I must say I am VERY flattered that you would even consider mentioning me in your blog. That is high praise indeed. I do believe I quoted you a few times in my essays as well. LOL To be honest, if I had to write them again with the knowledge we have now, there is a lot that I would change. It was published unedited, and I wish I had a chance to clean it up; there was a lot I wasn’t happy with. I was missing quotes and citations and all kinds of stuff, but there’s nothing I can do about it now!

I swear to you I am not Rowling! LOL! Don’t I wish!

However, I still stand by my assertion that Rowling is using the more “New Age/Jungian” model, although I wouldn’t quite call it “New Age.” Most of our information does come from the actual alchemists such as Valentine, Paracelsus, Norton, de Villanova, Newton, Bacon, Dee, and others. It’s not that we feel the so-called “literary alchemy” camp is out-and-out wrong; it’s more that we felt that our approach, developed over more than two years of research and theorizing (discarding old premises when new information comes to light if necessary) better explains what Rowling is doing. So far they have not presented any well-argued points that would make me change my mind.

By “we” I mean my fellow partners in alchemic crime: MemyslfnI, firephoenx, Pat Rorrythe, Alchemist Apprentice, Asphodel Wormwood, minime, Erudite Witch, Mercutio, and the dozens of others who have chipped in with their opinions and insight.

Let me be clear. We tried what the people from the other site call “literary alchemy” although we did not call it that because the term doesn’t even exist in actuality. The Dumbledore/Sirius/Hagrid tria worked better than Harry/Ron/Hermione–but that doesn’t mean that Harry/Ron/Hermione in a “literary alchemy” sense is wrong. The major sticking point with them is the question: Who is salt and who is sulfur? In my mind, there is no question that Harry is salt. None at all. No other explanation makes sense. In their desperate attempt to prove that Harry and Hermione will be a couple, they will ignore what is right before their eyes, and twist and turn any piece of evidence. They have said the most heinous things about Rowling deliberately misreading her readers. Even your assertion that Ron and Hermione are the “quarreling couple” (great term, by the way; we use it all the time and we definitely agree!) is not enough to sway them, nor is Rowling’s statements that it’s Ron and Hermione. If they don’t believe the author, they won’t believe anyone.

That is where the argument comes from. That is why you were invited to tear me to pieces. They are trying to “ship” Harry and Hermione–and we couldn’t care less about it. You probably shouldn’t get involved–because I can guess full well who invited you to check out Leaky. LOL Shipping is not a crucial part of the books; why put so much emphasis on it? We are willing to consider all points of view; we realize we’re not the end-all or be-all of alchemy theory and there are probably plenty of people out there who know a hell of a lot more than we do. It is the other group’s complete lack of tolerance to other points of view, and their maddening arrogance.

They use two sources for the most part: Abraham’s book, and your books. I find that a very narrow-minded approach; we have literally read hundreds of texts and books on this subject. Hundreds. Applying them to the stories is challenging, but you can’t make a square peg fit a round hole no matter how much you try. You have to constantly re-evaluate your theory as new information comes along, not cling to it. New ideas and fresh perspectives come with change, and they are very static in their ideas, their approach, and their evidence. I wish I had a nickel every time they wrote, “But Abraham says this” and (sorry!) “Granger says that”. They need to broaden their horizons and look around a little more.

Personally, I don’t see why everyone can’t be right. This is such a profound story on so many levels, and the way Rowling weaves her webs leads me to think there are elements of all ideas in the series. There is room enough for Harry/Ron/Hermione in the literary sense AND Sirius/Dumbledore/Hagrid in the more traditional, Paracelsian model of salt/mercury/sulfur. Rowling has included the older Aristolean model of the four elements; why not include ALL branches?

Please feel free to email me. I’d love to hear more of your ideas.

http://www.leakylounge.com/index.php?showtopic=39968

While I do not agree on literary alchemy as the only source, I believe that Rowling is schooled in many different branches of the science. She has said herself that she “doesn’t believe good books are written to a formula”. I think she has mixed her traditions to suit her needs and has done this exceptionally well.