View Single Post
Old 10-24-2010, 05:20 PM   #45
EatingPie
Blueberry!
EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.
 
EatingPie's Avatar
 
Posts: 888
Karma: 133343
Join Date: Mar 2007
Device: Sony PRS-500 (RIP); PRS-600 (Good Riddance); PRS-505; PRS-650; PRS-350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald View Post
Curious. In one article, she states:

"I did not set out to convert anyone to Christianity. I wasn't trying to do what CS Lewis (author of the Chronicles of Narnia) did. It is perfectly possible to live a very moral life without a belief in God, and I think it's perfectly possible to live a life peppered with ill-doing and believe in God."

Then in your reference:

"To me [the religious parallels have] always been obvious," she said. "But I never wanted to talk too openly about it because I thought it might show people who just wanted the story where we were going."

The first quote suggests she was not doing an allegory (or allusion, if you prefer) then the second one admits there were parallels.

I still feel there wasn't enough in the series to warrent even a deliberate allusion nor support her apparent reluctant claim to it. But then I also feel she never intended for the series to become so dark as it progressed, despite her claims to the contrary. either that, or she is far more devious than she let's on.
I certainly see how this looks contradictory. But I honestly believe she's being consistent, even in the context of such seemingly disparate remarks. It all comes down to the Christ allegory and Christ figure (allusion) being very different literary forms; and I believe Rowling knows that, and therefore can be consistent in the above quotes.

C.S. Lewis set out to re-tell the story of Christ in fantasy form, a way to communicate Christ through modern fairy tale, to educate those that would not necessarily be interested, to evangelize. Those all occur in an allegory form. Aslan is Jesus. Even his form -- a lion -- invokes Christ. He is equated with Christ. As I said, a re-telling of Christ's story.

Rowling, OTOH, is making reference to Christ. Not equating Harry with Christ, not saying that Harry is a duplicate of Christ. Just, in some particular instances, she uses the allusion to Christ as a tool to communicate something thematic. To me, it's that love is ultimate conquering force against evil. That's not even a specifically Christian theme, but I see her using the Christian elements of loving sacrifice, death, and redemption to convey that theme about the ultimate power of love.

This is why I'm so strict on delineating between allusion and allegory. On one hand, HP uses the Christ story to convey a message, but on the other hand, it's not done in the same -- or even similar -- way that CS Lewis did in Narnia. They're very different literary devices and not necessarily related. That's how Rowling can say deny one thing about religion in reference to Lewis, and then later affirm religion in the HP story in certain instances: Lewis used a totally different literary device than she herself did, even though they both are "accessing" Christianity to some degree.

-Pie

PS I feel I was a little "heavy handed" in my previous reply, and I apologize for that.

Last edited by EatingPie; 10-24-2010 at 05:24 PM.
EatingPie is offline   Reply With Quote