MetaFic

I've noticed this, too. It stems from a difficulty most westerners (and Im speaking as an American) have of dissociating holidays from religion. JKR states very clearly in canon that wizards celebrate Christmas. There's no question of that. Unfortunately, to most Christians, that means that wizards are Christian. These are the people who adamantly deny being Pagan even though they celebrate Halloween.

I see their Christmas celebrations as a winter celebration, sans religion, duly influenced by the majority of the world. (Japan celebrates Christmas in the same way.) Then again, I also believe that the Wizarding world is not as ignorant of the Muggle world as most fanfiction makes out - how can it be with that many muggleborns? But thats an entirely different issue...

I think there is enough in there to pursue a religious angle if you wish; I go off at religious tangents ever so often - Of This Cup, A Greater Love etc. The Christian veneer you find in the books is no different to modern Britain - the books are no more Christian than they are pagan.

BTW, I love the Harry on Camping idea - Hermione as Babs Windsor? Dumbledore played by Kenneth Williams?

Oh, it's there if we want to use it, but using examples such as that to say Christianity has a direct (as opposed to indirect) influence on wizarding culture is a leap. Jews all around the world often also use BC and AD, but they certainly arent Christian. There is an indirect influence of that usage being common. There are quite a few countries that celebrate Christmas - the indirect influence of Christianity has given them a common frame of reference for a winter celebration, but many of them couldnt tell you a word of the story of the birth of Christ. They celebrate the holiday, but have no real relationship to the Holy Day.

So, while there is precedent to certainly mix religion into the wizarding if you want, do be careful with your justifications. There is a clear difference between direct and indirect influence, and using the references from canon which are after-the-fact and superficial, they give us no clear history as to which it was.

I'm just one of those people who's going, "Why would there be any Christian elements going on in the magic world?" On the one hand, I think "Merlin knows" is a cut-and-paste of "God knows", and Merlin wasn't supposed to be omniscient, so it's kind of goofy - a non-sequitur. I don't see the Patils as Hindus, but if they were it would make more sense, as there are wizards in their extant mythology. I simply don't imagine someone bothering with C of E when they can make dishes wash themselves. It could, of course, be argued that the more magic one knows, the more mystified one might be at our very existence - but nobody has really gone there in this domain of fiction that I know of, and in any event, for me personally and not to indicate disrespect for others, I don't think that a complex universe made more so by the existence of a different kind of energy and manipulation of said energy has any more need of an occult or theological (or teleological) explanation than our own mundane universe does. I think that Rowling's universe implies magic over miracles, and ideas and action over faith. Here's a thought - let's say a magical person with the usual skills is present a little after the A.D. rollover and hears about a guy who's walking on water and turning water into wine and healing the sick, and who also says by the way that you ought to be at least as nice to others as you are to yourself, and by the way he's the son of a popular deity. What might that magical observer say? In my mind he'd say, nice of him to help those people out, and he's got a point about being cool unto others, but what was that last part? I can do all of that stuff and you don't hear me saying my dad made everything.

Anyway, just thinking about it.

Many good points. Curious that the books call on Merlin, which is another man-centric detail. Kind of wish they didn't but I didn't write 'em.

Sure they're banned a lot. Folks who like to ban books don't like to read them. Reading makes people learn things, and that's not good at all.

I think a really interesting thing in the books is that Sirius is Harry's godfather. That indicates that Harry was actually Christened. That doesn't mean of course that Lily and James went to church as adults (my sister doesn't attend anything anywhere and her children are still Christened Catholic). It does indicate that one or both of them was religiously inclined on some level ie. brought up in the church probably.

Plenmty of people celebrate Easter and CHristmas without the religious elements - at least they do here - so I never even saw it as an issue. Easter and Christmas in Australia are cultural and community events. Non Christian groups participate in the city's Chistmas pageant, many families put up trees and lights and visit Santa with no mention of church, families go away for four days at Easter and give chocolate eggs but don't go to any services. Obviously many people do celebrate religiously but for example if you ask the kids at school for Christmas ideas (like I did the other day) they say tree, Santa, presents, tinsel, lights, reindeer and the closest they get to religious icons is Star and angel - but only in the context of topping the tree!

So I guess I'm saying that I always assumed that wicthes and wizards were like regular folk in that some just enjoyed the excuse for a party and some people went to church at Christmas and Easter and some aren't even Christian but like to decorate a tree and eat chocolate eggs because these are community, cultural events.

I think that, like a lot of people in fanfiction, ultimately we're a bunch of adults looking for stuff in a series of children's books that is just not there. The target audience for the books take them at face value and get on with the story leaving the likes of us to ponder the isms we think are there.

As for magic over miracles, Moses performed miracles that Pharaoh's court magicians tried and failed to replicate or counter. And ultimately, magic doesn't appear to be able to raise the dead to (real) life whereas the bible lists numerous accounts of that happening.

But its not a competition; magic doesn't negate faith because ultimately faith is not about how you wash your dishes, but real issues such as how you treat those around you.

You're absolutely right that it's an interpretation, and absolutely my opinion only. It just feels that way to me often.

I can't say I agree entirely. I still think it's light versus dark, and the pure-vs.-not is an aspect of that. Right versus easy. Finding the good in people and suppressing the evil in ourselves.

True, but I don't take the position of the purists here - or non-purists either. I'm just trying to figure out the logic of the situation. More below.

This is all postulating from me, of course, but here's a possible line of thought.

1. Witchcraft is not popular historically with Christian religious folk. (Unless you include Vodun.) Maybe because it offers an alternate philosophy and, I don't know, maybe people are less tractable when they can get out in the world and make things fly around.
2. Maybe magical folk, as I have said, weren't impressed by Christian (or, say, Roman) symbols because they had so many of their own, because they could do so much in the world.
3. Maybe when people came around saying to the hapless public, "Listen, you can have your winter festival, just change it in these ways," the magical populace said, "why should we change what we're doing? Everything's fine." Maybe this caused a schism between magical and nonmagical people, which necessitated things like, ultimately, the Statute of Secrecy.

I don't know, I'm just thinking about it and trying to extrapolate a probable history. Why? Same reason I have striven to understand Luna. I'm writing about these people. I don't find fault with JKR for not writing book after book of Tolkien-esque prequels to make it all make sense, but I am thinking about it.

I've seen that too. It's often dismissive to the point of being insulting to nonmagical people, and is usually said by people who we're supposed to be agreeing with.

I agree completely. I also object to someone dropping elements of religion in without putting an eighth of the thought in that I used to write the above line of thought. It's just not very imaginative.

Or he was a product of his time, trying not to bring dishonor on his parents. Or he was nonmagical to begin with. Or he died as a result of intrigue caused by his desire to practice magic, which, among circles that friars frequented, was considered heresy. Who knows?

Unfinished business, attachment to the world...that's what I would think.

I imagine that people who are capable of magic but realize it can't do everything are in the following situation: first, they are constructs in a story that has rules to keep drama possible; and second, they might be inclined to think of someone coming back from the dead as either a parlor trick (as JKR describes being burnt at the stake) or, more interestingly, very dark magic. In the context of this story, of course.

Really thoughtful points. My niece is my goddaughter, but she wasn't christened. There isn't any other word that we have for "I'll stand in for your parents if they die," so that's what we call it, but there's no god involved. I suppose that's how I've always thought about Sirius. In the same way that marriage is a religious ceremony for many (but not all) that also has legal standing. Also, I find the linking of pureblood thinking and eschewing Christianity to be interesting, though I don't see it that way. One might imagine these hypothetical purebloods getting high-handed about things, but I can also imagine half-bloods and "muggle-borns" in a very matter-of-fact way saying, believe what you want. We'll take magic and no coming back from the dead, thanks.

Artfully summed up. I agree that in the realm of reading her books, one may, without being informed specifically by the author, simply accept what she says and move on. Where things become more complex is when we take it upon ourselves to extrapolate beyond what she's set up in the books and are obliged to question the logic of the world we're woking in. It would be interesting, if a little tedious, to develop an actual faux history for the universe. I don't think I will, though. Did I mention tedious?

Godparents are a purely religious position. A godparent is chosen by the birth parents or the parish to act as a mentor and guide to a christened infant, adolescent, or adult, until their confirmation or full entrance to the religion. In both England and the United States, the godparent's have no legal rights to children unless those rights are specified in a will. To be a godparent in both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, there are specific requirements a person must meet. In the Church of England, the most likely religion for Harry, Sirius would need to be baptised and confirmed and be a practicing Christian in order to take on the role of a godparent. I really don't see that as a real option

However, I do not believe JK Rowling ever intended any religious connotation in Sirius being Harry's godfather. Rather, you could make the argument that Sirius represents the fairy tale archetype of a godparent. In the western mythos of the orphaned child, there is often the mentor or godparent that offers help, often supernatural in nature, to the character. However, this godparent rarely every takes the child out of their circumstances but rather gives them a helping hand. They are almost always limited in some manner, either through a time limit on their gifts, such as Cinderella, or offsetting some horrible gift with other gifts, such as in Sleeping Beauty.

For Harry, Sirius is a way to keep his Aunt and Uncle at bay. Sirius is a way to gain gifts and help outside the normal means available to other children. However, Sirius is not able to just step in and make Harry's life better. Sirius is limited by his status as a wanted convict; however, through the the advice he gives to Harry in the various books, he does help Harry become a stronger, more independent person.

- “Perhaps, in those days, there were a few among men, a few of clear sight and clean soul, who refused to surrender that word ["I"]. What agony must have been theirs before that which they saw coming and could not stop! Perhaps they cried out in protest

Where it becomes interesting to me is: did the culture diverge then or was that a way of unifying magical Europe, for instance, as a defense mechanism?

That seems likely. It's interesting how so many derivative-fiction authors have touched upon that idea - that Slytherin was not an evil man and that his ideas became distorted with time. (Though undeniably he had a thing for snakes, and big ones. But that doesn't make him evil.) I can't imagine that magic-using people were loved and tolerated given what history tells us - maybe he'd had enough of the marginalizing and mistreatment, for better or worse.

I'd always thought of those things as sightings, kind of.

Okay, but why?

There's a lot of logic to the "old ways" argument. It would make for an interesting story. It's generally more interesting to me as a reader if all sides in a situation have their flaws, because that's what life is like. My contention is that magic folk would certainly be aware of Christianity, especially around the time of the Inquisition.

Again - good story points! I agree that it's racism/elitism. No doubt.

He is. But it's people that do it.

I'm not sure I follow you. Magic in my world can gather entropy and wear off. That has nothing to do with Christianity and more to do with physics. Also, the spell cast on my main character had to be recast daily because he kept having experiences. That said, the argument against is fairly close to what I was thinking.

That last is a thematic question in my story. I shouldn't answer it until the story is done - but I can say that he doesn't know what he's looking for until he finds it.

Honestly, I was not thinking of going there much - it was just a scene in the next chapter between Deasil and Petunia Dursley, based on a misunderstanding and the ensuing miscommunication, that reminded me of all of this. But it might be worth going into. Cheers, Tp8.

I lol'd. That's very sensible.

Lots of interesting ideas. But why would people who have magic not already have paths to something greater - or need them? To be absolutely crystal clear on this point: I'm only saying that to assume that someone who does magic would by default accept the belief system of someone who can't because there's more of them seems kind of horrible. Imagine this: you're special, and powerful, and connected to your universe in amazing ways. Then a big crowd of people who are none of these things show up, and they believe something else entirely - even going so far as to say that things that are a daily occurrence for you - transfiguration, conjuring, healing - have an utterly different meaning than you say they do...to wit: if our guy does it it's a miracle. If you do it it's heresy or evil. Do you go along with them willingly, or do you hide your nature (and your beliefs, which must come from your nature) until you can do something about it?

I'm not sure even most people in America (I'm American) are searching for higher meaning. I personally think most either are too busy to think about it or think they've already found it and stop right there. I can't speak for other countries.

Why would magic have to either be absolutely persistent or else disprove its validity in this realm? What's on the other end of that argument - meaning, what is the absolute thing that sets the standard that magic appears to have to live up to in that argument? Does everything have to be permanent in order to be valid and true? What do you mean by infallible? It sounds like you're saying that Deasil could only escape the situation he was in with the help of a higher power - which is not the case in my story at all - not even a little.

Wow, my brain is tired. That was a lot of questions - sorry! Make a guy work, won't you? :)

I'm working on it...six thousand words in this chapter so far, with promise of at least that much more.

Ha! Ok, what's the proper abbreviated form for referring to the area of the UK circa 900?

PS, rbackwards, just playing devil's advocate (as it were) with all the questions. ;)

This is a fascinating thread of thought and conversation, and sadly I don't have time to do justice to what has been said so far. Instead I will just add a new idea and hope for the best.

I've always divided religious belief into two basic categories: ideas about how things are, and ideas about how they came to be. Thus far, we seem to have focused on how things are (including the past, present, and hypothetical future). I have to wonder if religion enters the magical world as an explanation for how things came to be. After all, no-where in the books is there any speculation about the origin of magic. Where does it come from, and why do people have it?

More broadly, what is the wizarding view on the origin of life? Do religious wizards believe that they are chosen or gifted by a deity? I can see that as a seriously dangerous combination. Do they think of the creator (in whatever form) as an original, almost infinitely-powerful magic user? If so, that might lead to the bigotry we see in the books, as wizards believe that Muggles are fundamentally deficient (relating to the "created in his image" theme).

More broadly still, what do wizards believe about the origin of the universe? They can conjure things, transfigure them, and influence their development in various ways. How would such people speculate that the physical universe began?

I admit at the outset that I am not a religious scholar by any means, and neither am I a historian of any stripe. So there may be answers to or resonations with these themes in actual religious beliefs and/or events.

Having gone to Catholic schools for 12 years and also taking a college class in greek mythology I did learn that the religion was constantly being bastardized especially in the beginning.

When trying to convert people it's easier if you combine your beliefs with something that they have done before. So they would take a spring festival and combine it with Easter or winter festival and combine it with Christmas. Over time the pagan meanings would be drowned out even if some elements (christmas tree, etc.) remain even if their meaning is lost.

Over time even the "non-believers" would accept some of the new traditions.

If I remember correctly alot of the early religion was based upon the same things (structure?) as the religion of Hercules.

This has been a very interesting discussion.

Very happy to see this excerpt.

One question: what would the potential existence of an undefined way of continuing consciousness after death imply?

extant in the JKR universe. I'm just asking what if anything a continuing consciousness implies logically.

By the way - just as a thought - I think that losing my corporeal essence and having to watch my family members grow old and die while some vestige of me remains, unable to touch them anymore, sounds lousy. I think that leaving the earthly world behind forever would also be lousy, as I like bits of it very much. Even if there is a soul and it's immortal, who can say that they are not attached to the world?

One interesting thing to me about the Hogwarts ghosts is that they all are very simple characters. Where it gets weird is thinking - so did JKR mean to say that only a limited aspect of a person remains, or (as I think is the case with this and most aspects of all of these things we're on about) did she just not think about it?
___

from The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe - "It's not so much an afterlife," said Arthur, "more a sort of aprés vie."

yes, therein does lie a plot. Please get right on it!

My answer to the question of why Tom's so scared of death, at least in Phantom Limb, is that he's cuckoo crazy nuts. Fixated. A control freak. Sometimes, simple works, for me anyway. Believe it or not.

I don't think that Riddle so much fears death. I rather think he fears the loss of power and control that would naturally come with it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you strike me down now, I shall become more annoying than you could possibly imagine.

This is where it gets interesting for me...I like hearing authors talk about what motivates a character, because everyone says different things.

Here's what I thought (from chapter 17 of my story:

Boy. Mother insane, dead. Father gone. Finding power in himself, more than he could begin to understand. His unformed will shaping things. Finding fear in himself, masking it with fear from others, holding his fear underwater until it drowned, clutching his arms, taking something of him with it, or was that the girl who laughed at him? Or was it with him? But what good was she if she could die? Her limp fingers useless, her hair pointlessly lovely in the water. The power the overwhelming thing, now that she was gone – he had done this, he controlled her, it. And the rarest of moments in his life – a twisted empathy. If this could be done to her, could it also be done to him? No, he refuses it. He will command it and he will visit it upon the weak, revealing their flaws. He finds ways, as he grows and it grows, to hide himself away in many places. People become things. Those who run from him have no hope. Those who embrace him are doomed without knowing it. He will stack up their bodies and build a castle strong enough to resist all attacks, to feed the enemy and leave himself untouched. When all fires are finally extinguished, and all corpses are ash, he will remain, and death will die.

So, you know. Nuts.