Miss Granger’s Intelligence

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

“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?

Comments

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I had the impression that Rowena was smarter than the other Founders. Even if that was with the bauble, (a) she had to have smarts to create it in the first place, and then (b) there's nothing to say she was dumber than the lads without it.

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

But if you already are the smartest around, why put your energy in a trinket that will make you even smarter?

If you're already knowledgeable, why learn more? Rowena wanted more, it seems, and perhaps a desire to benefit her heirs.

It seems that Rowling is unable to give anyone who is not self-insert-Harry his or her due, stretches even to the Founders

Let's not forget who's credited with the idea for the Sorting Hat, or whose relic was the only one that wasn't Horcruxified.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

But if you already are the smartest around, why put your energy in a trinket that will make you even smarter?

Because smart people know that brains - and hence, being smarter - is the only/best thing to make you even better.

I'm reminded of a short story by Robert Heinlein, which told the tale of evolved humans with super I.Q.s. When asked 'what facet of yourselves would you want to improve, if you could?', their answer - the only answer - was to be smarter still. It's man's brain which makes him better than the animals, even though they have superior sight, smell, strength, etc. Therefore it's man's superior brain which will set him above normal men.

This might even hold true for wizards.

Anyway, if intellect is the best characteristic to improve, and Rowena is already smart, then she's going to be even more certain that her brainpower is what should be amplified even more.

We get lots of stuff about Gryffindor and Slytherin

Most of that being bad stuff. Slytherin is the bad guy, Gryffindor his opponent. Meanwhile the two ladies are good girls too.

If Rowling had painted Helga as a shrew or Ravenclaw as an evil witch you'd possibly be complaining about that too!

She was merely considered the smartest and wittiest of the four because she had a magic doohicky that MADE her the smartest of the four! Weeeelllll... *sneer sneer sneer* bloody *anyone* can be 'the smartest of them all' with a magic intelligence enhancer! What a cheat!"

I guess some readers might have thought that, but in the near 4 years since DH came out this is the first time I've ever come across the notion. Myself, the bad writing and ridiculous plot had rendered me largely insensate by the point where the Gray Lady conveniently hove into view to conveniently give Harry her convenient story about where the Horcrux conveniently was.

The point is that her author felt the need to make (a part of) her intelligence artificial which is rather telling.

Only if you approach it with your mindset; which, as covered above, doesn't hold as an objectively concrete truth. There's nothing in the books which nails down how much of Rowena's I.Q. was artificial. And I disagree; it *is* important as to whether she was 'already' smart. If she was, no foul, no problem; at least from my point of view.

So what is the meta-message here?

You're amplifying all of the blank space that's between the sparse sentences supporting your theory and getting a lot of noise back. You've already admitted that two of the four Founder objects are unknown in terms of their utility. So all you've got to go on is Godric's sword, 25% of the samples. So, Rowena was kind enough - or not arrogant enough - to gift her artifact to just a subset of the population. With only one other Founder object with its properties known we don't know whether the diadem was the odd man out, or the sword.

Or maybe - yes - the reality is that *everyone* has 'smartness' - just in different degrees. We all have an I.Q. Some of us, though, aren't brave at all; we'll *always* take the safest path. So Rowena's bequest could be gifted to anyone, unlike the sword, which would, after all, never be used by a coward. To put it another way - why give the sword to someone who'll never use it? Whereas everyone uses their brains! (To a degree.)

How smart can she have been to begin with?

And you're making something of a circular argument. A few paragraphs earlier you proposed that it didn't matter how smart Rowena originally was, and you proceeded to damn her saying that it was irrelevant. Now you've ended up making that assertion after all.

While your view of things may be consistent with the canon there's certainly nothing in the books which proves that you are correct. Your view is biased by your impressions of a couple of passing sentences in the books and you've built a LOT of speculation on top of them. I didn't get those impressions when I read the text, and so the molehill on which your mountain of theorising is based doesn't exist for me. I can see and understand yours though. :-)

[detritius.livejournal.com]

Because smart people know that brains - and hence, being smarter - is the only/best thing to make you even better.

Is there any factual basis to that statement? Because it sounds like a generalization to me. I've met a lot of smart people in my life, and I don't think any of them had this attitude. Most of these people work to improve in a variety of areas, be it physical strength, emotional fortitude, concentration, leadership, empathy, work ethic, etc.. I'd think a truly smart person would realize that there are a huge number number of skills, attributes, and experiences out there. Valuing one trait so highly over all the others could lead to a seriously imbalanced life, or at least, that's my zen-influenced view of it.

I'm not going to take a side on the rest of the post. This just jumped out at me.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Is there any factual basis to that statement?

I don't know of any. I was just impressed by the reasoning established in that science fiction short story. I read it in a Robert Heinlein anthology Assignment in Eternity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assignment_in_eternity); the story Gulf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_%28Heinlein%29) impressed me with its logic. If man was superior to the beasts only because of our brains, what would then be the next step of evolution to make a 'super man'? Greater strength? Keener sight? But gorillas and elephants are stronger than us. Eagles have better eyesight. Yet mankind is the dominant species. So the answer seemed clear. The next step of human evolution would be men ... who think better.

(I say this despite seeing X-Men: First Class last night. :-))

Now, this logic might all fall apart in the world of HP wizards, where maybe the wave of a stick can trump brainpower. After all, Rowling's wizards seem superior to we muggles, and that's because of their magic; she tries to show that they're a bit sillier than us when it comes to logic and brainpower.

But, still, if Rowling was a Founder who believed in *intelligence* as an admirable virtue, then I think it would be quite likely that she'd want to devise of ways to enhance that trait even more. That makes sense to me.

I'd think a truly smart person would realize that there are a huge number number of skills, attributes, and experiences out there.

Sure. I'd like to be able to play the piano. But I reckon 20 more I.Q. points would help me out a lot more - in my career, in investments, in making a good life for myself - than picking up that skill. If I was offered both improvements I'd take them. But if I was offered only one ... or asked which was the most important ... it'd be the opportunity to be a brainier Brad. :-)

[the-bitter-word.livejournal.com]

If the sword can only benefit those who are already brave and act with their hands to fight, then it seems the crown can only be worn by those who are already intelligent and act with their heads to think. It is possible that neither object seeks to increase what is already there, but rather assist in its use, perhaps focus the traits the bearer possesses.

Also, step off my girl, Rowena! I don't want to get into the personal, but I am the consummate Ravenclaw. I've never valued fame or physical prowess or influencing people or even having friends as much as I've valued knowledge and the ability to use it better and faster. Rowena is my avatar. There is hardly anything in the books to indicate she was not as smart as her legend made her out to be. Helena is the one who coveted smartness, who stole the diadem. She is the one with the trite, tragic and diminishing romantic plot.

Moreover... I've always felt, even as a tiny child, that the ability to exercise intelligence was also an exercise in creativity, in imagination. Look at the entrance to Ravenclaw Tower. Book memorization alone doesn't give the passwords, but rather the ability to make connections between ideas and take leaps of fancy. Reading in itself is a creative action. Certainly fandom is, for better or evil.

I never "got" Hermione's character. On a deep level, I never understood her anxiety about getting the right answers or pleasing her teachers, or her willingness to trade her book smarts for friendship. She might have done well in Slytherin, if she kept her friends ignorant to keep them dependent on her, as some have suggested. But the Sorting Hat was probably right about Hermione. She valued dominance, recognition and, to a certain extent, physical excitement, like a Gryffindor, not a life of the mind or of creativity, like a Ravenclaw.

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

"Rowling gives us four Founders. We get lots of stuff about Gryffindor and Slytherin, but she hardly tells us anything about the girl Founders (we get nothing about Helga but that she "took the students that were left over" which sounds like what one of those classic Stepford Wives Fifties moms would do: serve others first and take for herself the scrapings of the bin, claiming she "was not hungry")."

And that's the thing. Everytime I see someone who tries to tell us, "Oh, that wonderful Wizarding World of those wonderful Harry Potter books is soooooo much more feminist than ours because there were FEMALE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS and TWO FEMALE FOUNDERS OF HOGWARTS" I get sore annoyed, because for all the talk of female government officials we never see them, and as for the four founders, well... the only ones who REALLY matter are Gryffindor and Slytherin. The women's houses are completely unimportant!

Granted, I hate the disgusting superiority of the WW so much that even if it was more feminist than our world, which it isn't, I'd be adamantly denying that it was anyway just so it didn't look better than the real world.

[jodel-from-aol.livejournal.com]

If I were going to invent a magical intelligence enhancer it would work like a very sophisticated search engine. Sure, you may know it all, but can you think of it all at once?

Hey! Memory access: Here is the problem, what can you find me that might be related to it? And how do these potential components relate to each other.

Won't put any information there that you haven't got already, so you need to keep adding data, but it will organize it for you. Consequently, for some people it will work very well indeed. For others, not so much.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Actually, if I learned anything from my reference class this semester, it's that while search engines are very readily available, very few people know how to use them to their full advantage. So perhaps the diadem really DID require a person to have a certain amount of intelligence, if just to make sense of the information it presented?

[jodel-from-aol.livejournal.com]

Makes much more sense when you look at it as a tool, rather than a plot token (which is all Rowling used it for). And Helena doesn't sound like she was well-enough informed to get much use of it at all.

Salazar and Helga are both stated as having descendants who survived into the 20th century, but despite all kinds of 3-year summer (and earlier) theories we never really got any information to suggest that Godric did. Frankly, It sounds like he left his Sword to the school as a legacy because he *didn't* have any descendants. Not that under normal circumstances a sword is likely to be much *use* to a school. Probably just a bloody-minded refusal to let the Goblins have it back.

Yeah, the Locket=Basilisk goggles was a really fun theory. And, again, it was a *tool*. So whatever Helga's Cup's purpose was it is much more interesting to assume that it was intended as a tool of some sort. Whether to measure with, or to test for poison (or any kind of unknown magical component), or whatever. It sounds like it was too small for scrying in.

[karentheunicorn.livejournal.com]

It would have been nice if all those items actually meant something other than being a elaborate scavanger hunt.

I think it would have been much more interesting if founders historical relics would have been a key in 'creating' the downfall of Voldemort. Yea, I know Harry had to find them but he had to basicly destroy them to kill voldie bits. What I'm talking about is, something like bringing the 4 items together to create the ultimage magical united something that would defeat the soulsplit monster that was Voldie.

And like with the Hufflepuff cup, none of these items really meant a whole hell of a lot. Oh, sorry except for the sword, the sword could overpower and destroy all the other founders items. Basicly thats what happened in a certain way it was apparently better than all the other founder items.

Ravenclaw was seemigly the second best, which we know actually did something. But the locket and the cup just seem to hang around and JKR never invests anything in them to really explain what was so special magical about them. The sword, even like a King Arthur legend sword can choose a person as being more noble and brave than the rest.

It's just another disappointment and the founder items come across as video game questing items. But at least in Legend of Zelda the fricking magical items you hunt for actually DO somethign for you and help you on your quest. Harry might as well have been hunting for the magical boomerange - oh wait, maybe it was Voldemort who had that because ever time he cast a spell at harry it apparently bounced back on him. =p

[the-bitter-word.livejournal.com]

Not only did the non-Gryffindor founders' relics have a negligible part in saving the Wizarding world, that part consisting of their destruction, they were corruptible and lost by those who were corrupt. Meanwhile, the Gryffindor Sword was jealously guarded by the pure-hearted Elect and was wielded by one of them to save the Wizarding world. It was not destroyed.

How do you like that symbolism?

[karentheunicorn.livejournal.com]

Gryffindors always win...

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

Oh, crap, you're right! That pretty much confirms in a symbolic sense that Gryffindor is the best house and that the proper place of all the others is supporting them.

Ms. Rowling, YOU SUCK!! FUCK YOU!!!!!!!!

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

After Swythyv posted her basilisk goggles theory, I got the idea that the founders had each developed an object that could be used by the current headmaster/headmistress to defend Hogwarts. Perhaps all four objects were originally meant to be stored in the sorting hat.

[majorjune.livejournal.com]

Actually, if I learned anything from my reference class this semester, it's that while search engines are very readily available, very few people know how to use them to their full advantage. So perhaps the diadem really DID require a person to have a certain amount of intelligence, if just to make sense of the information it presented?

Reminds me of a temp job I had circa 1994-95...

I'd been a programmer analyst who'd been laid off, hence my working temp and contract positions at the time. This one job was at a company who wanted to be one of the first to establish a virtual department store on the internet -- quite cutting-edge for the time.

So they needed people to do research, on the internet, on the various products they were going to be offering, to gather various specifications for the product which would be used in the eventual product description in their virtual store.

And on my first day they handed me a stack of papers -- I'm talking almost a ream of paper -- listing all the computers they wanted me to look up, with a list of the various specifications they wanted data for.

They told me that they expected it to take me almost a month to complete, but if I could get it done within two weeks they'd be ecstatic.

I had it done in 2 and a half days.

Because I came from a programming background, I understood what specifications they were looking for, I understood WHAT those specifications meant, and I also understood when a certain brand might use a different type of wording to describe the same thing.

Now I can't claim that my getting the assignment done in 2.5 days shows that I'm somehow smarter than the average bear...but the assignment lasted a couple of months, with subsequent research into china, rice cookers, stereo systems...and while those took longer than 2.5 days, I was consistently finishing each research project much more quickly than had been expected, because even tho back then what search engines were available were much less powerful than today, I also understood how to read the information on the sites I found, and glean kernals of information that I could use for further investigation, rather than giving up and complaining "I can't find anything!" like many of my fellow temp workers did.

The hardest research, BTW, was on binoculurs...not one binocular manufacturer provided any real, HARD, data/specifications on their product(s) -- lots of fluff, no meat.

That assignment took me the longest of all, but I still completed it, and within a reasonable amount of time -- because I discovered a wealth of technical information on binoculars was available on the internet via two different groups: bird watchers (understandable), and hobby astronomers (who apparantly carry a good set of binoculars with them at all times to quickly site something interesting in the sky before going to the bother of setting up a full telescope apparatus).

So I guess my ability to ferret out information via non-obvious paths indicates that my brain wasn't completely nonfunctioning... LOL

Perhaps Ravenclaw's diadem acted the same way -- it would have helped my fellow temps who gave up so easily to be able to see other paths of research.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

I also understood how to read the information on the sites I found, and glean kernals of information that I could use for further investigation, rather than giving up and complaining "I can't find anything!" like many of my fellow temp workers did.

This reminds me a lot of the aforementioned class I took. The first few exercises were absolutely killer, but once I got used to it I became much better and faster at it. Besides, even if a resource didn't work for one question I needed to answer, I could always file it away for the next time I had a related one.