Harry Potter, Hamlet, and God:
A Process Approach to Characters in our Imagination
Jay McDaniel
I want to talk about the people and presences who occupy space in our imaginations: politicians, movie stars, loved ones, historical personages, people we read about, characters in movies and films, past selves, and God. For lack of a better word, I will call them characters.
These people and presences may or may not exist in the actual world. They may be outside our bodies as well as inside our minds. Or they may only be inside our minds. My focus is on characters as they live in our imaginations: imaginal characters.
My suggestion is that we can rightly understand these characters, not as mere abstractions or ideas, but as centers of energy with personalities of their own and with a certain kind of agency, in the sense that they affect and influence us. They can call us, repel us, frighten us, attract us - or do several of these at the same time. We may feel like they are friends or enemies, or both. In any case, they are inside our imaginations.
These centers are neither actual nor potential in their own right, but rather intermediaries between what is and what can be. Whitehead calls them "propositions" or "lures for feeling,"
Characters in the Arts
Characters in literature provide a point of departure for considering them further. Literary characters are not mere marks on a page. They are alive—or at least come alive—in the imaginations of readers, and in their aliveness they possess perspectives, feelings, and aspirations, undergoing experiences that we, too, might undergo. We don't just speak to them; they speak to us—not always in words, but through their ways of living in imagined worlds.
Consider Harry Potter, a young wizard between the ages of 11 and 17, who discovers his magical heritage and embarks on adventures at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Harry exists vividly in the imaginations of many who grew up reading his stories. For these readers, a relationship with Harry helped them work through problems, navigate doubts, and find courage in times of need. Harry is real in the only way that matters—a companion on their journey.
Or consider Shakespeare's characters as performed on stage: Hamlet, Juliet, King Lear, Ophelia, Macbeth, Lady Macbeth. They come alive during performances and persist even afterward, continuing to resonate within audiences. Each of these characters embodies universal human experiences—love, betrayal, madness, ambition, and tragedy—making them timeless figures whose stories transcend their historical contexts.
The same situation applies to characters in film, theatre, television, and other forms of popular culture: Indiana Jones in film, Walter White from television's Breaking Bad, Tony Stark (Iron Man) from Marvel's cinematic universe, Dorothy from The Wizard of Oz, and Frodo Baggins from The Lord of the Rings. These characters have deeply impacted popular culture, resonating with audiences across diverse media and becoming iconic in their own right. They are in people's imaginations, individual and collective.
Public Figures as Characters in our Imaginations
The characters we experience in literature, film, and television are not the only characters we encounter. Given the pervasive role of social media and electronic communication today, we now also experience public figures as "characters" we support or reject, love or hate. These characters, too, live inside us, in our imaginations. These characters often transcend the flesh-and-blood people identified with them; they have lives of their own. Frequently, the real individuals find themselves attempting to live up to, or perform, the characters associated with them. In this respect, Harry Potter, Hamlet, Barack Obama and Donald Trump have much in common; they live in our imaginations as ghost-like presences, among the "many" that "become one," moment by moment in our minds.
Attraction and Repulsion
Characters can inspire empathy, admiration, and identification, guiding us toward ideals of courage, integrity, and resilience. Examples include Atticus Finch from To Kill a Mockingbird, whose sense of justice and moral fortitude inspires readers to stand against prejudice. Or Frodo Baggins from The Lord of the Rings, whose bravery and self-sacrifice in the face of overwhelming evil inspire hope and perseverance. Another example is Hermione Granger from the Harry Potter series, whose intelligence, determination, and sense of fairness inspire readers to value knowledge, advocate for justice, and persevere in the face of adversity.
Conversely, characters can also repel us. Characters who embody traits we find abhorrent, frightening, or morally repugnant serve an important function in narratives. Consider characters such as Lord Voldemort from the Harry Potter series, Hannibal Lecter from The Silence of the Lambs, or Iago from Shakespeare’s Othello. These characters evoke strong negative emotions—fear, disgust, hatred—challenging us to confront darker aspects of humanity. They provoke moral reflection, helping us define our own ethical boundaries and understand the consequences of malevolence, manipulation, and cruelty.
Subjects and Predicates
In order to think more about characters, consider the linguistic structure of subjects and predicates. A subject is a character or entity about which something is being said, while the predicate conveys information about the subject’s actions, qualities, or states. Characters function as subjects within narratives; their identities and personalities are illuminated through predicates—descriptions of what they do, say, think, and feel. These predicates shape readers' and viewers' perceptions of characters, creating a dynamic interplay between who the characters are (subjects) and how they are presented (predicates).
This relationship underscores the narrative complexity of characters. A character is never merely a name or a static figure but a living subject continually defined and redefined by predicates, evolving through plots, interactions, and audiences' interpretive responses. Understanding characters involves analyzing this ongoing relationship between the subjects and the predicates that bring them to life. Characters are not isolated egos; they exist in and through their relations with others.
Whitehead’s Categories of Existence
What kind of existence does a literary character have? Is the character real? What does "real" mean in this context? In what ways does a character exist, even if only in the imagination?
Here, the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead is helpful. In Process and Reality, he proposes eight "categories of existence" by which items of experience can be understood: actual entities, eternal objects, prehensions, subjective forms, nexuses, contrasts, propositions, and multiplicities. All are real in the sense that they can genuinely be experienced, whether physically or imaginatively, awake or asleep, consciously or unconsciously. We experience characters in dreams, too.
I offer a suggestion. Characters in the imagination are a form of what Whitehead calls "propositions." For many, this word suggests a logical statement meant to be "true" or "false." But Whitehead considers it more important that propositions be interesting rather than merely true or false. Moreover, propositions need not be articulated in written or spoken language; a gesture, an image, or a sound can also be propositional. In Whitehead’s philosophy, propositions are "lures for feeling"—ideas, images, or performances functioning as real potentials inviting us to perceive and respond to the world in particular ways.
Characters, then, can be understood as complex propositions—complex lures for feeling. They serve as vibrant centers of affective resonance, living in our individual and collective imaginations as intermediaries between actuality and potentiality. Their nature is partly determined by audiences' and creators' interpretations and partly by their intrinsic nature. Thus, their existence is relational—they depend on others while also possessing a form of selfhood.
This selfhood is not entirely passive; characters exert agency within their imaginative spaces, shaping emotions, influencing thoughts, and even inspiring real-world decisions. They are, themselves, in process—instances of becoming.
Hamlet In Process
Hamlet exemplifies the ontological complexity of literary characters. Across centuries of interpretations, performances, and adaptations, he has been portrayed variously—as a deeply introspective philosopher or a vengeful prince caught in a tragic fate. Each enactment reconfigures his affective and conceptual presence in response to cultural, philosophical, and artistic contexts.
From a Whiteheadian perspective, Hamlet is not a static identity but a fluid field of possibility, continuously actualized in new ways through performances, reader responses, and critical interpretations. Each portrayal—whether by Laurence Olivier, Kenneth Branagh, or a contemporary theater company—constitutes a new concrescence of possibilities, reshaping Hamlet’s presence in cultural memory.
Moreover, his famous soliloquy—"To be, or not to be"—functions as a lure for feeling, inviting audiences into Hamlet’s existential questioning. The character does not merely act within the play’s world but extends into the subjective experiences of audiences, demonstrating how literary characters inhabit a realm between fiction and reality.
Performing a Character in Film or Theatre
Interestingly, imaginal characters can be performed, not unlike the way we might imitate other people in our lives. Performing a character involves bringing to life the complex lures for feeling that characters represent. Actors engage deeply with their characters’ imaginative potentials, interpreting and embodying subjectivity through physical presence, voice, and emotion. Each performance is a new concrescence—a fresh realization of the character’s possibilities uniquely interacting with audience perceptions.
Actors navigate between their interpretations and the character’s intrinsic nature, shaped by scripts, direction, and cultural contexts. They negotiate between actuality and potentiality, making choices that render characters vividly present and relatable. The performance becomes a co-creative act involving actors, audiences, and evolving traditions, highlighting characters' relational and processual nature in performance.
Performing Character in Politics
Politics, much like theatre, involves the performance of characters. Politicians often craft public personas, performing roles that align with voters' expectations, hopes, or fears. These characters are built through rhetoric, media appearances, and symbolic actions, shaping public perception and influencing electoral outcomes. Figures such as Ronald Reagan, known as the "Great Communicator," or Barack Obama, recognized for his inspirational oratory, exemplify how politicians perform characters embodying certain values or ideals. Conversely, political figures like Richard Nixon or Donald Trump illustrate how public personas can also evoke strong, divisive reactions, serving as characters who both galvanize supporters and repel opponents. Understanding politics through this lens highlights the performative dimension of public life, where the "characters" politicians embody significantly impact democratic processes and public discourse. What is important here, though, is the fact that these personas exist within us, too, as part of our imaginations. That is part of how and why politicians get elected or protested against; their personas are inside us.
Characters in Popular Culture
But it is not simply in politics that characters play a role. They permeate popular cultuve. Characters in popular culture transcend their original narratives. whether in film or some other medium, and become iconic figures deeply embedded in collective consciousness. Characters like Superman, Batman, Sherlock Holmes, and James Bond evolve into cultural phenomena influencing fashion, language, social norms, and attitudes. Continuously adapted and reinterpreted across media—films, TV shows, comics, merchandise, and fan creations—they reflect contemporary issues and values, serving as societal mirrors. Such characters foster communities and shared identities among fans, shaping social life and cultural landscapes profoundly.
Characters and the Cultivation of Empathy
Characters can also play a crucial role in cultivating empathy by allowing readers and viewers to experience lives and situations different from their own. Engaging with diverse characters fosters an understanding of varied perspectives, struggles, and emotions. Readers develop deeper empathy as they imaginatively inhabit characters’ lives, feeling their joys and sorrows. For example, characters like Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird or Elizabeth Bennet in Pride and Prejudice challenge readers to reflect on moral values, ethical choices, and social issues, thereby enhancing empathy, compassion, and emotional intelligence.
Exorcising Destructive Characters
My point in this discussion is to invite us to pay attention to the many characters, and kinds of characters, that occupy space in our imaginations, positively and negatively. In process philosophy, we often say that, in the immediacy of experience, "the many" of the universe "become one" in the here and now of our immediate feeling. My point is that "the many" include characters within us, and that our imaginations are the place where we meet them inwardly. However, it is obvious to most of us that some of these characters, some of these lures for feeling, can become objects of obsession, in which case they are hazardous to our mental health. The question then emerges: Can they be exorcized? And if so, how?
One possible answer is that these characters can indeed be exorcized, or at least managed, through a combination of critical self-awareness, reflective practice, and intentional redirection of our attention. By recognizing when a character becomes obsessive, we can consciously remind ourselves of its fictional or constructed nature, thus reducing its power over us. Mindfulness techniques and cognitive-behavioral strategies can also help create psychological distance from these obsessive characters. Engaging in dialogue with others and seeking diverse perspectives can further weaken the grip these characters have on our imaginations, allowing healthier and more balanced interactions with the "many" that dwell within us.
God as a Character
God, too, can be understood as a character who occupies significant space in our imaginations, shaping our feelings, attitudes, and actions. Different images of God have dramatically different effects on individuals and communities. A punitive image of God as a strict, judgmental figure who metes out punishment can instill fear, guilt, and anxiety. This character may become oppressive and obsessive, leading to rigid moralism, self-condemnation, or exclusionary practices.
In contrast, the image of God as love—compassionate, empathetic, nurturing, and relational—can inspire trust, openness, and a sense of interconnectedness with others and the world. This understanding of God, central to open and relational (process) theology, fosters emotional healing, encourages growth, and builds inclusive communities grounded in empathy and mutual care.
What is happening in open and relational theology is essentially an impulse to exorcize the punitive, judgmental image of God and welcome instead a God of unconditional love and endless creative possibility. This shift is not merely theological but profoundly psychological and communal, as it transforms how individuals relate to themselves, to others, and to the divine presence they carry within their imaginations.
Healthy Agnosticism and Images of God
A healthy agnosticism can agree that the character of God as loving is preferable to that of God as punitive, even while remaining unconvinced that this character corresponds to an actual entity. From an agnostic standpoint, images of God serve important psychological and ethical functions, shaping our values, behaviors, and emotional wellbeing. A loving image of God can provide comfort, hope, and moral guidance without necessarily requiring belief in the literal existence of a divine being. Agnostics may view these images metaphorically or symbolically, appreciating their beneficial effects while maintaining openness or skepticism about ultimate metaphysical truths. This approach allows for an inclusive and flexible engagement with religious and spiritual concepts, promoting mental and communal health without dogmatic certainty.
The God of Love Acting Through Characters in Our Imagination
In open and relational theology, the God of love, whether understood as a character in the imagination and that alone, or as an actual entity, is understood not only as a comforting presence but also as an active force working through the many characters in our imagination. Characters who embody compassion, empathy, courage, and justice can be seen as channels or expressions of divine love. This divine influence, or "lure," operates through these characters, inspiring us to act in loving, creative, and transformative ways. Thus, when we encounter characters such as Harry Potter's courage, Hamlet's introspection, or Atticus Finch's integrity, we can interpret these qualities as manifestations of the divine lure towards greater compassion, understanding, and moral growth. This perspective enriches our engagement with characters, recognizing them as vehicles through which the God of love actively shapes our inner and communal lives.
Conclusion
It is tempting to think that because characters exist within our imagination, they are somehow less real than the entities we encounter in the physical world. I suggest the contrary: they are just as real, though in a different way. Rather than imaginary, they are imaginal, possessing their own form of reality. In their imaginality, they are essential to who and what we are. Process philosophy often emphasizes that we live in a relational universe; my suggestion is that some of our most significant relations are with these imaginal characters.