Kings + Cross? Well, not that I'm looking at toast, but cross could be a verb. Then we'd have some authority figures passing each other. That could describe the meeting between Harry and Dumbledore. They meet at last as equals. No more secrets. And Dumbledore parts with the words, "Then we say goodbye for the present."

As to the abandoned boys, I see a series of Madonna & Child images. Merope who is abandoned by Tom Sr and must give birth to her baby in an orphanage. Eileen Prince, who marries a Muggle and gives birth to Severus, but Tobias Snape hates magic and the couple quarrel endlessly. And Harry, who is the subject of a prophecy that places his life in danger and causes his parents to flee and go into hiding. Merope, as the pregnant Mary who gives birth in a barn, while Tom Sr/Joseph quietly divorces her (no angel appears to say it's okay), and the same with Tobias, who seems to feel annoyed with the miracluous power of his wife and son. (Both Matthew and Luke have genealogies that trace Jesus' ancestry through Joseph's line, though he's supposedly NOT the father.) And James, Lily and baby Harry echo the flight into Egypt.

I don't recall any mention in the books of Boudica either. It's true that King's Cross is said to be built on the site of her last battle and resting spot, but that just makes in a hallowed site in the history of Celtic Britain.

Added note on ghosts, ghosts in the Potterverse do not behave as ghosts do in the our world. They do not go "on" and then come back. What makes a Potterverse ghost is a wizard so frightened of death and going "on" that it never does die. It's never crossed the threshold, gone through the Veil, or caught a train to "on". Through some enchantment of fear and loathing, a witch or wizard leaves an impression of itself while sacrificing any chance of joining whatever unknowable adventure lies beyond. It's not proof of an Afterlife, but of supreme cowardice in this life. Ghosts in our world go to the land of the dead and return to haunt from this other place; Potterverse ghosts never go anywhere but here.

Thank you

I think the reference to Boudicca is in Platform 9 3/4 as that is where she was said to have fallen and legend has it that her ghost haunts the place. We can go on with the Arthurian legend from here, but that's another thread (and besides, it doesn't explain the "Cross" in "King's Cross", or the theme of redemption in offering Voldemort one last chance to repent, that being an option for him solely by the presence of Harry's blood!).

I'm truly not seeing the BVM reference for Eileen and Merope either, Lily yes.

Part of the significance of Boudicca was that she led a resistance against the imperial Roman forces: a freedom fighter. Harry gave a passive resistance by allowing himself to be killed, which ended up becoming a killing blow against an imperial take-over. Boudica dies in her active resistance, while Harry retains his life by passively resisting - the wisdom lies in knowing when to act and when not to act. In a way, the passive (female) and active (male) roles are reversed, emphasizing that there is more potential in a passive role: Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Boudicca made herself "male" and lost, while Harry made himself "female" and won.

The books don't mention Boudicca, but there is a solid historical reference, which those who are "in the know" might see without a second thought.

As for the BVM references, I see them as potentially represented by each Merope, Eileen and Lily. Merope as the Pistis Sophia , Eileen as the BVM to the Severus Snape "Christ Figure" which I brought up a few threads ago, and Lily as the "perfected" Mother figure. I also see references to the Triple Headed Goddess of Maiden/Mother/Crone = Merope/Lily/Eileen. Merope I see as "maiden" here, because "maiden" can also be a reference to one who has never known Love.

Interesting thoughts, momwitch.

It's not necessary to match a Madonna & Child image, unless one is pushing for an allegorical interpretation --and, heavens! no one wants that. What we do see is "the abandoned boys" as having a serious mother/son connection.

Merope dies in the same Dickensian fashion as Oliver Twist's mother, Agnes. But this also bears some resemblence to Luke's version of the Nativity with no room at the inn and a manger for a craddle and shepherds instead of wisemen. Certainly Voldemort is a Christ-figure, if one is looking for one.

Eileen Prince is a pureblood witch who marries a Muggle. It's an unhappy marriage and Tobias Snape seems to hate all things magic, including his wife and son, Severus. What is similar here is the relationship of Joseph to Mary & Jesus. In Matthew, Joseph is going to divorce Mary because she's been impregnated by the Holy Ghost. Only the intercession of an angel stops this. In truth, Joseph drops out of the Gospel narrative after Jesus turns twelve and Severus leaves his parents at roughly the same age.

Harry, of course, has the prophecy that causes him to be hunted down as Herod had Jesus hunted down. Harry's placement with his aunt and uncle is akin to Cinderella or the Biblical tale of Moses, or Oliver Twist.

Whatever the Biblical or non-Biblical links, we have three boys with strong mother figures. Voldemort may not think his mother was strong, but she'd been beaten down by her father and brother long before she gave birth to him. And giving birth was the most important thing she'd ever done. And it killed her. Snape's mother clearly made a mistake marrying Tobias, but Snape blamed his father entirely and hated Muggles because he hated his father. And Lily loved her son so much that she created a magical enchantment that protected him from the Killing Curse.

And in this case, the soul would be sentient. Another case in point for that is the flayed baby at King's Cross. It looks human (sort of), it looks alive as it struggles for breath. Yet another example is in the locket horcrux; it tormented Ron and anyone who came in contact with it for too long, just like the Ring of Power. The ring wanted to get back to its master...and perhaps the soul bit inside the locket wanted to get back to Voldemort.


I tend to think of this as a sort of hologram reproduction. I don't think James, Lily, Sirius, and Lupin had the power to act, only to guide. What they really are, we may never know. I hope this is one of the questions JKR answers this week.


Well, you can survive without your soul. The dementors are proof of that. To truly live, you need all three: body, soul, and spirit/mind. That's why Voldemort needed a body so badly. The soul cannot exist for long without a body to house it in, until it crosses over. Voldemort's could cross over, because his Horcruxes tethered it to this side of the veil.

It could be just as you say, wordsaremagic. AK does split the soul from the body--we see that in Voldemort's memory of Godric's Hollow. He is ripped from his body--he says it is pain beyond pain, but that's probably because he couldn't actually go anywhere, tethered as he was.

It has to cause more damage than that, though. When you lose your soul to the dementors, you continue to exist. The AK must physically kill the body by destroying the other life processes in some way.

I'll think on that one.



Boudica's name means Victory. Interesting that we see another Victorie at the same spot, after the defeat of Voldemort.

The word "Cross" in King's Cross denotes a junction of Euston, St. Pancras and Pentonville roads, where the monument to George IV was built. No Christian symbolism there.

I don't think a Harrowing of Hell is necessary to see the parallels with the Christ story. I have never argued that Harry IS Jesus, merely that his story parallels the story of Gesthemane, Jesus's death, and Resurrection. So, yes, it's imperfect but plausible.

Davidenglish also says

Nice. I have no problems with that one.



Okay, I see where you are going with this. Thanks for clarifying it. I'll think about it...




Not to be picky, but DO ghosts in our world behave like this? I mean, always assuming that ghosts exist... from most of the ghost stories I have heard, the ghosts seem to be stuck in a particular moment in time. And I wonder, are the ghosts in the Potterverse stuck forever, or are they ever able to move on? It would require a willingness to move on.

And davidenglish also says:

Good heavens, davidenglish! I hope you mean Voldemort is an inverted Christ-figure

And your recalling Dickens is very apt as well. There really is a bit of a Dickensian feel to the story of Harry's, Voldemort's, and Snape's beginnings. There's also something of Roald Dahl. I remember thinking when I first read Sorcerer's Stone that it is very Dahlian.

Arianrhod says

Well, yes, but that doesn't mean that there isn't Christian symbolism in the passage in question.

momwitch, it's an interesting argument you make about Boudicca and Harry. I don't think I buy it, but you make as persuasive a case for it as I think can be made.

The thing about any book set in Britain is, pretty much any place you pick is going to be fraught with possible historical references. So a place like King's Cross could have references to George IV, or it could have a possible reference to Boudicca, and I bet there are a ton of other possible references an enterprising student could dig up.

I am having a bit of trouble with a hologram simile. To me, a hologram would be a pre-programmed artificial image, meaning that someone programmed the stone to produce an illusion. Now it is true that the brother who wanted the stone to recover a lost loved one was intensely disappointed in what he got, since it was definitely NOT a "resurrection" stone. "Resurrection" implies the idea of Standing Up again or being erect again--that is, there is a distinct physical connotation to the word. In the original Greek of the New Testament, the word that refers to the resurrection of Christ is αναστασις, almost literally "stand up." That is definitely NOT what is happening with the Stone. However, I have problem with the stone being a complete hoax in the sense that what it produces is a complete, pre-progammed illusion based upon the user's false expectations. I think the key to all three of the Hallows is that they do, literally, what the brothers asked, but not necessarily what they wanted or expected. So, I think some aspect or part or essence of the soul/breath/spirit/mind of Lily, James, Sirius, and Lupin really did appear to Harry. I do not mean that they returned from the dead; that's the whole point of the stone (and the Hallows) being deceptive. The more I think about it, the weirder it gets. We always think that someone is killed because the body is so damaged that the soul (or spirit) can no longer dwell there, but apparently that is not what happens with AK. The medical examiners can find no cause of death. Blood is fine, tissue is fine--all is fine except for the unpleasant fact that the subject is dead.

You say a person can live without his soul, but whether or not I can live without my soul is a question of semantics. If the soul is sucked by the dementors, is what remains really me? Is my body the essence of what I am, or is the soul what I am, or is the spirit what I am? Personally, I go with the third possibility. I am a spirit, I have a soul, and I live in a body. If dementors destroy my soul, what is left on earth is a house as empty as the old Riddle Place. No one is there, even if some old caretaker does keep cutting the grass. I (that is, the spirit), on the other hand, have gone on--have caught a train in King's Cross and gone elsewhere to use the metaphorical understanding Harry had.

In case I have never mentioned it, I think it is pretty amazing that we have an expert on the Greek language in our midst. Is there a phonetic pronounciation for the word you provide in Greek above. Don't go to any trouble, it just struck me that I would love to be able to say what you wrote.
I do agree that I am finding the hologram idea troublesome. None of the magic we see in the series are merely magical illusions. The magic is not like what we might expect to see were Houdini still alive and performing. The cloak has been quite useful and the wand provides significant powers to its rightful owner. Why then should we expect that the stone would merely be an illusion? The woman returns to the second brother as if through a veil. She does not break the rules of magic in Potterverse by making a complete return to life. The second brother, must, in fact die in order to fully join her. I also think it is significant that the images of Sirius and Lupin appear somewhat different than Harry knew them in life. Sirius and Lupin both appear younger and less careworn making it less likely, in my opinion, that these are projections or illusions from Harry's mind.

I have to agree ravenclaw. I can't imagine why Jo would intentionally reference Christ to provide information to the reader on Voldemort.

Though it has been a long time since I attended school as a student, I did a little digging on King's Cross and found a few more interesting tidbits. There is also a Kings Cross in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia:

From the Wiki:


As for the Kings Cross Station in London, England:

and

It opened in 1852, during the reign of Queen Victoria, who was envisioned as a modern-day Boudica. Also from the Wiki:



As for the hologram in the snitch, I was thinking along the lines of the lessons embedded in the crystal, sent by Jor-El from Krypton with the infant Kal-El in Superman. The crystal was interactive, and as Superman explains to Lois Lane how the Fortress of Solitude was created, (paraphrased): "It spoke (or called) to me". The lessons themselves were interactive, and were anticipatory of the questions which Kal-el would have as he learned about who he was and what his destiny might be. I wonder if the Snitch/Resurrection Stone was an off-handed tribute to Christopher Reeve, who continues to live on as Superman on film, and showed so much courage during the last ten years of his life. I would find that to be a very touching gesture by Jo if that was true.

to you too. Smully was questioning the "Cross" in King's Cross, not the entire passage.


I understand where david is coming from on this one. It is the same image as Voldemort as Alchemist. I get it, even if no one else does. Even John Granger, after whom this thread was named, considers Voldemort a Christ figure of sorts.

I have to agree with Momwitch on the King's Cross interpretation. I could be wrong (there is always that possibility), but being a bit of a train geek, I would think that the name "Cross" is fairly obvious. In railroad terms it is merely a shortened form of "crossing". A junction. There is also Charing Cross Station, Glasgow Cross Station, Southern Cross Station...the list is infinite. When Jo said that the name of "King's Cross" was significant, it was. Because it means the merging and diverging of many paths. The name is not Christian, and does not reference Christianity. Plus, the name is very significant to her, as it was the place of her parent's meeting. I again could be wrong, but I believe Jo said that she used the name King's Cross initially but used images to describe it from another station. She wanted it to be King's Cross for its location, recognizability, and because it was an important part of her history.

Edit: OK, the quote I was mentioning from Jo was about Platforms 9 and 10.

Well, again, Harry describes the loved ones recalled by the Resurrection Stone to be like the living memory of Riddle from the Diary. It's clearly not a resurrection in the Christian sense. And we have Sirius comment that they are part of Harry and invisible to everyone else, which echoes KC Dumbledore's comment that it is real but happening in Harry's head.

The Stone most probably conjures up an idealized image of a loved one. (Poor Gellert would have been disappointed; no army of Inferi here.) This would explain the frustration of the Second Brother who couldn't make real his recalled love. And it explains why Harry's Lily & James speak the least and Sirius and Remus speak the most: Harry knows the latter, but has only seen pictures and distant memories of the former.

And, yes, I think momwitch and jacobmarley do have a point. Cross is a short form for Crossroads. Which again is the image of a crisis, a point of decision, or a change of direction.

Nicely said. I couldn't agree with this more. Although I agree with luna'sceiling--it would be way cool to be able to pronounce that...

Arianhrod says:

Hmm. Well, I think it is probably more to the point to consider LV as a distorted reflection of Christ. Which I think is probably true, just as I think it is also true that Harry and LV are distorted reflections of each other, a simile that LV himself noted in CoS. Which would, in my view, tend to indicate that it is not unreasonable to see a parallel between Harry and Christ... I know it's probably not your view, but it is what I think.

momwitch, of course you are right in your observations about the Victorians and their fascination with Boudicca. In fact, the famous statue of her in London dates from the Victorian era and was apparently commissioned by Prince Albert. The tribute to Victoria is obvious, although I have to say finding Boudicca really as a forerunner to Victoria is kind of funny. Other than that they were both powerful queens in Britain (Boudicca was Queen of the Iceni, rather than the Queen of all Britain), I mean. I notice in digging around on the web (which is not always reliable) that the King's Cross/Boudicca's burial site link is considered questionable. I don't think that matters, however; if the place is associated in the popular imagination with Boudicca, then the place is linked with her, correctly or not. So perhaps JKR chose to give Bill and Fleur's daughter the name Victoire as a reference to Boudicca and/or Victoria... or maybe she just picked it because it's a pretty French name.

I imagine, if you were to dig extensively into the history of London, and sit down with maps, etc., that there are yet more possible associations with the site of King's Cross.

Bill and Fleur's daughter Victoire is a princess herself, from her parents' chemical wedding as discussed on the Alchemy thread.

I've seen Fleur as The "Rose" for quite some time, as there are numerous rose references associated with her that don't seem merely coincidential, for it even extends down to her rosewood wand (the wand chooses the wizard).

Victoria married her cousin Albert, and the "cousins" mention that Teddy is snogging their cousin Victoire, as the family connections, with Harry being Teddy's godfather, made it kind of weird for them.

I hardly qualify as an expert--just an undergraduate minor.

αναστασις is a compound: ana (up) + stasis (standing, placement--there are quite a few spelling variations of this word). The accent is on the second syllable: "anaSTASis." It has verb forms, noun forms, etc., just like many English words. The letter "a" is "ah" (as in "almost") rather than the sharp English "ay" (as in "day")

The traditional easter greeting is "CHRIStos anESti," (Christ is risen); the traditional response is "alithos anesti" (truly risen or risen indeed), with alithos coming from αληθεια ("aleethiah"), truth.

Anastasios is a fairly common Greek name, with a feminine form Anastasia.

If we stick to literal meanings, Harry really did "stand up" after receiving the AK in the forest. Imagistically it is a resurrection, but I am afraid we are all going to continue to argue in circles about the degree to which he "died." Writers do that kind of thing quite often--give us suggestive images in order to evoke mental and emotional connections.

Surely there's also the quite simple concept of Victoire=Victory ie the victory over Voldemort?

Absolutely. That was my first impression, too.

That is rather tenuous, particularly as both King's Cross and Charing Cross are terminuses, and named after actual crosses.

You are expert enough and you rock! Thanks for the lesson, I love it. That is very true Harry did "stand up," so using resurrection in this case is not a stretch. The crux of the Christian response to the Forest, in my opinion, is a mental or emotional connection. I don't think the death, or lack thereof, is quite as important as it is the symbolic resurrection that elicits the response. At least that is how I see it.

momwitch As nice as I think that would be having the stone give tribute to Christopher Reeves, I tend to doubt it. I met him once with my daughter's class at MOMA in NY. I was looking at Starry Night, it is just right there in front of you no glass or anything, truly unbelievable. I was fascinated by that and stepped back, as only I could do, tripped on his wheelchair. He was incredibly kind and followed the kids in my daughter's class through the rest of the tour. He was great with them and they loved being with him. He was such a kind man.


ETA: Has anyone else read this article on Christianity in DH I can't wait to hear responses on this. I think this is way better than I hoped for from her.

Those of you who haven't yet seen it check out the MTV article that Leaky has just posted about. It seems very relevant to this thread.

Oh lovely - thanks for posting that, I hadn't seen it yet. I'm doing my first read, but this quote struck me:


I loved those quotes when I read them and I thought they beautifully set up the narrative to come. I'm fascinated that she had chosen them so early in the series.

Interesting points, momwitch. I have always thought that Fleur's wand was probably made specifically for her. It has, after all, the hair of a veela, her own grandmuzzer . You're right, of course, that the flower imagery is continually associated with Fleur. I am not convinced that it all is alchemical in its meaning; I tend to think that the floral imagery is tied to Fleur's immense attractiveness and femininity. That said, it is best to keep an open mind, as it is clear that alchemy does play a role in the series--can't hardly get more specific than the Philosopher's Stone and Nicholas Flamel!



Yes, that was my assumption also when I read the name. Maybe there' s a Boudicca connection, maybe it's just an interesting coincidence. Maybe we try too hard!


Roonwit, thank you, thank you for posting about the MTV article... it is HUGELY relevant to this thread!

Ironically, we didn't really deal with the quotes from the beginning of the book. I feel a need to reread them now, to comment further. I also found this quote interesting:I believe I had found Harry and Luna's exploration of the veil to be relevant. It is interesting tht the three books represent the struggle over the question of the afterlife. This gives a great deal to go back and discuss. I think we have some answers though on the stone and the Christ figure. Why must Pie be on vacation this week?

I am frankly surprised that she went into such depth on the role of Christianity in the series. I found the lack of news coming from the press portion of Monday odd. I wondered really why so little was disclosed of questions posed and her responses. Was the conference taped to anyone's knowledge?

Well, I'd like the MTV article better if Shawn Adler weren't so determined to pull a Rita Skeeter. I've reread that twice and Mr Adler lays a heavy filter on whatever Jo said in the interview. Notice how the journalist appears to be quoting Jo when, in fact, he's not. it makes it difficult to tell if we're reading Adler or Rowling.

These seem to be the real JKR:
Well, that's the core of the interview with Shawn Adler's editorializing removed. Alas, I'm still eager to read an actual transcript of these press conferences.

Frankly, there's nothing new here. She repeats the Graham Greene line, which, to me, is code for "I'm a Christian Humanist". She downplays the source of the epitaphs while playing up their specific meaning. She's planned since book two to include those quotes from pagan Aeschylus and the Quaker Penn. (Adler doesn't seem to get the Penn quote.)

Indeed, I'm not sure what to make of Shawn Adler's line : This is unlikely to be a paraphrasing of something Jo said and it's a wrong reading of "Master of Death" according to Jo's answer in the Bloomsbury Chat. So, I suspect it's Mr Adler's addled interpretation.

I enjoyed the link to Jo's tale of what happened when she told Dan the ending. I suspect Jo knows what to expect from the press. Well, the press is even more wicked in Britain --hence the Telegraph and such were all running photos of her "wardrobe malfunction". (She's knocked the rightwing press frequently and so they really don't like her.)

Alas, I'm just as frustrated as I was when I read the snippet about Machiavellian Dumbledore. What was the question? What was the context? Why is this being filtered into snippets with loads of editorializing nonsense that could be either enlightening or dishonestly misleading. Of course, does MTV have journalistic standards? Note how misleading the headline is:

lol It was merely the visual I got when wondering about how the snitch and stone worked together. The primary connection I made was between the crystal from Krypton and its power to build the Fortress of Solitude, and answer all of Clark Kent's questions as to who he really was and from where he originated. In Superman II, Superman chooses to live as a mortal to fully share love as a man with Lois Lane, and in order to do this, the Fortress (of ice - much like the "armor" of Beauxbatons!) needed to be destroyed. The loophole by which he is able to return to being himself was an accident provided by Lois, when she put aside the One Crystal after he showed it to her - saving it from the destruction which claimed the first Fortress. It isn't the Stone which I see as a potentially offhand tribute, but in the role of Superman itself, and how it seems to parallel Harry Potter to an extent - especially in the (memories? impressions? holograms? soul imprints?) which instruct both of them. The role immortalized Christopher Reeve as a superhero, and which he lived up to in his real life above and beyond the limitations of his mortal body - he played a hero in the movies, and became a true hero in Real Life.



We might try too hard, but "victory" seems to hold a continual undercurrent in the books. Remember, too, Viktor's name, and Fleur inviting him to her wedding! lol

ETA: davidenglish

...or that The Quakers are also known as The Society of Friends! This is very appropriate in my reading of the books.

Well, I agree with you that it would be awfully nice to see a transcript of the interview. It is true that we are getting paraphrases in portions which may reflect more Mr. Adler's interpretations rather than what Ms. Rowling actually said.

Nothing NEW? Well, she has dealt explicitly with some of the issues we have been struggling with on this board.

She has, once again, identified herself as a Christian. She even says she is a church-going Christian. She is, however, not a member of "the lunatic fringes" of her religion--meaning, I suspect, that she would not qualify as a fundamentalist. This I would agree is in keeping with what she has said before. I would say she is a questioning Christian--a humanist if you will. It seems pretty clear that her faith is important to her; she is not just a cultural Christian.

She has said, once again, that she did not talk much about her faith prior to the publication of DH as she did not want to tip her hand too much as to where the story was going. The religious parallels were obvious, TO HER, the creator. So, I think it is probably reasonable to assume that there is Christian imagery intended in Book VII.

She has also made it clear that Hogwarts school is multifaith. This would suggest that the same is probably true of the wizarding world as well. In other words, the wizarding world does reflect the muggle one. So Christianity, as well as other religions, is present.

She has also reaffirmed that she believes--most of the time --that there is life after death.

I also agree. This does seem to be a very spun article, and it would be nice to know what Jo was actually asked and said.
Absolutely. She is basically telling us that she intends there to be Christian symbolism in the books, particularly in the final book.
I also found this significant. She describes Hogwarts as multifaith rather than secular, implying that there is a religious dimension to it, even if we don't see it. It also means that the wizarding world has essentially the same beliefs as the muggle world, despite its knowledge of magic.
Does that mean we are allow to believe that the afterlife we glimpse in King's Cross is real, for at least 50% of the time?

Well, that's a quote from Ruth Franklin's God is in the Details: Graham Greene's religious realism.

I agree wholeheartedly with your interpretation of the MTV interviewer's spin, DavidEnglish--there is virtually nothing revealed in Jo's actual quotes that she has not said in some previous interview. Specifically, there is nothing new to indicate what about the ending of Harry's story could be considered as Christian imagery. For my part, there is nothing here that convinces me she isn't talking about the concept of an afterlife--this, indeed, seems to be the subject on which she makes the most explicit remarks, in this interview as well as in the past. There is nothing here to suggest that she intended for Harry's sacrifice and 'resurrection' and subsequent protection to be 'Christlike' (or whatever our agreed-upon term has become). I'm not saying it isn't there, I'm just saying that it's not at all evident from Jo's words, when taken out of 'Quick Quotes Quill' format.

Yes, there's nothing there that we haven't gleaned from the three or four interviews she made in 2000.
Well, I'm not sure what new stuff there is. She mentions the epitaphs, but then she does it by saying they're very British books and that it's common to see Biblical quotes on tombstones in Britain, a practical note.

And I suspect the business about Harry resurrecting his parents from the dead because he's the Master of Death is Adler's own kooky fabrication. It's completely at odds with what she's said in post-publication interviews.
Well, isn't that what we've thought all along?

And I'm a bit perplexed by roonwit's I know it's fashionable in America to demonize the word "secular", but it doesn't mean irreligious. Honestly, that would come as a surprise to the secular clergy, wouldn't it? (Look it up.) In most people's books multi-faith = secular. It means there's no official belief system and everyone follows their own calling in spiritual matters. (I'll resist saying the "P" word.)

Actually, her comments on a belief in an Afterlife were a bit vague. "Polled me throughout the week"? What? An Afterlife comes out on top 4 days out of 7? That sounds a bit agnostic to me. (Again, "agnostic" doesn't mean "atheist", except in parts of America.)

I think if JKR "came out" as a Christian (or "practicing" member of The Church Of Scotland) during the early writing of the books, many people would automatically assume in which direction she was taking her protagonist - taking out the "fun" of speculation, and having a slew of "I told you so's" after it was all said and done. The stories are similar as any hero-saga, but they aren't the same.

It would be nice to get a more "concrete" answer, but she seems to value a person's ability to use their own mind, and develop their intellect, to find out what they books say to them:

P 587 DH, Scholastic


In this example, there seems to be more than one answer to the question, but since Luna used her reason well, she learned - which is the primary function of the password. She also consulted Harry in coming to her answer, and in the magic of Hogwarts, the "voice" recognized the urgency of their situation, but also took that urgent moment to teach a valuable lesson...not only to Luna, but from Luna to Harry.

We may be giving words different meanings again. I consider "secular" to be non-religious, and multi-faith catering for several religions.

Yes, I suppose we are giving the words different meanings. Secular just means "of the Age" and the secular clergy would be the parish priest as opposed to the monk who is the regular clergy. (I can think of several fundamentalist ministers who would be shocked to be called secular clergy, but that's what they are.)

As for catering, isn't that what Aberforth and Dobby do? I don't think of religion when I hear the word "catering". Unless we're talking about cafeteria Christianity. And then I think we might find some common ground.

Well, SOME of us have thought this. My impression, however, is that there has been far from a consensus on this point. It seems to me a lot of pixel space (I'd say ink but ink isn't what we are using here) has been devoted to promoting the idea that Christianity could not be a religion practiced in the wizarding world. I think we even had the term "log cabin" used to describe the phenomenon of a Christian wizard.



Wait, davidenglish, I think you are reading too much into what roonwit said. I don't think roonwit was using the word "secular" in anything like a demonizing manner, whether you think it is fashionable in America to do so or not. The Merriam Webster dictionary defines secular thusly:


My presumption is that he(?) she(?) was referring to definition 1, rather than definition 2.



Sigh... here we go again. Agnostic does not mean atheist. I know that, even if I am an American. And I think I have said, more than once, that JKR does not specify what form the Afterlife might take. It's true that there isn't a vision of heaven, a la C.S. Lewis. But she does say she believes in an Afterlife, most of the time.

Maybe my memory serves me wrong, but it seems to me that we have had a number of posts on the subject, suggesting that there IS no afterlife. JKR has just said she believes there is, even though she has struggles with her faith.

I agree, Inner Eye. We're not seeing the transcript, merely an edited and editorialized version of the interview.



I agree, davidenglish. Harry did NOT resurrect his parents from the dead. In the Potterverse, dead is dead. There is no coming back.

As far as the epitaphs go, she also made a point of saying that one of them is pagan. And the other is by a Quaker--who believe that the Bible shouldn't be taken as the final word of God. And not all Quakers believe in the Sovereignty of Christ, either.


Really? I didn't know that. Very interesting, davidenglish.


Agnostic, definitely. I thought her comments were actually pretty clear on this. She doesn't know if there is an afterlife...and this is portrayed in the books.

How early? Because she made this announcement in October of 2000:

I think you'll find that most of the posts have argued that she has not definitively shown there was an Afterlife in the Potterverse. This would be in keeping with her own struggles and agnostic beliefs. As I've said again and again, she brings us to the threshold of an Afterlife and then pulls us back. And anything that might be proof of an Afterlife is ambiguous: KC Dumbledore is in Harry's head or is he real? The Resurrection Stone recalls the souls of the dead or Harry's memories?

That's what I've been arguing. There is no definite answer in the Potterverse. One can take it whatever way one wants. And she's written it that way. She may believe 4 days out of 7 that there is life after death, but she did not give sway to that and included that minority report that had doubts.

ETA: I don't think she's Presbyterian. I believe she belongs to the Scottish Episcopal Church. Leastwise, she's Episcopalian and was married according to the Anglican service.

Gosh… I is an 'merican too and them secular hedonists that be runnin' things up in Washin'ton is all a bunch god-hatin' agnostics. Heck, I even come from the Ozark bible-belt country where we is apickin' up them serpents 'cause we ain't afraid a-nuthin' an lemme tell ya-all that my daddy never read no book his whole life but the bible nor his daddy neither.

There, that ought to satisfy the automatic-insult-America crowd for a day or two. We are clearly everything you fear we are, only far worse. Be afraid; be very afraid. Let me quote Sigh, indeed.

I found the interview to be interesting, though far less than I might have hoped for. It does establish that there are Christian allusions or parallels and that they are intentional, an assertion that has been denied by some folks in one or more of the incarnations of this thread. I too agree that it is difficult to know where JKR left of and the interpretation of the interviewer began. I don't necessarily find fault with that (the interviewer did pretty much what I would expect in such a situation), and I don't see anything nearly twisted enough for it to be lumped with Rita Skeeter, but I too would like a transcript.

Once again, wordsaremagic, you manage to say something that is completely unnecessary, offensive, and uncalled for. I'm one of those Americans, too, and that managed to offend even me. Good job.

And just for the record, Agnostics don't hate God. They have the unmitigated gall (by your standards) to admit that they don't know or aren't sure. Learn a little bit about your own faith, will you, and quit insulting those of us who know better.

Oh lighten up. Of course agnostics don't hate god. A little self-deprecating humor shouldn't hurt anyone. After all, if there is any insult, I am the target. I really am literally from the American Bible Belt region, though, as JKR said, I don't necessarily take responsibility for the lunatic fringe. However, I also have a slight resentment to the automatic assumption that any American Christian is too ignorant to know the difference between agnostic and atheist or to know what the word secular means. I suppose I could respond in kind with repetitive digs at non-Americans, but I thought a bit of role playing humor might work better--it seems to be the image folks want to have anyway.

"Sigh"

How about this? Keep your offensive way of expressing yourself to yourself and don't tell me to lighten up. I am one of the last people who will ever take religion seriously. I'm not easily offended, but that certainly did it.

And why do you suppose people automatically assume that American Christians are part of the lunatic fringe? They have good reason to feel that way, you know. It has nothing to do with anti-Americanism.

wordsaremagic, I did not attack Americans. I pointed out that the word "secular" in America has been most often used to define people hostile to Christianity and even used in the phrase "secular humanism" to describe some kind of anti-religion. I think the term secular clergy is more familiar in Britain than in America.

And a few weeks ago I used the word "agnostic" and I was challenged by someone no longer posting in this thread who clearly had the idea that "agnostic" was kin to "atheist". This may have more to do with what JKR calls "the lunatic fringes" of the Christian faith. And clearly there are some who equate doubt with sin.

Of course, this has been a theme in this thread, what kind of Christian faith are we talking here. If it is less conservative and more liberal, then it explains many things. I have never been h