However when it comes to things like the security trolls “comparing the size of their clubs” or “it isn’t all wandwork” I don’t think you have to be a Freudian conspiracy theorist to come to the conclusion that JKR was slipping in a little joke for the adults in her audience (or for her own giggles), but one which was equally open to an innocent, non-sexual interpretation for the children in the audience. Not a case of “it’s there if you read it in, and not there if you don’t” but rather a matter of “WHOOSH – that went right over my head.” JKR has certainly proven that she’s no prude, and as both a European and a non-evangelical I think she’s got a lot fewer hangups about sex than many of her American Christian fans. She handled the kids’ growing sense of sexuality with tact, but didn’t shy away from things like two kids emerging from bushes in the dark at a school party, descriptions of kissing in which “they looked like they were eating each other’s face” etc.

(For the record, I do hope my use of the phrase “no biggie” has not disqualified me from the enlightening and intelligient discussion here).

In the context of this discussion, using the phrase “no biggie” would only be a disqualifier on the HogPro boards if used as an accusation or flip epithet, something, again, akin to calling anyone “Peter Pettigrew.”

John, Big Brother of the Boards (No Biggie)

I suppose my point was that the Freudian/ sexual overtones are a little bit more open to interpretation (as to whether it is there intentionally or whether a reader chooses to bring those particular overtones into the story with them).

As I stated earlier, I honestly believe that finding Sexual meanings in literature is a conditioned response rather than a true reflection of what is there.

I have found that reading books with a “pre-Freudian” mindset is quite liberating.

But, in essence, I think the “sexual” meanings thing is a case of style rather than substance. The books work without it. In my opinion they work a little bit less with it… but others may disagree. That’s cool. No biggie as far as I’m concerned.

(For the record, I do hope my use of the phrase “no biggie” has not disqualified me from the enlightening and intelligient discussion here).

That’s an argument I wouldn’t want to pursue very far or, er, deeply since we’re living in the middle of a culture that is all too prone to worship the creature more than the Creator, but still, I think there’s something in it.

Like any great work Rowling’s is multilayered and multifaceted so there is no one single simplistic meaning to be “gotten” or “missed.” But if a particular element (whether it be Christian symbolism or a wink, wink grown-up joke) is in there, it’s there regardless of whether I personally perceive it or not. And if it isn’t there, then if I claim to see it there I am really just reading something in that was never there in the first place.

I’m with Karl, contra Connie Neal, who thinks that books are just reader-mirrors, and contra the exclusivists that think that a Christian and Freudian reading cannot be simultaneously valid (in a fantasy coming-of-age novel?). Novels can have sexual and religious undertones; the question is predominance and priority which is a matter of interpreting the author’s intentions.

I think the sexual elements of the books are lightly shaded relative to the religious elements, especially in the final novel. That Voldemort has his big snake “soul member” decapitated publicly by a young man who finally is using his own sword rather than his father’s wand is a psycho-sexual symbol of no little power. That it is also a shade of the last being first and David versus Goliath I think is also undeniable. If simultaneous symbolism, which is predominant? The whole last chapter turns on the last battle of wand-powers and virtue with very heavy Christus Victor symbolism after King’s Cross. The sexual shading highlights and buttresses the religious under-tow and tones.

It’s masterful artistry — and the relativists and exclusivists both miss it.

Great post, Karl.

I hope Great Literature does more than that. From even mediocre literature I usually get out more than I brought in. Much more so with great literature. That’s one reason I love reading.

Also, can’t the “you get out what you bring in” statement, if it’s really true, be applied to the Christianity John Granger (and most of the rest of us) claim to see in Rowling’s books? Isn’t that what many of John’s critics say he’s doing – importing into Rowling’s works the Christianity he wants to find there – that he “brings in?” I think that on this point I disagree with John’s critics and with the above statement. If it’s there, it’s there. Not, “it’s there for me, but not for you.” Some may see it and others may miss it. Some may see bits of it but miss other bits. Others still may “read in” bits (of Christianity or sexuality or whatever) that aren’t really there in the text or the author’s intent at all, but which they brought in with them. Like any great work Rowling’s is multilayered and multifaceted so there is no one single simplistic meaning to be “gotten” or “missed.” But if a particular element (whether it be Christian symbolism or a wink, wink grown-up joke) is in there, it’s there regardless of whether I personally perceive it or not. And if it isn’t there, then if I claim to see it there I am really just reading something in that was never there in the first place. No?

I agree with david3565. It doesn’t take much intelligence to realize that you could find multiple supposed phallic symbols and Freudian allusions in any story ever written, if you wanted to! It would be one thing if the author had alluded to the use of such symbols or used them previously, but Jo hasn’t. Like david says, the classic/mythological/alchemical interpretation has a decent amount of evidence backing it up–some from Jo’s own words–but this wand/phallus/Freudian business has none at all.

To that end, I say “To each their own”. I apologize for trying to argue that there aren’t Freudian allusions.

I suppose what I should have argued was that there are not Freudian allusions To Me. Everyone else os free to read them in if they like.

I simply make the choice to read the books in a non-Freudian context… and that works for me!