Comments on: The Dutch Deathly Hallows Interview: Ms. Rowling Discusses Religion and Choice

By: Arabella Figg

Arabella Figg — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 03:42:35 +0000

It’s also occurred to me that Rowling could not discuss most facets of her books for 17 years, not even with family. Perhaps the relief from that strain has made her rather giddy and garrulous.

I don’t mind the “what happened to who” stuff she’s been sharing. It doesn’t matter that Neville and Hannah had a backstory in the books. How many marry their high school sweethearts? All WizWorld people would have opportunity to connect through the years.

For another example of sharing more than we wanted to know, Paul McCartney recently revealed that a favorite love song of many, “Got To Get You Into My Life,” was about pot. Gee, thanks, Paul, TMI.

Kitties never give out TMI; they never give enough I….

By: Arabella Figg

Arabella Figg — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:38:51 +0000

I have to chime in with some others that I often feel like an intellectual beech leaf amongst the giant maple leaves here. My education was minimal, certainly not in classical matters. Maybe I could say in West Side Story parlance, “Hey! I’m depraved on account ‘a I’m deprived.” John, you and others here are educating me in previously unexplored areas. And sometimes it’s a bit overwhelming.

I appreciate all the work you do and your enthusiasm in sharing it. I’ve had a very difficult month and have been able to visit here very little, which has been disappointing, because you’ve peppered us with so many interesting threads I have yet to tackle, such as the quizzes.

I only had time to barely skim the Dante thread, intending to read it later when I could absorb it. I’ve never read Dante, so it feels rather intimidating, but I will read the thread. What I’ve done in my limited time is take the “easy” threads in which I can participate to “keep my hand in,” so to speak. It’s not that I cared about their subject matter more.

Please keep the good stuff coming. I appreciate it.

Even the kitties are mad at me for not giving them enough attention…

P.S. In terms of Dylan and authors keeping the mystery, I reflect upon acid-dropper John Lennon’s song “Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds” and his ridiculous claim that it was inspired by his little boy so-titled drawing. Suuuure. No other explanation possible for the “plasticene porters with looking-glass ties” and “the girl with kaleidescope eyes.” Hahahahaha…

By: david

david — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 18:40:44 +0000

Thank you for the clearification on the “spiritual not religious” point in the interview.
Yes, when I hear the term he/she is a “spiritual” person in todays culture, my thoughts immediately go to someone who has a private prayer time (or ritual) by themselves, without need of a group or congregation to worship with. I don’t for a minute think that even if JKR is attending a church service with her husband that she still does not “question” or in some cases I’m sure, research what is said from the pulpit to see for herself if what was stated is really historical and accurate. In the case
of the foundation of her (and our) Faith, I hope she thouroughly investigated the historical accuracy of I Corinthians 15 regarding her quote directly in “Deathly Hallows”, “The last enemy to be destroyed is death”, which speaks volumes into the last chapter of each one of the Harry Potter books, that like C S Lewis, J R R Tolkien and J K Rowling,
Lewis writes in “God in the Dock”, myth became Fact! “It happens at a particular date, at a particular place, followed by definable HISTORICAL consequences. We pass from a Balder or an Osiris dying, nobody knows when or where, to a HISTORICAL Person”…..That Person is the one that JK Rowling points to in “Deathly Hallows” the Godric’s Hollow chapter who
historically is pointed to on James and Lilly’s tombstone. He (Christ) is the one defeats the last enemy, death. All is well!

David

By: Helen

Helen — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 18:11:43 +0000

I find Ms Rowling’s arc of belief fairly understandable. She departed from the nominal ways of her family and turned to genuine belief at pretty much the same age that Jews celebrate bar mitzvahs and many liturgical, infant-baptism traditions have the rite of confirmation. While both these rituals, AFAIK, are post-Biblical, I think they are very astutely timed to dovetail with the time in an adolescent’s life when they first are able to examine their family’s teachings and either reject them or claim them to themselves as their own, not just something inherited. In her case, effectvely she rejected her family’s “Religion doesn’t matter that much” teaching. It is, I admit, more impressive that she has returned to practicing faith after the Nineveh experience that University must have been, but then, God has guided his people through wildernesses and Babylons before.

By: John

John — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 04:07:17 +0000

When I wrote that Ms. Rowling is “‘spiritual not religious,’ Christian but very uncomfortable with Church people” I wasn’t denying that she is a church goer. My point was that she is not Church-centered as Sayers or Goudge were. Her discomfort with the “lunatic fringe” of Christianity means that she will never play the part of the SNL “Church lady.” I apologize if the implication of “spiritual not religious” is, unfortunately but understandably, that the person described is disdainful of all organized religion and liturgical order. This is not the case with Ms. Rowling and I regret implying this was the case. Thank you, David, for pointing out my mistake in this.

I think a much more interesting point (if equally non-controversial and obvious) to be made after reading this article was Ms. Rowling’s arc of belief is almost as fantastic as her stories. She is exceptional both in her departing from her family’s no-church habit as a young woman and in her returning to her adolescent faith and church habit as an adult after her university education. In each of these decisions for a life of formal worship, she was fighting the tide of family, peers, and culture.

Doing the right rather the easy thing? I think so.

By: david

david — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 03:09:22 +0000

“Now I’m at the point where I started: yes, I believe. And yes, I go to the church. A protestant church here in Edinburgh. My husband is also raised protestant, but he comes from a very strict Scottish group. One where they couldn’t sing and talk”.
John,

I agree with Helen on this one and I’m scartching my head wondering how
some are saying that JKR is mainly “spiritual” but not “religious”. The statement above from her answer to the question, “were you raised religiously”, would contradict that thought I would think. What I find so interesting is that JKR comes from a very nominally religious church backround and to have lived and been raised in a home with little to no mention of a God or church life other than the “Christmas” (one day a year is enough church for me) type experience, is a rare occurence for such a one to search and look deeper within the Faith and the Church itself at such a young age that she was at the time. True, she did become more critical of the Faith and of the “self-righteous” smugness of too many within the church, that has caused many to leave the Faith. Yes, those factors and the anti-religious attitude of university life can pull a person away from believing. So something stayed with JKR through those years and past the loss of her mother, looking for the answer perhaps for some comfort and meaning in her death and right along side we see her beloved main character, “Harry” facing the same trials and struggles. Where does she stand now? “Now I’m at the point where I started: yes, I believe. And yes, I go to the church”. JKR states that she is back to the point where she started. I don’t think she would be regular “church” attender if she has problems with “church” people John, I think she is critical of a form of “self-righteous fundamentalism” that plagues parts of the church. She appears to champion “humility” over power, as we see played out in the roles of , Cornelius Fudge, Professor Umbridge representing the Ministry and the same struggle for power on the “dark” side represented by the likes of Grindelwald, Malfoy and Voldemort himself, but with Harry being the ultimate winner in the “defeat evil, but without the thirst for power” club.

John, let me give a big “thank you, thank you” for the ” Pointers to Dante in Harry Potter” essay. I like many others on the HogPro Fan Club have not read Dante since I was in school. That brought such a renewed vision
to the build up between Harry and Snape in chapter 32, you made my day sir!

David

By: rumor

rumor — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 20:26:19 +0000

Here is the part of La Vita Nuova that states what I think Rossetti understood by Dante:

Whenever, alas! I remember
that I may never again

see that lady for whom I so grieve,

so much grief is gathered in my heart

by the grieving mind,

that I say: ‘My spirit, why do you not go,

since the torments you suffer

in this world, which grows so hateful to you,

bring such great thoughts of dread?’

Then I call on Death,

as to a sweet and gentle refuge:

and I say: ‘Come to me’ with such love,

that I am envious of all who die.

And there is heard in my sighs

a sound of pity,

which calls on Death endlessly:

to him all my desires turned,

when my lady

was taken by his cruelty:

since the joy of her beauty,

withdrawing itself from our sight,

became a spiritual loveliness

that through the Heavens sent

the light of love, that greets the angels,

and their high intellects makes

subtly marvel, she is so gentle.

By: rumor

rumor — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 19:56:37 +0000

Oh, about the Dante’s Inferno video, it is excellent. But, my professor who was really into theater said that it was an “Art Ffiiillllm” of the 60′s. The sound is horrible, and it’s in black and white (not good for artists viewing it or for his colorful paintings) but the acting pretty good. The story is great because you get to see the way in which the artsit and Lizzy lived and worked. I wish for a remake, but am scared they would ruin all the facts and just focus on the audience drawing aspects of his life.

By: rumor

rumor — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 19:49:07 +0000

The reason I think it is Virgil and Dante, is because another of Rossetti’s paintings called Paolo and Francesca da Remini of 1855. In the center of the painting (a triptic) is Dante and Virgil holding hands and looking to the right side of the painting. It is said that this scene represents the couple floating through hell, because of their love affair and they were both married. In fact, this one appeared just before he painted the Beata Beatrix. He was a translater of Dante’s poems once and even changed his name from Gabriel Dante to Dante Gabriel, even though his family called him Gabriel. He considered himself a poet first and was obsessed with Dante and his love for Beatrice. Poetry accompanied many of his paintings. Subjects for paintings were: Dante, Shakepeare, Arthur, and medieval themes. The fact that Elizabeth and Beatrice died very young, were something they had in common. Women were always very important in his life, and his love for Lizzy was intense. I believe he shared those things in common with Dante. The women in his paintings became larger and more mannerist in style, that they are almost manly looking. It is also thought that Botticelli was a great influence on him.
It is also been speculated that Beatrix’s head is thrown back in an ecstacy pose, as in spiritual. Her hands are open and ready to recieve the deep sleep of the poppy, brought to her by the red dove. The sundial is set to nine, suposedly when she died, but could also be a La Vita Nuova tip. Also in the back is a city, a viaduct, a bridge, thought to be Florence. The dove represents the Holy Spirit, but birds in general are thought to be the soul. There is a golden light in the back ground representing Christ as the light of the world. He said” he who believeth in me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” John 8:12

Can’t wait to learn more about Dante’s works, and therefore figure out Rossetti in the process.

Thanks Zoe for the pictures and links.

By: JohnABaptist

JohnABaptist — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 19:31:05 +0000

To All Who Are Confused by The Profusion of Beata Beatrix Paintings:

Everyone is right!

It hangs in the Tate, and in the Chicago Art Institute, and in five other places. The one in London is the original oil portrait began several years before Rossetti’s wife’s suicide. It was put aside, and not finished until after her death.

It became so popular that Rossetti was commissioned to create a total of six replica’s. The one is Chicago was created for a William Graham. Of the replicas (all created by Rossetti’s hand, and so all authentic Rossetti creations) three were oil paintings, two were done in colored chalk and one in water color.

You may find more information here.