Thoughts made in a comment to this post on Harry Potter book 7 Title on Eyore's blog, responding to the thoughts in the post and tom some information related in one of the comments, concerning the Dutch translation of the title.
2 Thoughts from Antionette's relating the Dutch Title:
1. The standard English translation of the traditional Vulgate Latin of the Lord's Prayer: from sanctifcatur to "hallowed" (be Thy Name)... the Latin is obviously the root from the English "Saint" is coming from (but I'm beginning to sound too much like John Granger there, which I say only jokingly ... just that I thought he stated the case a little too strongly that English speakers in western culture will automatically jump to the Lord's Prayer/Our Father without any other connections coming to mind at a strong level ... given that many, at least those who would even call to mind the line from the prayer, are familiar with the fact that "halloween" [very Gothic, and thus associations with Rowling and Potter right off the bat] comes from "all hallows eve" and that it is the day before All Saints Day and connected with, even if they don't automatically make the connection the "All Hallows Eve" is literally "All Saints Eve" ... which connects with my second thought ... so I will jump to that now).
2. The second thing really interests me, especially being as you have just mentioned here the Riddle graveyard in GOF: From the first time I read the whole thing of the shades emerging from Voldy's wand and circling the dueling pair and assailing Voldy to help Harry escape, that image struck me as "Communion of the Saints" and St Paul's "cloud of witnesses. I'm not saying I think she was necessarily going for that as something specific for the reader "to get" or that she is trying to be a "champion" of the doctrine of the Communion of Saints. But I do think that as somebody well familiar with the literature of Western Catholic Europe, she would be familiar with the concept as an image and that the similarity is entirely too striking to be accidental ... I think it is a primary image that she is using here (not nessesarily a primary referent, or thing symbolized, but that it is the primary image that she is using to symbolize what it is thatt she is symbolize, a sense of family/community that helps the individual, that can also extend beyond the realm of "those who are currently 'alive'" and that can utilize and function through/inconnection with the physical universe, such as the traces of the victims left behind in the wand and accessible through priori incantatem ... all of which is a more mystical concept that she is directly symbolizing, although not necessarily the communion of saints doctrine per se that is the direct referent in the symbolization, but I do think it is the image she is drawing on in order to to symbolize what she sis symbolizing).
In this case, as Antoinette's relating of the English translation of the Dutch title points to, from Voldy's perspective, those shades in the Riddle graveyard in GOF(and maybe others that will make an appearance in book 7?) really are "deadly saints." Having said all that I just wanted to toss in a couple extra considerations that have been bumping around in my brain on the title.
Primary (Physical) Referent of (the Deathly Hallows): The Graveyard of the Founders
It seems to me like the most probable referent would be the founders graves at Hogwarts (I'm not really well versed here ... from what you said it sounded like she said it exists there and I am taking your statement that she stopped the director of POA movie from isnerting such a graveyard into movie 3 "because it is not there" as being "there" in book 3 [ie "there" refering to time-text placement in the series], which would lend much support to the specific "deathly hallows" being the founders graves ... if she has had in mind all along that there is a specific set of Graves but did not want the information out yet [although she accidentally leaked it via the interchaneg with the director of POA], which would indicate that it is important information to be gaurded).
I think that these graves will be the specific referents of the title and stated as such in the text (and hence my saying I think them the primary referents. I think that all the rest I am talking about in this comment are/will be really symbolized in the title, but on the level of meaning that is properly symbolic, whereas these concrete graves will be the primary physical referent).
I think that it is also possible that the "location" of departed souls who still have a role to play (ie beyond the veil), maybe as a secondary "physical" referent, and the connection bewteen these referents would be the concept of the departed and their "resting place" (either of the body in a graveyard or tomb or of the soul in that place beyond the veil) and the role that they play as "deadly" to Voldy while still operating from that "place," as well as their threat to Harry - not meaning that they are "menacing" to him in and of themselves, but that his connection with them in the fight against Voldy puts him in a place, or maybe a state, where there is more pull for him to cross that line in a way that makes him no longer able to exist on this side of the veil as a "living person," just by the nature of the place/state itself).
My first line of reasoning as to the foudners graves being the specific primary referent of the title is that in all 6 books thus far the title object is some particular thing or person introduced specifically in that book, and unknown before the point of the particular book. We knew Snape before HBP but we did not know this title, which is almost an alter-persona (actually, "alter" is the wrong word if we take it to mean "other" or "different" ... the title is really the concretization of what he himself sees as central to his person, and thus my temptation to the word "alter" because this concretization represented in the title stands alongside the concretization of his whole person ... ie him as he exists and lives in the real world with all of his characteristics playing in tension with each other). We've known he has a lot of unknown facets to his personality; we have known that he has serious personality/identity issues tied up with his rivalry with Sirius and James, but we did not know that he sort of embodied these issues in this particular "persona" that is indicated on a much more concrete level when he gives it a title.
More importantly, we enounter "the half blood prince" in a specific physical object introduced specifically in HBP ... the potions book. In a way this book is a lot like Riddle's diary in COS ... a sort of concrete encapsulation of this self-cocncept/persona (although not on the level of the diary as a Horcrux, which, as I say in the next point, is, I think, reminiscent of idolatry ...
(Aside: In support of the "idol reading" of Horcruxes I would offer the role Slytherin plays in Voldy's self-conception, the diary as Horcrux and its tight position with the statue of Salazar Slytherin in the end of COS, the depiction of Ginny Weasely laying between the feet of that statue and the standard, and well-known, idolatry image of the god Molech with children being sacrificed in its arms [this article from the Jewish Encyclopedia list numerous OT passages concerning Molech worship: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=718&letter=M ... and this article draws on Smiths Bible Dictionary and the Encyclopedia of the gods and describes the particular element of the burning in the ourstretched arms: http://www.themystica.com/mythical-folk/articles/molech.html ... it is a pretty commonly known image, and one that sticks with you, I knew of it generally as a kid). I think that in book 7 the title will refer to a concrete specific thing that we have not encountered yet (that is on the level of physical referent ... as I say in the next point I like the Horcruxes as a symbolic referent, as "deathly hallows" as in "unholy hallows" ... idols)
Secondly, I think that the graves will be undergound ... as Granger points out in the hidden key, all of the past books have involved the underground (through the trap door in SS/PS, the chamber in COS, the passage under the willow in POA, the Ministry in OotP - in GOF it is a graveyard above ground, but this connects with below ground graves and one can also appeal to the literary tradition on the "location" of the netherworld in Homer and Virgil ... and in HBP, I would say the cave fits the bill, but that there is a neat development befitting a pentultimate book in that it has a second half that is equally far above ground, atop the tower).
The second reason I like the graves below ground is that it hooks up with another etymological connection that some have discovered, the connection with the word "hollow." The place I myslef lit upon this connection of meanings is in Native American religion. A number of years ago I found myself hiking, boating, camping and swimming at Lake Powell in Southern Utah with a friend. It is a large canyon on the Colorado river with many branching side canyons. When they damned the river at the base, the canyon filled, and up one of the side canyons they discovered some old cliff dwellings which they restored ... you just pull up your boat and climb up a little and there is a state personell there that will tell you about the different rooms etc. On the back there is a little room you climb down into, and it is a worship room with a little fireplace and chimney for fire to be used in reverencing the spirits etc. Around the walls there are niches in which they would place carved, for lack of a better term here, idols. In other words, they were places in places in the wall hollowed out for the images of what they hallowed. I am guessing the graves will fit this image type - the hallowed grounds of founders (who were so central to Voldy's self-conception, as evidenced in that he wanted their artifacts to house pieces of his soul, and, on the guesses of myself and many, so central to Harry undoing Voldemort) will be in a place hollowed out, underground.
And my last guess on specifics is that the entrance to the graves will not be in the grounds, but somehwere in the castle itself. I have 2 reasons for guessing this. The first is that from what I can discern in the texts, I stick with a chiastic reading of the structure in which book 7 corresponds to book 1 (rather than the structure suggested by Red Hen and others in Who Killed Albus Dumbledore, where book 7 corresponds to book 3, which, as I have said, does not strike me as being as "tidy" for a meta-structure of a 7 book series, and chiasm is a well-studied structuring device with a well documented heavy usage in classical literature) ... in which case an entrance within the castle itself is more fitting, since the trap door in PS/SS was in the castle, and the locus of final action directly beneath the school itself. My second reason is connected with the whole thing of the "saints" image. It was a well known practice in Medieval Catholicism, the predominant religious cult of the Christian part of the classical literature Rowling studied (and just in case any are not familiar with the word as I am using it here in its technical usage ... I am not using it in the modern sense of "fringe groups that break off from major religions" etc - the technical use is of the material aspects of religious worship - in Biblical Judaism there is the "cult of the Temple" meaning the specific rubrics and objects of Temple Sacrifice - the modern usage owed in part to references to the "cults of the Saints" but originally this means not "fringe groups that got radically and fanatically into this or that saint," but rather the specific practices of veneration, for examples specifically formulated prayers to the particular saint for their intercession, meaning their own prayers to Christ on one's behalf, with emphasis on the aspect that it is only through Christ that any of it is done and Christ is the only one worshipped as deity, the saints are only venerated or honored) ... a well known practice that the bones/relics of saints, especially martyrs, were kept beneath the altar, sometimes with steps leading down to an actual tomb room beneath the altar, somtimes with only a depression in front of the altar and a grill/lattice through which the relics could be viewed and venerated. sometimes touched (cf the movie on Thomas Becket, which begins and ends with the king praying at a tomb underneath the cathedral altar, which is reached by a set of steps that go down under the altar in the front, the tomb of Saint Peter has also be discovered beneath the Bascilica in Rome ... even in contemporary churches in America in which the altars are more portable, the practice is still to have relics in the altar, by way of an "altar stone," a flat stone of standard size with a relic encased/embedded in it, that can be fit into a place made for it [hollowed out, if you will] in the portable altar).
I think that all in all, within the framework of what Granger has discussed as Rowling being a post-modern writer, she is the brand of PoMo who realizes it as a freedom from the "modern," a freedom to draw also upon pre-modern models (which were viewed as "superstitious" and antiquated by the moderns) and find the continuities between the pre-modern and the post-modern, and that her propensity thus far for using the pre-modern in her post-modern work, points in the direction of her finding it attractive to have the entrance to "hallows" be within the building.
Well, make that 3 reasons for an inside-the-castle entrance to the founders graves ... in some interview in recent times Rowling said she had a dream of herself as Harry rummaging through the great hall looking for a Horcrux. AS Narrator she knew where it was and as Harry she did not, but the hall was also operated by the waiters and waitresses at the cafe where she has written much of the work ... it may or may not have been a fully consious fun little very veiled tip off, but I suspect it is at least a subconscious slip in releasing info ... that's my guess on it at least.
Symbolic Referent/s of "the Deathly Hallows"
Horcruxes
I also like the Horcruxes as symbolic referents of the title. This is a brief point that connects mainly with what I mentioned above about the "hollowing" meaning in connection with idolatry. I would avoid making any too rash statement on Native-American religious practice, in light of what could be said on the impact of the Church's thought concerning "insurmountable ignorance" in relation to those religious practices ... but I definitely think Voldy's Horcruxes fit the role of "idols"(in short, I believe that there is a latent but deep connection in idolatry between "image worship" [Greek = Eidos-Latria, or ido-latry] and "self worship" [Greek would = "idios latria", or the worship of things that are peculiar to one's self, like idioms are peculiar to a particular language and idiosynchracies to a particular personality ... and if you take the attachment of the latria [worship] to a particular "crafted" physical object, which is characteristic of idol worship, and combine it with the self worship, the Horcrux works as a pretty neat image, taking a piece of one's soul and attaching it to a physical object)
THE HALLOWING/CALLING/NAMING
I liked what Granger had to say on "hallowing" as a "calling." I need to preface my own considerations on this with a statement of what they are for me. For me they come paritally from study of Judaica and the Old Testament/Hebrew Scripture. It would be a long and arduous task/road to construct a solid "argument" for using these sources for explicating Rowling's work if one is thinking about it in the vein of proof-texting etc, which I'm not. For me, I think the stuff is there, having made it into Rowling's mind in the form of (and by way of) concrete instances where it has come from Biblical and post-Biblical Judaic culture into Medieval Christian culture.
I would offer a couple of instances in support of such occurances being the kind of thing that actually does happen. The first is from a talk presented by Jeanne LaHaie this past summer at Lumos, on Jewish name magic in the middle ages as a possible image source for the fear of saying Voldy's name (which seems to be ubiquetous among both the MOM loyal crowd and the Death Eaters, outside of Harry and DD ... and Voldy himself is definitely pre-occupied with names) and the Jewish legends, first encountered in and around Prague in the middle ages (if I remember correctly from the talk), of a Holy Rabbi making a golem for the protection of the Jewish community there by placing one of the names of God on the forehead of the creature, which is molded out of clay, I think (which, the golem, incidentally, had the danger of becoming unruly if it became self-aware, and might cause trouble by not submitting to its own dissolution by the removal of the name once its purpose of protection had been served ... and the concern with self-awareness/autonomy reminds me much of DumbleDore's comments on how imprudent it would have been of Voldy to make Naginni a Horcrux, making an HC out of something that could move and act for itself).
The second is the AK killing curse, which is obviously modeled on "abracadabra" ... at one point on the MM blog I analyzed the actual AK curse from Hebrew cognates that seemed just too strong to be coincidence, with the AVD and DVR roots in Hebrew (or ABD and DBR - the "b" and "v" being the same letter in Hebrew and other Semitic languages), and a really neat friend/woman from Australia, whose initials also happen to be JKR, came back having looked up the etymology of "abracadabra" and found that several possibilities existed from Chaldean and Aramaic, generally yeilding "vanish like/as a/this word" and that it was used in medieval times on talismans, often in a triangulated repeated formation, as a protection against illness or attempt to rid oneself of such.
(Aside: I once pondered, prompted in my musings by the work that had been done on stage magic in HBP, if at one time the practices within stage magic more clearly mirrored the actual etymologies of the phrases "abracadabra" and "hocus pocus." In present stage magic lore/practice it seems to me like they are thought of as basically undifferentiated as "magic words" - but it would be interesting if at one time in stage magic the former had been used primarily when making things disappear, mirroring the "vanish like/with a/this word" origin, and the latter used primarily when making things re-appear, mirroring that it originally developed as a "magic/voodoo-type" derogitory term as a put down on the vast medieval Catholic consideration of the Mass and the doctrine of Trans-substantiation, as a put down on the Latin words of institution, "Hoc Est Meus Corpus" - thus "Hocus Pocus" used for making things appear magically)
Having said all that, the thing that interested me in John Granger's HogPro ponderings on the Dethly Hallows name, augmented by others here and there, is the "calling" strand of the word. I think that he is on to something with the connection to Harry having a "calling" like the prophets and apostles, but I think it is a more latent or subtle one, not meaning "less there" but that it pervades the texts on a different level of meaning. I just thought I would toss in some other stuff here from what I see in some Hebraic instances that connect it (the meaning of "calling" - from which, as some have noted, our present English word "hello" comes) with "the sacred". In the Hebrew texts there is a verb for "call" that is transliterated "Qara," and it receives a wide range of usages, but most connected with the sacred, actions by the deity or actions connected with sacred roles or with cult. The first is a simple meaning of "read" and, in this context, really "proclaim." Jeremiah tells Baruch to "Qara" to the king the scroll of the "Word of the LORD" (DVR YHWH) that Jeremiah received from the LORD and dictated to Baruch (his scribe). The verb is the same used when God calls the light "day" and the dark "night." It is also used of special naming by humans ... Adam "calls" (same verb) the living creatures, gave them names, in Genesis 2, and he says of the woman that she shall be called (same verb) woman (some strands of exegesis posit that there is a significance to the difference between this instance and the naming of "Eve" after the fall and that the fact that it says "he called her name Eve" is conditioned by the setting of that within the curse/judgment after the fall - that the use of "name" was only with the animals earlier, not with the woman, and that the form here indicates this act of naming, versus the earlier naming, as part of the tension now introduced between the sexes as part of the "fall-out" of the "fall," not an instance of male dominance as a naturally good thing - this is part of a feminist reading, some of which I can see the point of and other parts I might disagree with, but my main interest in mentioning it is the use of the term "name" in a context that has the possibility of being negative somehow and the similarity with the name focus in Harry Potter and Voldy's name and name magic etc - a concept of unique properties in the term/concept ... in Jewish culture and the tradition out of which the Masorete scribes added vowel points to the Hebrew OT text (our present Old Testament is translated from the Masoretic text completed sometime in the 8th or 9th century AD/CE {"Common Era" ... ie in the middle ages} - such pointing in texts began sometime in the 6th Century AD/CE and before that the text had been only consonants, with the vocalization of pronunciation memorized and carried on in meticulous memorization for canting the text in the synagogue], the name of the LORD [YHWH] would not be pronounced in reading in the Synagogue, and so they put the vowel points of "Adonai" [lord] under it to remind the cantor to say "Adonia" rather than "Yahwen" [this is actually where the mistaken name "Jehovah" comes from in the King James ... it is what you get if you don't understand the system and actually try to pronouce the consonants YHWH with the vowel points of "Adonia"], and in current Jewish prayer books [ a Siddur] the copy of the Torah in it does not even have the 4-consonant form at all, it is "HaSheim" - "The Name")
The one that sticks out to me most in connection with the concept of the sacred is that the verb is used formulaicly to refer to cultic worship of Yahweh. In Genesis 4:26, after Seth calls the name of his son Enosh, it says that at this time men began to "call on the name of the LORD" and in Genesis 12:8 Abram builds an altar to the LORD and "called on the name of the LORD" ... all the same verb ... which is also used (to get back to Granger's concept of a "calling" of a person to a mission etc) in 1 Samuel 2: 4 when God calls Sammuel in the middle of the night (the famous passage where Sammuel, as a boy, goes in severl times to Eli, thinking it is Eli who has been calling his name).
All of that to say that while I think the primary referent of the "hallows" in the 7th Harry Potter book will be the graves of the founders underground at Hogwarts, and maybe on a larger level "the grave" in general as the "keeper" of the souls of those who have departed this life via Voldy's AK etc but who still have a role to play in the final undoing of him (ie a "communion of Saints" that includes both the founders as foundational and those such as Lily and James as specific martyrs in what Granger is terming Voldewar I and II), and possibly connected with their place beyond the veil the room in the MOM and the juxtaposition/connection of that location ... while I think this set of images and locations etc will be the primary referents of the title, I think there is also a connection between them the "sideline" meanings of the "hallow" title in the various strands of the English meaning, which seem disparate in English but if you look back further in the Judeo-Christian tradition you can find more actual thematic connection between the seemingly disparate meanings and that that older thematic connection does make it through into the themes of Rowling's work. And I think information like Antionette provided on the Dutch title provides some great supporting info that helps tie together the likely primary meanings with some of the great stuff John and others have speculated on from the English possibilities of the word as secondary or symbolic meanings.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
hey merlin!
sumara gave me the link to here. i'm hopeless with going to the 'old' sites since i lost my list of links, but was thrilled when she passed on your greetings and mine to you.
i wish blogspot would give a notification when something was replied to. wouldn't that be easier to keep track of?
aaaaanyway,
love to read your musings on the title of book 7.
i was quite gobsmacked by the title, tbh. and my mind is still reeling and i am absolutely NOT reading it to mean death of someone significant!
i love the idea of a the calling of a name being deadly.
i'm curious to hear more of your thoughts for book 7 based on the chiastic structure.
basic things you expect to see.
so, kind regards etc. look forward to catching up with you soonish!
cheers,
jo
i'm blushing that you mentioned me. (and grinning that i was 'neat'... haha- i'm actually messy...)
Well, I was going to refer to you as "cool" but I knew it wasn't sinter down there :) , and besides "cool" is one of the phrases my friends kids harp on and make fun of as one that teenagers always use ... his 6 yr old daughter will take my sunglasses whenever I am there and walk around with them on mockingly repeating "I'm cool ... I'm cool" and laughing up at me when I try to get them back (in my recent years I seem to have developed vampire tendencies, my eyes seem rather sensitive to bright sunlight ... but i may be entirely fabricating that condition) ... but his oldest son (Josh) is now turning 14 and his oldest daughter (Elizabeth) just turned 12 and so I was telling her she only has a year before she has to start using "like" as every other word (she is the voracious reader, she and I and her dad, my friend Nathan, were talking about something in book 6 while I was back there over break and so she tore through book 6, which she has already read more times than she can remember, in 2 days to remember stuff ... over the break Nate and his wife and Josh and Elizabeth were watching the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice, although the kids were only allowed to watch a little at a time and had to stop after the 5th tape until they had read up to a certain point in the book, which was no worry with Elizabeth because she would tear through the book whether she had finished watching the video version or not, but they like to watch together and Julie was worried that Josh, who is mostly into science fiction at this point, would not sit down and work through the book if he had already seen how the story ends ... but I;m not too masculine to admit that after the kids got sent off to bed after tape five Nate and I stayed up and watched tape 6 ... just the two of us, not even "coerced" into it by females ... Austen was just a great writer and the BBC version is just really good - I haven't seen the version with Kiera Knightly though
... broke my heart leaving to come back to school, Elizabeth has such a huge heart - their home is at the dead end of a huge almost-loop and their back yard goes down into a wooded hill that hits the other side of the road, and I waved goodbye to her in their driveway and when I got down around the bend there she was at the edge of the trees waving goodbye again ... but I talked to her on the phone on her birthday, before they gave her the real present, which was a golden lab pup, and she had been asking for a dog for quite some time, so I was trying not to spill the beans because I knew how excited she was going to be when she got the dog ... who joins a flop-eared rabbit named "Caramel Sam" as her second pet ... like I said, a huge heart)
Potter Material
But, yes ... I agree on not seeing the name as conclusive as to any major characters dying ... they may still die but I don't think the name gives anything away ... she is too crafty for that. I think the verdict is still out on Harry and we won't know till we have the book. I think that whichever way she takes it she will do it well and as a powerful conclusion to the strength of the works as she has written them (although obviously I really hope she has gone with the option where he lives) ... which I think is a testament to how well she has written the series thus far.
I do think, like I said, that, especially with the nature of the name "Deathly Hallows" that there is more possibility of Harry dying, not because they present a concrete danger to him, especially of a violent death at their hands etc (although the very real danger of a violent death at Voldy's hands still exists, even possibly in the very act of undoing Voldy) ... but just because of their nature as being "on the other side of the veil" in some way or another (the tombs, or the connection with the other side of the veil in the DOM room [that was a sentence I left hanging in this post, I just realized, "the juxtaposition [of the veil room] with the love room", or a closer communication and working in concert with those who on the other side of the veil ... whichever it may be, or whatever combo etc) ... What I mean is sort of like Frodo at the end of the Lord of the Rings, but without the negative connotations of the ring and the wraiths. There is was a direct contact with evil itself in material form that left the wound from the morgul-blade still hurting even years later and made Frodo unable to stay in the "mortal" lands the way Sam was able to, but there can be a similar thing with the world of the dead, even when it the good thing and not the "evil spooky" thing (I forget who even used the term, it was some writer/thinker on religion and spirituality in the past couple centuries - that used the term "noumenous" - not in the philosophical sense of Kant's "noumenal world" but as this sense that at first might be mistaken as "spooky" but is not evil or bad, but really a sense of awe or of the weight that comes with any more direct contact with "the other side")
I'm not saying that I think the title makes this more probable, that she has taken it in this direction, but I do think it opens it up as a more distinct possibility ... I don't think the founders graves themselves would do this, but the things and personages (and particularly personages who have crossed over) with which the graves might be connected both on the "material" level of the story and on the symbolic level - contact with these could, not necessarily "threaten" Harry's life (althought the HorCruxes as "deathly hallows" are the one instance that I can think of that do fit the "threat" character), but could, shall we say, hasten his progression to that stage of life that we all reach where we can't "stick around" in "this mortal coil" anymore and must move on (which would fit with the theme she has emphasized since the beginning, of coping with death as a natural part of life, which we all must inevitably face ... but like I said, I think possibilities also exist for the story ending in a very powerful fulfilment of the themes, including that one, that she was woven through the books centrally thus far without Harry dying, and I'm hoping that she chooses that side because, what can I say, I love the guy ... but in the end it is her work to write as seems to work to her and I have no doubt it will be a great book and complete the series in a way that fulfills it as a great series)
On Chiasm, I haven't really lit on anything really new or blinding since the stuff I wrote on MM ... but there were a couple there that I would highlight and some stuff I have read recently from others (although, as I'll say, in a structural interpretaion that competes with chiasm, but seems less plausible as a meta-structure to me)
The first thing, which I wrote on MM at some point, is, in addition to the 1-7, 2-6, 3-5, 4 structure, seeing the odd and even numbers as standing in some special relation to each other, and thus elements in the 3-5 pairing being more pertinent for the 1-7 pairing than the 2-6 pairing is. Off the top of my head I cannot think of what the element is in book 3 that would match up with this book 5 element, but there is an element in book 5 that suggests a possibility to me in regards to the 1-7 pairing. Pauli suggested at one point that if, as John Granger and many others strongly suspect, the scar is a Horcrux, this would present a neat chiastic pairing with book 1 in that Quirrel had Voldy on the back of his head and Harry has him on the front (and I added that the back of the head would be facing opposite directions, and thus "non-confrontational," which could be seen as not only Quirrel's own mistaken approach to DADA but also that of the MOM, whereas the front of the head would be more like "facing the problems head on"). The question might then become "how do you get rid of it? with a possible hint in the comments in book 5 about death being souls going beyond the veil. The element that I see in book 5 as a possible hint (which I would want to verify further with not only a book 3 element, but also one from book 4 as the cruxt of the chiasm and book 1 as that paired with book 7, if I really wanted to make a strong case for a chiastic reading ... and then I would have to have the prediction turn out to be right when book 7 comes out or my thoery would be all shot :) ) is the thing of kneeling on the floor with his head in the fireplace, and how she describes that distinct sensation of having his knees solidly and uncomfortably on the floor in one location while his head is in quite another location (we have specific thoughts of wondering why nobody mentioned the sensation being so uncomfortable and strange) ... if the way to remove the scar Horcrux is to utilize the "soul receiving" properties of the veil in the DOM by Harry being on his knees, his body grounded on this side of the veil as it was grounded on the one side of the fireplace in book 5, while his head is poking through the veil long enough for the veil to do its magic by removing the scar-crux.
A further chiastic consideration is that I think Red Hen was on to something with her thoughts on the centrality of the dementors (which I thought was pretty insightful - I think it was before book 6 came out. In book 6 we find out that Voldy had already developed some VERY bad tendencies by age 11). RH's theory was that the MOM will wind up being the real "bad guy" ... which would be a very consistently Post-Modern thing ... particularly in their alliance with dementors, that maybe dementors hang around nurseries affecting babies and children very negatively, and are able to do so because of the license that the alliance with the MOM affords them. One of the major differences between Harry and Voldy very well may be that Harry spent the first year of his life with magical parents who could see dementors and know they were there and shared DD's beliefs and so protected him from them (and maybe part of the protection DD placed on Harry at the Dursley's was particularly gaurding against being able to be found by dementors, which would be a possible revelation in book 7), whereas Voldy spent the first 11 years of his life completely unprotected.
This reading is admittedly part of a very particular interpretation of the works. I tend to side with those who see Voldemort as most modeled on "anti-social personality disorder" (this was the stuff from the one talk at Lumos last summer, which kind of opened up my thinking to the possibility of some very real-world psychological elements being in the text). The personality disorders are grounded in elements from a much younger age, and I would see the tendencies displayed at age 11 in HBP as supportive of this. This reading woudl then make the MOM much more culpable (which could fit with the decisively negative comments DD made about the statue in the MOM in book 5) in that, while Voldy may not be the monster created directly by the MOM, he is the monster created "on their watch," greatly facilitated by their lack of wisdom.
I should further clarify this reading by saying that while it does shift the locus of "moral action" from Voldy's action to those of the MOM before his creation and theirs and others actions in the present of the works(how they respond to the monster once he has been created, join him like the death eaters, ignore him or cower and give in to him like the MOM, or face him directly like DD, Harry, Ron and Hermione, the Weaseleys, the Potters etc ... one sees similar choices in the difference between how Lupin approaches being a werewolf and how Greyback does) ... while this reading does make that shift in the locus of the moral action in the story, it does not remove Voldy from the category of evil, he is precisely that evil that arises from such lack of wisdom (which I think fits the development of the "dehumanizing" theme we have seen developed in regards to Voldy, especially with the HC's ripping the soul etc ... the evil that is allowed to arise is allowing forces such as the dementors to lead a human being to making themselves less and less human through fear of death).
Like I said, this is admittedly an interpretive move and some could argue against it (although, in my own experience thus far, those that I have encountered arguing against it have done so, in my opinion, in a rather polemical way laden with a bit of rather unnecessary, and in my opinion, very unproductive sarcastic attitude). One thing that I would offer in support of the centrality of the dementors, and hense their underestimated importance to the meaning of the series, is what I think I called on the MM site the dementor "inner chiasm" of books 3-4-5: in book 3 we have them intorduce onscreen, in book 5 we have a dementor attacking somebody who is both a muggle (and I think that one of the under-themes of the series is that the wizarding community, precisely because of their powers, has an obligation to protect the muggle community, as opposed to the MOM approach, which is laissez-faire at best ... which is why I think Arthur Weasely is much more of a wise man than he has been given credit for, especially in his pushing of the "protection of muggles" act) AND a member of Harry's family (regardless of how poorly that family has upheld its familial duty to him ... and we do find out in book 5 that that family has directly contributed to Harry's protection over the years, however begrudgingly and unintentionally they did so) ... and in book 4, the cruxt of this mini-chiasm and of the whole series, we have an actual dementors kiss.
The thing that I like about this emphasis on the dementors is that, although it admittedly has to make a decided shift from an emphasis on material details to the level of the similarities that are more proper to symbolism, we do have a Horcurx "on-screen" as far back book 2 and even further back "off-screen" and we have the repeated statement that Dumbledore sees the dementors as Voldy's "natural allies." I think there is a symbolic link between the Horcruxes and the dementors: the defining act of the dementors is the kiss (which we actually have in book 4, which is the cruxt, on the chiastic reading). The HCs prevent the natural process of death and coming to grips with it by trapping a piece of the soul in a physical object, and the dementors seem to me to do the same thing (only forcing it onto a person) by the dementor sucking the whole soul out, which prevents death because the soul remains tied to and trapped in a "this-world-bound" entity ... the dementor itself.
The thing with the mini-chiasm and with the dementors as an element of the larger chiasm does break down, at least on the material level, in that they are only introduced specifically on the material level in book 3 and then we do have them spilling over into book 6 and if they are in book 7 this makes things even more imbalanced. Although if we do find out in specific terms that they (the dementors) played a role in Voldy's becoming the "person" he is today back before book 1 even began, that would somehwat re-balance things, at least in terms of the whole material story line (and not just on the symbolic level, as per my reading of a symbolic/thematic connection between the dementors and the Horcruxes).
The thing I want to mention about this is that the chiasm, as with any artifical sturcture, cannot ever completely cover the range of diversity of our actual lived experience in this life. In fact, it is usually precisely the "exceptions to the rule" that, in works that operate on such highly structure schematic, carry the most unique and central meanings in the story (you utilize the structure so that the points where you deviate from it stick out to the reader ... you will have to deviate from structure anyway in order to be true to the diversity of lived human experience, but such structures utilize that fact ... GK Chesterton spoke of much the same thing when he spoke of how the hunman follows reason only insofar as reason adequately describes the reality of us and our lives and our world - the "reason" of the symetry of the human body says that paired symmetry is the rule: two legs, two arms, two lungs, two eyes - but there are exceptions, and they are pretty central to what it means to really be human: head and heart [and I would add genitals ... although obviously the reproductive organs as a whole involve some paired symmetry ... but, that is where our ability to participate, through the mystery of romantic/erotic/courtly love, in the creation of uniquely new little person with whom our lives can be united in really intimate, but unfortunately often under-valued, ways)]
So, like I said, the chiastic structure cannot be made to fit all of the data (as I think no meta-structure could) but I think it possible that the points of divergence can be vehicles of uniquely central elements and meanings.
Again, I could be way off on this ... I could be mis-applying a structural formula to a place where it is not being used and not fitting the bill, but I can't really assess that until I have read book 7 and have had time to process it. I do, however, at this point at least, think that it is better hypothesis than the other that has been proposed by some in John Granger's recently edited Who Killed Albus Dumbledor, where I think it was mainly Wendy B. Hart and Red Hen (Joyce Odell) who were espousing the theory of the pairings being 1-5, 2-6, 3-7, with book 4 being some sort of unique interpretive entity(I may be wrong about Hart, it may have just been that RH was borrowing only her term "the unified theory of everything" to describe that theory of the meta-structure of the series, and that Wendy Hart had not actually applied it herself to the specific theory or espoused it herself).
While, like I said, I disagree with that particular theory, the book was a good read and I thought had some really interesting theories in it (although I couldn't buy the hog-wild "EVERYBODY in HBP was somebody else using poly-juice potion" theories, which I jokingly refer to as the "out of control pajama party" [get it? PJ = pajamas, PJ = poly juice ... get it? heh heh ... I know, lame :) ], but I do think there was some disguise going on somewhere in HBP). I highly recommend it, although by the end it got a little too much into the whole "detective" theory genre for me (I have explained elsewhere, on eyeore's reflections blog, my thoughts on the whole detective thing, that I think it is undeniable, especially from Rowling's own comments, that she is using the genre heavily,and that I do think that the genre has intrinsic value, as evidenced in its use by those such as GK Chesteron and Dorothy Sayers, the latter of whom Rowling has specifically mentioned, and that discounting or minimalizing the value of the genre would be a mistake, but that I also think it possible to make the opposite mistake of reducing everything to that genre and slighting the more symbolist aspects of the stories ... mistakenly over-emphasizing the symbolic yeilds the type of allegory that Tolkien rightly criticized and over-emphasizing the detective yields the type of "cipher-literature" that is its opposite).
Anyway, W. Hart had some really neat stuff in her essay on the curse of the Black family, following the family tree Rowling released for charity, and how it played out negatively for Voldy in book 2 with Lucius losing the diary-crux and, on her theory (which seems pretty sound to me), in book 6 (or at least covertly revealed there) possibly in Bella having originally screwed up the locket-crux by having been the means by which RAB (probably Regulus Blck, thus through the Black family connection and curse) was able to switch the locket out even before it got into the basin in the cave(again, he got bitten in the *ss by his own prejudiced reliance on a pure-blood family)
In relation to the 1-7 chiastic connection the essay I foudn interesting was Daniela Teo's thoery that the Mirror of Erised might be a Horcrux discovered in book 7. Personally I don't think it is actualy a Horcrux (I think there would have been more of possible giveaways in the scene with Quirrel in book 1, but who knows, maybe there is a soul fragment in it and that is how Voldy could know that Harry had the stone in his pocket when he could not have seen what Harry saw in the mirror even if he had been able to see the mirror [Quirrel was the one facing it from what I remember], but then he is a very accomplished legilimens) but I think the mirror will be some part of the action in book 7.
Anwyay, those are my raw thoughts on it for right now :)
But either way, right or wrong on the theories, intepretations and predictions ... it is good chatting with you again.
sorry ... meant to say I knew it isn't *Winter* down there :)
Post a Comment