I wonder if your feeling that "issues of faith" don't feel cosmological, is a result of the very specific conservative Christian definition that now dominates our culture's use of the term? They seem to mean faith as obedience to a narrowly defined God and a similarly narrow set of dogmas. That takes all the wonder and mystery out of faith, which is not at all the way Jesus actually used the concept. But that's a different discussion!
The Harry Potter books don't seem to me to be at all mythological in effect or intent (and that's not a criticism, I'm a big Harry fan). There's magic, but virtually no metaphysics, except for a few little bits here and there like "Kings Cross Station" in the last book, and the way Harry's mother's love protects him from Voldemort. Rowling's use of magic is notable mainly because she never gives the smallest indication of exactly how it works or where it comes from. It seems to be a simple human talent, like artistic ability, not a cosmic force as it is in most other fantasy. You either have it or you don't. The only thing that seems to affect it is emotion, your magic gets stronger when your feelings are stronger.
Fate, choice and destiny--that's another whole essay, isn't it? I don't agree that emphasizing personal choice humanizes the cosmic, if by that you mean it makes it less mythological. Even the grandest proponents of fate (eg the Greeks, the Irish and Norse) put a strong emphasis on personal choice: the hero could always turn his back on his destiny, but if he was a hero, he chose not to. In modern mythopoeic fantasy, no one is more emphatic about the importance of personal choice than Tolkien throughout the Ring. Yet the weight of destiny is also there, every step of the way.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-09-03 01:20 am (UTC)The Harry Potter books don't seem to me to be at all mythological in effect or intent (and that's not a criticism, I'm a big Harry fan). There's magic, but virtually no metaphysics, except for a few little bits here and there like "Kings Cross Station" in the last book, and the way Harry's mother's love protects him from Voldemort. Rowling's use of magic is notable mainly because she never gives the smallest indication of exactly how it works or where it comes from. It seems to be a simple human talent, like artistic ability, not a cosmic force as it is in most other fantasy. You either have it or you don't. The only thing that seems to affect it is emotion, your magic gets stronger when your feelings are stronger.
Fate, choice and destiny--that's another whole essay, isn't it? I don't agree that emphasizing personal choice humanizes the cosmic, if by that you mean it makes it less mythological. Even the grandest proponents of fate (eg the Greeks, the Irish and Norse) put a strong emphasis on personal choice: the hero could always turn his back on his destiny, but if he was a hero, he chose not to. In modern mythopoeic fantasy, no one is more emphatic about the importance of personal choice than Tolkien throughout the Ring. Yet the weight of destiny is also there, every step of the way.