Harry Potter and The Odyssey by Homer

Or: Epic Qualities of Harry Potter

It does not matter whether I have all seven books or just one- I make the claim that the epic qualities that link the Harry Potter series to The Odyssey exists throughout the books. I could have chosen as my evidence only Book 2, or just 4, for instance, and my point could be more than adequately proven. But I choose to use all four published books; to mainly prove that these qualities are continuing within the series, not just one book.

Epic. The word. No, I don't want definition, yet. Just say it. Roll it around in your mouth. E-pi-c. Nice short word, huh? Four letters. just e-p-i-c. Short and sweet. Who would have thought that it could mean such an expansive piece of work? A unit that does not lose coherency due to the massiveness of the size, contrary to belief, comes more supported than ever. Like a well-built skyscraper, an epic has levels upon levels of interpretation. Like a skyscraper, each level is supported by one skeleton that is common to the building. And like a well-built skyscraper, each level is supported by innumerable pieces of beams which are placed with the most efficient support of the weight in mind. The epic, an immense work when looked at from the outside (or standing on the sidewalk looking up) can seem complex, intimidating, and, well, big. And it's supposed to. That's what the word 'epic' means, after all. But take a look at the blueprints, and one can find each level is made up of components, some obvious, most not. But they are always arranged in a logical order. And when one finds even a little bit of the lost blueprint, as I believe I have done with the Harry Potter series, the building seems a bit smaller and easier to understand. And more importantly, the next time one enters the building, one can appreciate much more the amount of skill it took to construct such a quality skyscraper.

We, as a class, (that is, in my English class) have studied some of the blueprints of The Odyssey. We have given the levels names- Common Courtesy is a Character of Civilization, or Sleep can be the only Relief to those who Suffer Constantly. Sound familiar- they're only two Themes, only two floors of the building skyscraper of the Odyssey. And how does one support the Theme? With literary devices. See, the literary devices are the supports for the themes. It is not as important that an author states a theme- but more importantly, how they state it. Now, we've been lectured as to how Homer chooses to support his Themes- by the use of such literary devices such as Epithets, Patronymics, and Juxtaposition. It is important to note that each literary device helps in the support and reinforcement of not just the single theme, but of the structure as a whole. We have seen and understand the role of Epithets, Patronymics, and Juxtaposition in the Odyssey. I say that the same three devices are also used in the Harry Potter thereby qualifying the series as an Epic.

Epithets- those convenient adjectives used in front of, or in place of, a person. Homer most commonly places epithets right before a name, such as

"The great tactician carefully replied:" (VII 257).
" Replied the red-haired captain, Menelaos:" (IV 286).
"The grey-eyed goddess Athena replied to him:" (VII 30).

They give the reader a quick "reminder" of sorts of the one trait or so that is important to remember about the character as they journey throughout the book. This is due in part to the oral tradition- for after listening to one continuing story for maybe four or five days, one might be apt to forget the "clear-headedness" of Telemakhos. Homer is using Epithets to preserve his characters in the minds of the readers. For one might not remember that Athena convinced Zeus to let her intervene in Odysseus's journey home, but we will always remember her "gray eyes."

Knowing what one knows about the use of Epithets in the Odyssey, it is interesting to look at their use in Harry Potter. But the question which might be forming is- what Epithets? What is the name You-Know-Who, or The Dark Lord, except for another name of the main villain of the series, Voldemort? Rowling uses these epithets as a way of showing, at a glance, a major characteristic of the characters- that is, whether they are allied with Voldemort or not. Rowling establishes basically three categories of people- those who fear Voldemort, those who are willing to fight Voldemort, and those who support him. Those who are afraid of him use Epithets such as "he-who-must-not-be-named," or "You-know-who." The idea behind it is explicitly stated by Dumbledore in the 1st book, in our first introduction to him.

" 'It all gets so confusing if we keep saying "You-Know-Who." I have never seen any reason to be frightened of saying Voldemort's name' " (11).

Those who fight against Voldemort call him by his name, also explictly said by Dumbledore in the first book, and later by Remus Lupin, DADA teacher in the third book. But "Dark Lord" is not really explained until the 4th book, when the concept of Death Eaters, or those who support Voldemort, are introduced. But Rowling introduces the Dark Lord epithet as early as the second book- when Lucius Malfoy and his son, Draco, are in a certain shop-

" ' And I would remind you that it is not - prudent - to appear less than find of Harry Potter , not when most of our kind regard him as the hero who made the Dark Lord disappear...' " (50).

. This use in this content seems random, but when we find out that Lucius is a Death Eater in the 4th book, we see that Rowling has been preparing us for such a comparison since the beginning. Again, in the 4th book, the DADA teacher, Alastor Moody, hides the fact he's a Death Eater until the very end- when he uses the Dark Lord Epithet after Harry comes back from Voldemort.

"'Cup was a Portkey,' said Harry as they crossed the entrance hall. ' Took me and Cederic to a graveyard...and Voldemort was there...Lord Voldemort...'
Clunk. Clunk. Clunk. Up the marble stairs...
'The Dark Lord was there? What happened then?'" (bk 4, pg 673).

. One could also site a use of "Professor" as an epithet achieves the same result. The use of Professor, in any context, implies a certain respect. For instance, Minerva McGonagall (the Transfiguration teacher) is always introduced as Professor McGonagall- only because so far she has not proven a threat to Harry. One can compare the use then to another teacher, one whom Harry always percieves as a threat and generally hates - Severus Snape, master of Potions. He, the majority of the time, is introduced as Snape- no 'Professor' prefix

"Tiny little Professor Flitwick, the Charms teacher, was sitting on a large pile of cushions beside Professor Sprout, the Herbology teacher, whose hat was askew over her flyaway hair. She was talking to Professor Sinistra of the Astronomy department. On Professor Sinistra other side was the sallow-faced, hooked-nosed, greasy-haired Potions master, Snape - Harry's least favorite person at Hogwarts" (bk 4, pg 175).

. There are only two times, one in the second, one in the 4th book, when he is paired up with the "Professor" prefix - the first time when Lockart introduces him during the Dueling Club incident, and the time in the fourth book when he actually comes to save Harry from Moody- whom we find out to be Barty Crouch Jr, a Death Eater. Lockhart's use of the "Professor" just reinforces the idea that he has no idea what's going on- he has no interpretation . But the invident in the fourth book- the use of Professor there throws a nice cog into our smooth perception of Snape- and due to the complexity of his character, is legitimate and is represenative of him. For the epithet doesn't lie- but Snape's actions do. The use of "Professor" in Harry's perceptions show us, again, at a glance, who is an enemy or not. One also gets insights into characters that even direct thinking of the main character can't tell us.

Snape is a case study in epithets himself. He always introduces himself as "master" of Potions - not Professor, master. We see immediately that he is different from the others- surely no one else at Hogwarts uses the "master" epithet. This epithet fits immensely into his character- one based on power over others by use of force and superior knowledge- in other words, it summerises a huge, complex character into a easily rememerable word- master. Rowling also keeps him seperate from the other teachers by constantly using the same three adjectives. This, I can't help but think, is reminisent of the Odyssey when Homer describes people by their hair or some physical features. This change in epithet form seems to make the character much more memorable- like The Odyssey, acheiving the same result.

The epithet is used, then, in the development of character. The Odyssey, next to the epithet, uses Patronymics in the same manner. At times, people are introduced as "son of ___" :

Nestor-"'Your father? \Well, I must say I marvel at the sight of you: \ your manner of speech couldn't be more like his; \ one wouold say No; no boy could speak so well.'"(bk 3, ll 132-135).
"'Son of great Laertes...'"(bk 11, ll 64).
"And you replied, Eumaios-O my swineherd-" (bk 16 ll 71).

One also knows that, in the Odyssey, families are expected to have the same traits as their elders- perhaps the most prevalent example is the jux. of Odysseus to his son, Telemakhos. What brings the idea of partonymics out of the realm of mere epithet-like ability, is that it enters into comments of the characters themself- often when the characters themselves jux families . It becomes a keystone, this comparison of families, to build a foundation of character development, source of conflict, and even a theme. We know that by the constant comments Telemekhos gets from others comparing himself to his father, that he is determined to live up to other's expectations, or his "familiy traits." Rowling broadens the idea by incorperating houses into the build of Hogwarts. Each House represents a family- and with the different families comes common family traits. It is established very early in the series, from Draco's first question to Potter in the 1st book(*) that the Slytherin House prides themselves on the idea that they are "purebloods"- from pure wizarding families. They condemn anyone of mixed parantage (ie mudbloods) as inferior. This is reinforced several times in many ways- the Malfloy family (Harry's archrival) provide a constant reminder of this essential fact. It is essential in the sense that to the characterizations of many characters- Snape, head of Slytherin house, seems to embody many Slitherin traits. For example, in his haranguing of Harry he uses patronymics as an insult

"Your father didn't set much store by the rules either," Snape went on, pressing his adventage, his thin face full of malice.
"Rules were for lesser morals, not Qudditch-Cup winners. His head was so swollen - "(bk 3, pg282).

In short, anyone who brings family lineage as a factor of an issue, can immediately be juxtaposed to the others who do the same- ie anyone of the Slytherin House. The immensity of the piece has just grown due to this one shared trait.
And since memebers of a family can be jux to each other, it is the logical conclusion that jux of whole families can occur. Though Homer is sketchy when using patronymics to this extent (he seems to jux families by for instance, the common imagies at the feasts which occur at prominate households), Rowling has incorporated the concept more vividly, choosing to not have mere inferences of the family jux, but to have them fight each other. Literally. There is a scene in the second book which seems to summerize an important jux between two prominate families, the Weasely family and the Malfoy family (to both the plot of the book and their wizarding world).

"Oh, its you, " said Ron, looking at Malfoy as if he were something unpleasent on the sole of his shoe. "Bet you're surprised to see Harry here, eh?"
"Not as surprised as I am to see you in a shop, Weasley," retorted Malfoy. " I suppose your parents will go hungry for a month to pay for all of those."
Ron went as red as Ginny. He dropped his books into the cauldron, too, and started toward Malfoy, but Harry and Hermione grabbed the back of his jacket.
"Ron!" said Mr. Weasely, struggling over with Fred and George. "What are you doing? It's too crowded in here, lets's go outside."
"Well, well, well - Arthur Weasely."
It was Mr. Malfoy. He stood with his hand on Draco's shoulder, sneering in just the same way.
"Lucius," said Mr. Weasely, nodding coldly.
" Busy time in the Misistry, I hear," said Mr. Malfoy. "All those raids...I hope they're paying you overtime?"
He reached into Ginny's cauldron and extracted, from amid the glossy Lockhart books, a very old, very battered copy of A Beginner's Guide to Transfiguration.
"Obviously not," Mr. Malfoy said. "Dear me, what's the use of being a disgrace to the name of wizard if they don't even pay you well for it?"
Mr. Weasely flushed darker than either Ron or Ginny.
"We have a very different idea of what disgraces the name of wizard, Malfoy," he said.
"Clearly," said Mr. Malfoy, his pale eye sstraying to Mr. and Mrs. Granger, who were watching apprehensively. "The company you keep, Weasely...and I thought your family could sink no lower - "
There was a thud of metal as Ginny's cauldron went flying; Mr. Weasely had thrown himself as Mr. Malfoy, knocking him backward into a bookshelf. (bk 2, pg 61 - 62).
. By having the sons have a fight, then to turn around and have the fathers repeat the actions of their sons, shows a corollation between father and son, and that the fathers' actions can be jux to the sons' based on the similarity of the actions.

Something I've only just refered to, but so important to the structure of an epic that it must be given its own section- that is, the power of juxtaposition. It is the glue which holds the structure together when it can get so big that it can be crushed under its own weight. The previous two devices- epithets and patronymics, help in the jux of scenes, characters, and ultimately approaches to a theme.

I would like to use as an example combining different types of juxtaposition in the third book. There are three distinct scenes in the book which seem randomly placed, but when put together, each one really just builds upon the other's ideas. I am talking about Harry's argument with his Aunt Marge, Snape's haranguing of Harry almost halfway through the book, and Snape's entrance into the Shrieking Shack, toward the end. We learn much about both Harry and Snape during just these three scenes. But more importantly, the actions of one seem to be the same as the other- therefore, they can be juxtaposed.
Let's take the Marge scene first. Harry has been ordered by their Aunt and Uncle, the Durselys, to remain passive and meek througout Marge's visit. The fact that Harry has such a hard time doing so, shows growth in his character from the first book (when all we see is a meek, little boy). Marge takes the opprotunity to "dis" his father, which sounds suspisously like Snape-another jux. Anyway, Harry finally says something-

"No, Vernon," hiccuped Aunt Marge, holding up a hand, her tiny blood-shot eyes fized on Harry's. "Go on, boy, go on. Proud of your parents, are you? They go and get themselves killed, in a car crash (drunk, I expect) - "
(29)
"They didn't die in a car crash!" said Harry, who found himself on his feet.

. It is unexpected- the table sits in silence, and we have concrete proof that Harry from the first book is not the same harry as from the beginning of the third. When Marge pushes her luck, then- well-

But Aunt Marge suddenly stopped speaking. For a moment, it looked as though words had failed her. She seemed to be swelling with inexpressible anger - but the swelling didn't stop. her great red face started to expand, her tiny eyes bulged, and her mouth stretched too tightly for speech - next second, several buttons had just burst from her tweed jacket and pinged off the walls - she was inflating like a monstrous balloon, her stomach bursting free of her tweed waistband, each of her fingers blowing up like a salami -

. What does one expect? We are certainly not surprised entirely- Harry has done seemingly random magic things before- but Rowling, who seems very inclined to "magical words" -Accio, Alohomora, Crucio has Harry doing magic without saying anything- in fact, not even on a cognitive level! There must be some correlation, the logician thinks, of the emotions of magic and the spells themselves. One could read this scene alone and deduce that it is merely due to the fact that Harry's "special," but then another scene comes to mind- Snape's Shrieking Shack scene.

You fool,' said Lupin softly. 'Is a schoolboy grudge worth putting an innocent man back inside Azkaban?'
BANG! Thin, snakelike cords burst themselves from the end of Snape's wand and twisted themselves around Lupin's mouth, wrists, and ankles ; he overbalanced and fell to the floor, unable to move " (359).

Sounds very familiar, huh? Without any warning- without any verbal key- another random piece of magic. It is obvious, or at least I hope its obvious, that there is a similarity between the two scenes. The fact that Snape had such a response to the question "Is a schoolboy's grudge worth putting an innocent man in Azkaban?" shows Snape has really been affected by Sirius, in some deep emotional way

Harry has the same problem (if one can define it as a problem). He receives comments comparing him to his father. It is important to see that the way he responds to the comments develop him as a full character. We see that when he receives comments that are complimentary (*-Dumbledore, sirius), he is honored. But we see him grow with his reactions to negative comments (*-snape, marge). This rather rash reaction to Snape also introduces a theme- that of the process that one goes through to find our self. He is supposed to be like his father, honorable, a bit troublemaking, but never to any harm (the message he gets from Sirius\Dumbledore).

But when we find out that Snape is not against Harry, that he actually wants to save him, we must, as consiencious readers, question whether he is a true Slytherin or not. Sirius Black, Harry's godfather, mentions that nearly everyone in Slytherin turned out in league with Voldemort. But something- something- caused Snape to come back. But we don't know. As I pointed out in the introduction, we don't have all the facts, and certain jux can't be completed. So is Snape the 'black sheep' of the Slytherin house? Or is he under some other influence? We don't know. But at least the question is raised, and it is raised by his actions.