And it’s funny how POV changes a reading: To me as a Christian, the Harry Potter books are remarkable for their lack of religiosity. Funerals and weddings do not have a religious component; dead means dead (mostly), and no one is comforted by thoughts of a better life to come; at the climax of the battle between good and evil, no higher power is present or even invoked. AFAIK, most boarding school experiences still include chapel, or church on Sunday mornings (even if attendance is optional these days, though it may still be compulsory). Hogwarts has none of that. There is precious little religion in any of the books, and IMO they certainly don’t suffer by it’s absence. So I just cannot agree with the assertion that the books are inherently pro-Christian, or anti-semitic, or indeed have any religious POV at all.
She doesn’t leave religion out entirely. That’s the problem.
And even if she doesn’t mean it, does not mean it’s not there. Since goblins, their attributes and abilities, were all created by other authors, so when she borrowed the race of creatures, she also borrowed the racisim. If she ment to do so or not is something else. I’m not worried about offending JKR and I’m pretty sure she isn’t worried about what I write about her books.
So, anyone beside me see this last book as basically a rewrite of The Return of the King? (with a bonus dash of Lion, Witch and the Wadrobe)
The long journey to find and destroy the horcurx is Frodo, Sam and Gollum walking and walking and walking to Mt. Doom to destroy the one ring. Including the hunger and the infighting and having Sam leave for a while all due to the cursed object they are seeking to destroy.
Battle of Hogwarts is the Battle for the white city and then the final battle, at the gates of Hogwarts, instead of the black gate. I’m suprised Ron didn’t walk back and forth saying, “There will be a day when Hogwarts fall but it is not this day!” The house elves coming out and pulling down death eaters due to their numbers is the Army of the dead pulling down the ‘elephants’. I’m suprsed we didn’t have a charge of the centaurs, oh wait, we did.
The of course because Aslan, I mean Harry, willing sacrifices himself he gets to come back.
YAY NEVILLE! 
The scene with Hagrid carrying the “dead” Harry… say what you want about Hagrid being a bumbling buffoon, but that scene got me. That and the very end when they walk into the Headmaster’s office and Dumbledore’s there in his portrait, tears streaming down his face. sniffle
I too felt a bit robbed by not seeing George’s reaction to Fred’s death, but I’m glad I didn’t have to read it.
I wondered if Ron and Hermoine named their kids after Hermoine’s parents. But I guess that doesn’t make sense because she probably un-erased their memory and brought them back.
I don’t think Rowling was copying them, but she was using many of the same ingredients.
But you’d have bazillions to console you. Get a good goblin psychiatrist and you’ll be fine.
Totally different note: I was disappointed not to learn more about Petunia. I thought there was a major revelation coming.
So now that we know (that Dumbledore knew) he was a good guy, why was Snape never given the DatDA position until his final year? Why would they hire an imbecile like Gilderoy Lockhart or a sleaze like Quirrel over him?
Because the position was cursed. Dumbledore needed Snape for the long haul. He knew last year was his own last year, and that the final conflict was coming, so it would have been Snape’s last year anyway.
For looks? It might just look bad that you’re giving the DatDA job to a former Death Eater that a reasonable amount of people still don’t trust. Not that Dumbledore would care that much, though.
Plus, the job was jinxed anyway. He didn’t get the job until Dumbledore knew for sure Snape wouldn’t be able to hold it for more than a year anyway.
What on earth are you talking about? What specifically religious (as opposed to secular) is in the books? “Oh my god” and the like are secular idiom. Christmas and Easter are secular holidays. What specifically religious is in the books.
And this charge of anti-semitism is really ridiculous. That’s a very serious accusation to make, and you’re not doing much to back it up.
Goblins = Jews? I don’t see it. Just because someone runs a bank doesn’t make them a Jewish stereotype. If Rowling had included a group of Elves who were skilled at arithmancy, would people say “Oh, it’s the stereotype of Asians being good at math”? If she’d included a group of Dwarves who were good at Quiddich, would people say “Oh, it’s the stereotype of black people being good at sports”?
Just because a fictional character has a trait that shows up in stereotypes of a certain group, it doesn’t mean the character is an instance of that stereotype.
As for Harry = Jesus, I don’t really buy that either. Yes, he attempted to sacrifice his life for others, but survived. This is a little like Jesus dying and then rising from the dead. But that’s pretty much where the parallel ends. The characterization of Harry is nothing like Jesus. Harry wishes he were like the other kids at Hogwarts, he has relatively few special powers that differentiate him from his peers, he’s not especially wise or knowledgeable, and he’s facing a foe who’s far more formidable than himself. In what way is that like the Biblical Jesus, God incarnate who can heal the sick and raise the dead, who is guided by divine wisdom?
Love and sacrifice are important ideas in the book, and no doubt this was influenced by Rowling’s Christian background, but these traits are exemplified by others than just Harry (Lily, obviously, and to a lesser degree Dumbledore, Snape, and others). Just because a character displays “Christian virtues” doesn’t make them a Christ figure.
It’s not a problem for me. She DOES leave it out entirely; AFAICT your detection of religion is that they take school breaks that use the common holiday terms and say things like, “Thank God,” reminiscent, of course, of that ubiqutous religious devotion, “Thank God It’s Friday!”
Wait wait: Are you arguing that the idea of “goblin” is inherently antisemitic and that every author using one as a character is perpetuating antisemitism? Because that’s crazy talk, IMO, the sort of ridiculous extrapolation that does a serious disservice. It makes the entire concept of antisemitism ridiculous and not worthy of serious concern. It’s also historically inaccurate, as far as my googlefu can tell.
I imagine that Rowling is rather amazed at some of the silliness read into her books and attributed to her.
Well, so did Jesus, in the end.
But I agree. He’s no more or less a Jesus figure than an Osiris figure or an Odin figure or a Prometheus figure. Heroes sacrificing themselves for the good of The People is a story as old as humans. Jesus just has the best P.R. team, I guess.
I saw that Dewey had spoiler-boxed it, and I figured that not everyone had seen the interview (it aired in two parts, yesterday and today, on NBC).
I don’t have the transcript in front of me, but one of the kids asked JK if she had always intended for Snape to be a hero. JK gasped and said something to the effect of, “He’s a hero?” She went on to say (in about a sentence or so) that while Snape had been brave, nothing about him had been heroic.
I’m not doing much to back it up because I DON’T THINK JRK IS ANTI-SEMETIC.
However.
Racisim is a theme of this book. The anit-mudblood. The blood-traitors. The ‘don’t mix-races’ are all a part of our racist history. She even mentions that Dumbledor defeats a previous ‘anti-muggle’ wizard in (dun-da-daaaa) the 1940’s.
She also likes the idea that our ‘heros’ share attributes of her villians. Some wizards may not be anti-muggle but they don’t treat everyone as equals. House Elvs. Goblins. Only our true hero, Hermione and through her example Harry, treats these races with respect. And of course, when he does, it pays him back in benefits. Because he buries Dobby the Goblin will work with him. Because he treats Kretcher with respect, Kretcher returns with an army for him.
So I think we are supposed to read something into the Goblins, not being trusted, not thought of well in general, treated with suspision, by the wizard community as a whole. Arent’ we?
Jodi, you’re right about Goblins in general, but JKR made her Goblins work in finance and metal smithing, she chose the ugly strerotypical appearence, already associated with Jews for her Goblins, she made them outcasts from society of wizards, yet a part of the society in general.
Why is that?
So, uh, who do the Centaurs represent? Latinos? How about the Merpeople? Are they Arabian? And don’t tell me… Squibs represent Kentuckians. Am I right?
I loved the scene where Harry was hauled before the Wizengamot and was defended by the brilliant, craft Goblin lawyer. And then when Frank and Goegre hooked up with the Goblin movie producer to create a film based on Harry’s exploits.
Racism is a theme in the book as being a bad thing. That makes it LESS likely – not more likely – that Rowling would herself engage in racist stereotyping.
Sure. That they are misunderstood and that they have cultural understandings that differ from our own, such as what constitutes “ownership” and “theft,” as Bill explains to Harry. How does that make them Jewish?
So? Do you think only Jews work in finance and metals? If she’d made them good at basketball, would they then be black?
Goblins are always ugly, just like fairies are always pretty. Are you saying that any ugly creature must be Jewish?
How are they “outcasts”? They run the freaking bank! They are no more “outcasts” than the elves, the giants, or the mermaids, all of whom have their own cultures.
The house elves are held in slavery; do you think therefore the house elves must be black? Dobby is drawn with a big mouth, big ears, and protruberant eyes. It couldn’t possibly be that the artist (and the author by description) must be portraying an elf – it must be black stereotyping, right? If not, why does your hyper-awareness of racism extend only to the goblins?
Finance: you could think of Jews or you could think of (as I said before) the “gnomes of Zurich”. Metal smithing? Is that really associated with Jews? Not that I know. Where does this association come from? When I hear Jewish in conjunction with jewelry, I think diamond trade in New York.
Do you have a quote from one of the books on this? I don’t recall exactly how Goblins are described. Are you referring to their description in Philosopher’s Stone when Harry makes his first visit to Gringott’s? I remember them being short with pointy ears (maybe) and long fingers but not much else.
Giants were outcasts. Centaurs are outcasts (but that seems to be the centaurs’ choice.) If you call Goblins “outcasts” then you could say the same about house elves, but outcasts is the wrong word. Second-class citizens could be the word you’re looking for.
I’m sorry, I think I am as familiar with jewish stereotypes as anyone else, and count me in as another person who doesn’t think it applies.
Sampiro:
Any number of reasons (in addition to the fact, mentioned by many others, that the position was cursed and Dumbledore didn’t want him to leave after a year):
-
Quirrel wasn’t obviously a sleaze, and Lockhart, while a braggart, was not obviously exposed as an imbecile (when they were hired). The things in his books were true, and a wizard could recognize them as effective; it wasn’t known until later that they weren’t really Lockhart’s own work.
-
Snape, having been a Death Eater, could have been easily seduced by contact with such Dark Arts as necessary for teaching defense.
-
Skilled wizard though Snape was, his proficiency specifically at defense against Dark Arts was not necessarily ever proven, as he had never openly opposed them.
-
Snape was the best available Potions Master (slughorn having been adamant about retirement until the re-rise of Voldemort seducing him back to Hogwarts with promises of security) and Dumbledore didn’t want to waste those skills on a class that any number of others seemed qualified to teach.
Also, perhaps Dumbledore didn’t want such a crucial class for Harry’s development as an anti-Voldemort force to be taught by someone who was so antagonistic toward Harry?
To me, the more interesting question is: Why did Snape want the position?
It’s also the second time Hagrid has carried Harry after he’s been hit by the Killing Curse–Hagrid’s the one who gets him from Godric’s Hollow and brings him to the Dursley’s. I thought that was a nice touch.