Underhill writes: “that fruition of joy…is often realized in the secret experience of those same mystics as the perennial possession of a childlike gaity, and inextinguishable gladness of heart. The transfigured souls move to the measures of a ‘love dance’ which persists in mirth w/o comparison, through every outward hardship and tribulation. They enjoy the high spirits peculiar to high spirituality; and shock the world by a delicate playfulness, instead of exhibiting the morose resignation which it [the world] feels to be proper to the ‘spiritual life.’ ” Op cit, 438-440.

I give to you….Albus Dumbledore!

Thanks for your reply. I’ll admit to being fairly new to this as well.

I love N.T. Wright. I’m not entirely sure he gets postmodernism, though much of his critique, especially as we read it in Simply Christian and Evil and the Justice of God is worth good, solid consideration. Ultimately, he (and you) are correct: postmodernism does not ultimately solve the problems of modernism.

Where I’m unclear about postmodernism and the way it gets tossed about is here: I’m not certain that postmodernism can be pinned down on the charge of hypocrisy for being its own “Grand Narrative” when it is against “Grand Narratives.” The reason I say this is that Lyotard’s definition, which I’m taking here as the standard for postmodernism, specifically critiques the Enlightenment Project, the modern, rationalistic, naturalistic view that there is an objective truth to be obtained by the rational mind of all human beings that will lead to the universal and unlimited peace and happiness of humankind. The metanarrative is not a belief in universal absolute truth, and postmodernism the antithesis of that (no absolute truth, all is relative, etc.). Rather, the metanarrative is the story used to legitimize and reinforce the self and the power structures to which one belongs. As Justin Holcomb wrote over at Common Grounds Online:

“A metanarrative is not simply a big-story, but a big-story that legitimates autonomous humanity. The problem postmodernists have is that they have not seen a narrative do anything else but legitimate itself and lead to an oppressive universality that totalizes. The reason postmoderns challenge metanarratives is because metanarratives are simply human constructs.”

So it’s not necessarily the case that “modernism” is big stories and “postmodernism” is little stories (though this is what it often practically looks like).

So I guess the question I’m wrestling with is this: Is Postmodernism really its own great narrative? Or is it a critique of great narratives with intent to start a different discussion altogether, one that moves us away from oppressive narratives that only serve to legitimize existing, unjust power structures?

I’m not sure where I’m going with this….I’m afraid I’ve just rambled for a bit, and actually taken us quite a ways off topic! I guess the phrase just hit me funny, and I took us on a tangent. It’s all linked to Harry in my mind right now because I’m putting together a presentation for Prophecy 2007 on Dumbledore as Deconstructor.

Dn Kevin

John,
You had mentioned in an earlier post on M!Snape, I believe that Rowling was influenced (not sure if that’s the correct term) by Italian Hermetic Magic. I was suggest that this is not the case, at least as I understand Medieval Hermetic Magic which is based on the Clavicus Salamonis and other spurious texts. You’ve written about the difference between “invocational” and “evocational” magic in your book, Finding God in Harry Potter. Mediaeval Hermetic Magic, at least according to the Magi themselves, is strictly evocational. As I said, it’s chilling stuff. There’s a book by Arthur Waite called, The Book of Black Magic and Ceremonial Magic (if you can censor this name, it would be wise as this is not a book to be recommended to those without a firm spiritual foundation) that is a good overall picture of Hermetic Magi. If you would like, I could loan you my copy.

On other things, I’m going through the series again, and also Florensky’s book called Iconostasis. It talks a bit about symbolism, and what makes true art. John, have you read this? I highly recommend to all our Eastern leaning Christian friends. It might yield even more in our efforts to understand why the Potter books are so good.

Happy Reading, and God bless,
Dn Kevin

Thanks very much for your kind words. I am very flattered that you’ve put a link to this essay on your website.

Before I answer your question, I did want to say to everyone that if anything in my essay resonates with you, please make the effort to read Dana Greene’s 1990 biography of Evelyn, “Artist of the Infinite Life,” and Evelyn’s “Mysticism.” You will be the richer for it.

This recommendation, by the way, also applies to folks who read my essay and feel this kind of stuff is just self-righteous over- (or under) intellectualized hooey, and that those of us who engage in guesswork about Ms. Rowling’s source material are self-indulgent fools. Fine. I plead guilty. But if it bugs you, go read Evelyn’s stuff for yourself and even the criticims of Evelyn’s work Dana Greene references in her bibliography. I am certainly no great student of mysticism, theology or religious tradition; don’t take my word for it.

Back to Travis’s question – you caught me being cute and lazy in ripping off one of John’s ideas. Or it may be N.T. Wright I’m thinking about, because I’m on to reading him. Sorry. Anyway, your point about there being no “great narrative” in postmodernism. Well, that there is NO great narrative is postmodernism’s own great narrative. It’s this ironic, self-fulfilling prophecy of the tendency to deconstruct everything. The mind run amok.

I stuck an parenthetical “s” on “narrative(s)” because the other thing that deconstruction”ism” does is break everything down into pieces. Everything & everyone has its own story or narrative. Well, yes, we do – and John has talked about how Modernism (with it’s paternalistic leanings, in particular) has crushed other narratives in its wake. Postmodernism celebrates this plurality of narratives. But it misses the boat because it cannot allow the pluralities to be expressed under the guise of a larger “purpose” or Reality, because apparently no such thing exisits.

In smashing that “s” on there, I was trying to be cute and point out the “many stories but no story” irony. I also (maybe obviously) have not thought about this stuff for very long, and I am ignorant of Lyotard’s definition. So I’m sorry if my explanation here still misses the mark. Just chalk it up to my still having a long way to go on this topic.

Thanks again,
Sally

John is correct to point out the irony that fundamentalist Christians are falling back on a modernist (and anti-Christian!) framework in their critique of Rowling’s work. Sadly, this essay would do little to persuade them of this point, as they’d be every bit as suspicious of any reference to “mysticism” as they are of Potter.

I’m wondering if you can expound on what you mean by “Postmodern Great narrative(s).” Postmodernism, in its “purest” (for lack of a better word) form, defies being defined as a “great narrative.” Certainly, in many discussions and in popular usage, it’s become just as much of an “ism” as anything else. That’s what happens, I guess, when minds that are raised and trained in structuralism get a hold of a new “ism,” even when, ironically, that “ism” is against being an “ism.”

It seems to me that according to Lyotard’s definition, it’s impossible for postmodernism, in itself, to be a “Great Narrative,” or even “Great narratives.”