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

[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.