#harry realising he's the christ allegory: wow! this can't end badly!

[saintsenara]

Hiya! What do you think of the idea that Jily and Romione are meant to be parallels? I personally don't quite agree, but what's your take?

thank you very much for the ask, anon!

and the short answer is that i am definitely not convinced...

i presume that the idea that jily and romione are meant to be deliberate parallels hangs on a couple of things. the first of these are a series of superficial similarities, which i think we can dismiss fairly easily:

that each pairing is made up of a pureblood man and a muggleborn woman; that one person in each pairing is ginger; that both pairings fancied each other the moment they met, but didn't act on that attraction until their seventh years; and that both pairings seem to communicate primarily by bickering.

none of these hit for me - not least because, individually, none of james, ron, lily, or hermione are particularly alike.

[and i certainly think that it's tedious to suggest that two female characters must be broadly similar in terms of personality and serve parallel narrative roles simply because they're both muggleborn...]

the second piece of evidence for the two couples being intentional parallels is, however, slightly more persuasive. on paper, at least...

this is, of course, that idea that ron and hermione act like harry's "surrogate parents".

i do see why this is so widespread among the fandom [ron weasley, domestic god, my beloved], but it's a reading of the text which, i'll be honest, brings out the contrarian in me...

harry's character archetype is primarily the "everyman hero" - a hero who is perfectly, averagely normal in terms of talent, intellect, and appearance - who defeats a villain who is abnormal and exceptional. this is - obviously - one of the most common archetypes in the history of human storytelling, because it enables the people who read or hear those stories to see themselves in the protagonist, to root for them, to comfort themselves with the idea that evil people must be so unusual in terms of appearance or behaviour that they can be easily spotted, and to believe that ordinary people can triumph over evil.

but, nonetheless, harry is also required - like all heroes - to be special, and to be set apart from [and, indeed, above] all other characters in the series in terms of importance by virtue of this specialness.

[not least because the main hero-figure he resembles - especially in deathly hallows... is christ.]

in harry's case, his much-vaunted ability to love fulfils this requirement.

and we can see this narrative purpose affecting many of his relationships within the canon text - above all, in the way that he primarily views all the other characters with whom he interacts either as people he needs to keep safe from voldemort or people he needs to keep others safe from.

ginny is the primary victim of this tendency, especially at the end of half-blood prince, but ron and hermione experience it too - albeit in slightly more subtle ways...

for example, everything they ever know about harry's mission is at harry's own discretion - he notably doesn't trust them with several key aspects of it [above all, that he's a horcrux and that he's going to walk into the forest to die] within the canon narrative, and he generally holds the view that their interpretation of events is partial and wrong because they lack the special knowledge that he has as the series' singular hero [in particular, how he says several times in deathly hallows that neither of them understand voldemort as well as he does, and that's why they're so convinced that he'd have hidden a horcrux in the orphanage].

similarly, he insists throughout the series that following him - and following is the operative word - is dangerous to them. he never considers that being associated with them puts him in danger - because his narrative purpose is to be more important than they are in voldemort's hierarchy of interest.

[and, indeed, it's always really striking to me that deathly hallows heavily implies that voldemort doesn't have a clue who either of them are...]

ron and hermione certainly demonstrate many traits which can be associated with parent-child relationships - they are extremely loyal; they are [especially ron] extremely caring, including in domestic and pseudo-domestic ways. ron also provides harry with his greatest longing - the experience of a loving family - in a way which, superficially at least, mirrors james providing the same for sirius after he runs away from home.

but harry is - before the pre-epilogue end of deathly hallows - still set apart from the weasleys by virtue of his narrative specialness. we can see this throughout the series - in chamber of secrets, just after harry is astonished that everyone in the burrow likes him, his vastly different financial circumstances make him feel like there is a division between the weasleys and himself; in order of the phoenix, he initially aligns himself with the group who aren't family when visiting arthur in hospital, and is only brought into the family group at molly's insistence; he leaves ron's bedside in half-blood prince to make room for family visitors; he is adjacent to the family grief over both george's injury and fred's death in deathly hallows.

similarly, while james and sirius' relationship is set-up in canon as essentially fraternal, the same cannot be said of harry and ron. ron is narratively lesser than harry - he isn't as academically successful, or as good at quidditch, or as instantly recognisable, or as aspirational to get to know - and he is very aware of this, which is why his jealousy plays such a major role in the series.

[although it's worth saying, on a more positive note, that his and harry's relationship is genuinely close, mutually fulfilling, and nowhere near as codependent as james and sirius'...]

and so the apparently parental traits which ron and hermione display for harry actually reveal a power-dynamic which is very different from a pseudo-parent-child one - in which we would expect the parent-figures to consider their care for the child-figure to be their responsibility. instead, the dynamic is a [benevolent] master-servant [or, to return to the christ allegory, master-disciple] one - in which ron and hermione fill the role of harry's faithful retainers, who care for him, serve him, and follow him because it is their duty.

this doesn't mean that ron and hermione aren't more important to harry than other characters [ron - in particular - is harry's saint peter, the most important of the apostles, who doubts], but it does mean that they're subordinate to him within the narrative's hierarchy of power.

and this - obviously - is not the dynamic which existed between harry, james, and lily prior to his parents' deaths...