Interpretaion of symbolism is not “fact” unless the author has clearly spelled out in writing what their purpose was behind the symbols.
Interpretaion not “fact”.
I don’t know why you can’t see the occultism!
“Magical feats and spells, fantastic charms and startling metamorphoses, conjuring exploits…Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire…is crammed to the bursting with vanishings, flights, zombies, replicants, identity switches, cryptozoological monsters,” etc. To a restless, channel-surfing rhythm, Rowling switches tone, now teenage psychology, now Alastair Crowley-ish Satanism.”
- London Times, “Muggle Adventures in Potterland.” July 12, 2000
Well isn’t that funny. Here you are presenting your interpretation of symbolism is a fact even though it’s not actually backed up by any historical precedent; but this other guys interpretation of symbolism, which happens to be backed up by historical usage of these same symbols, isn’t fact it’s merely opinion?
You’ve now gone completely into the 100% full of crap mode. You’ve got nothing but insisting things are there that aren’t, at least he has historical precedent to say these things have been used to mean this stuff before.
I don’t see it because IT’S NOT THERE. Check out the writings of John Granger, he’s all over this. http://www.hogwartsprofessor.com/