deathtocapslock | Miss Granger’s Intelligence (Reply)

“When to her lute Corinna sings
neither words nor music are her own….

Not that it is done well, but
that it is done at all? Yes, think of the odds
or shrug them off forever!

… Bemused by gallantry, we hear
our mediocrities over-praised,
indolence read as abnegation,
slattern thought styled intuition…”

from “Snapshots of a Daughter-in-Law” by Adrienne Rich, 1958-60

In sexist circles, there was an interesting evolution over time in the disparagement of women’s intelligence—not in that it was disparaged as less than men’s, but how. Way back when almost all women were illiterate, it was common to claim that women were less capable than men of learning, that we simply lacked men’s higher mental functions. When it became common for girls to be taught to read, it was decided that we were capable of rote learning but not critical thinking. (Milton, author of that stirring call for freedom of thought, the Areopagitica, taught his daughters to pronounce Latin and Greek so they could read texts to him, but did not allow them to learn what the sounds they made meant.) When most girls were only educated to sixth or eighth grade levels, it was argued that high school would be too hard for our weak little minds. But then when girls did start going on to high school in larger numbers, we, oddly, did well there. However, it was mostly boys who went on to college because college would be too intellectually rigorous for girls and we didn’t need it anyway to be a good wife-and-mother. Then girls started going to college in nearly equal numbers as did boys, and…

And this is about where both Jo and I came in, you see.

When Jo and I were in our late teens, the sexist party line about women’s intellectual inferiority had become: okay, girls often got better grades than boys even in college because we were more docile and retentive. But boys had more true intelligence, because they were creative whereas girls were merely good at regurgitating information that their betters had discovered.

Now, you have to understand: as a feminist from about age 19, I formally, consciously disavowed such sexist teachings.

But for myself… well, I didn’t go on to grad school in part because I was terrified of proving that it might be true, that being top of the class didn’t mean I would be incapable of original work.

And, of course, believing that it was so, it was so: I didn’t attempt what I thought of as original research. And I consistently underrated the creativity in the intellectual work that I did do (college papers, writing, computer programming) because I knew that I lacked the capacity for originality.

Er, right. But I really did think that, and as a very young woman I did let that belief constrain my choices.

Moreover, I can attest that there is actually a very good reason to recite the book rather than present one’s own conclusions (besides, of course, that of having no conclusions of one’s own worth presenting). Answering a question by quoting the book means one can’t get the answer wrong. If one simultaneously lacks self-confidence and bases her fragile self-worth on being smart, “not being wrong” is worth almost any stifling of one’s originality.

Does this remind you of any of Jo’s characters?

Now back up to look at the smart boys in the Potter books: Albus, whose magical innovations had him corresponding with adult researchers—to their awed delight, we are told—from age fourteen or so. Gellert, expelled from Durmstrang at sixteen for “twisted experiments.” Tom, who at age eleven was experienced at inventing ways to hurt and control those around him. The Prince’s creative little jinxes and constant improvements to potions recipes. The Marauders, creating their Map. The Weasley twins and their Wheezes.

In fact, the only male teen character in the Potterverse who is presented as clearly very smart but not creative is Percy Weasley. Whose great flaw is the feminine weakness of liking rules and order rather too much. And who is a “Mamma’a boy.”

Now look at the (few) smart girls and women we see. Minerva, supremely competent in her field but never credited with innovations in it. “Loony” Lovegood, whose brilliance is marred by terminal eccentricity (and whom we never see create anything except weird jewelry). Lily-Sue, floating from a swing and opening flowers as a child, credited by Horace with “intuitive” brilliance in potions-making, but never shown writing or producing anything of significance (slattern thought?). Bellatrix, mistress of Dark magic—but again, mastering known spells, never creating her own. And, of course, Miss Granger.

In fact, I only remember one citation in canon itself (not interviews, websites, etc.) about a witch doing original magical research: Luna’s mother.

“She was a quite extraordinary witch, but she did like to experiment and one of her spells went rather badly wrong one day.”

The key word in that statement is “but.” Mrs. Lovegood’s interest in experimenting was counter to her being “an extraordinary witch,” not an intrinsic (perhaps, defining?) part of it as the Prince’s or young Dumbledore’s was.

On cannot imagine any witch or wizard saying, “Dumbledore was quite an extraordinary wizard, BUT he did things with a wand I’d never seen before,” or “Without the Prince I’d never have won the Felix Felicis, BUT he did like to experiment….”

And notice that the witch killed herself by her experimenting, as none of the wizards did.

Which gender is a witch, and which a wizard, again? Remind me, please; I think I may have lost track.

I think Ms. Rowling’s internalized sexism is showing again.

Finally, regarding Miss Granger’s actual intelligence: it can only be inferred from her actions, and one’s actions are determined by one’s socialization as well as by one’s underlying potential.

I think that (like myself at a like age) Hermione’s overwhelming insecurity would make her feel safer regurgitating books than venturing to present her own thoughts. Her insecurity is attested to in canon (and sorting to anti-intellectual Gryffindor reinforced it. “Books! And cleverness! There are more important things….” This is NOT the motto of House Ravenclaw.).

So Hermione’s canon tendency to rely on quoting her texts is not in itself proof she hasn’t the capacity to think critically and originally.

As a teen I loved math classes, and equations in my science classes, because equations all have one right answer, and if you approach the problem correctly you can always achieve that right answer. Always, for the questions posed in high school texts. Whereas the fuzzier classes sometimes raised questions that didn’t have a right answer, which made me anxious.

What was Hermione’s favorite subject again? And, er, her least?

And, while we don’t see Hermione ever attempting to create a brand-new spell (unless the D.A.’s cursed parchment was), she has no problems adapting spells to perform new functions—using the theory behind the Dark Mark to make charmed galleons, for instance. And she’s the Trio’s problem-solver. Which requires creativity, but doesn’t require one to be overtly creative. (As making a career designing software required creativity, but didn’t require me to admit to it.)

So if Hermione at the end of DH were a real eighteen-year-old girl worrying about whether she possessed “true” (creative) intelligence, or were just good at regurgitating books, I’d probably reassure her that she has already shown herself to be perfectly capable of original and critical thinking, and that she just needs to trust herself more (and perhaps books less). And maybe to give up the crutch of trying always to venture only “the right answer,” when sometimes there are more than one, or none.

I agree that Hermione can be read as the author’s failed attempt to write a character substantially brighter than herself. But Hermione can also be read convincingly as a subconscious sexist’s classic caricature of a bright “girl”—good memory, but intrinsically second-rate—a wholly derivative thinker! (Particularly as almost all the bright male characters, good and bad, are portrayed as strongly creative.) But I think the character can also, and perhaps most interestingly, be read as a depiction of a truly gifted girl hobbled by her own insecurities and socialization.

Thoughts?