On racism in the Potterverse-

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

This quote was in our advent bulletin, and it struck me very strongly.
There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations – these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat.

That, of course, is C.S. Lewis. I believe the quote is taken from Mere Christianity. Once upon a time, when the Potter books were becoming enormously popular, Rowling gave an interview - I think in Time magazine. In this interview, she took some pains to distinguish herself from C.S. Lewis. One thing I remember her saying is that her books were different from his because, in hers, the children would be allowed to grow up. One can ask whether, in the end, the trio did grow up. I rather think not. But that's not the major difference I see in the two authors' works.

If you read the Narnia books attentively, you can see that Lewis really believed the extraordinary statement he made above. Yes, from a modern pov, one can read him as racist and sexist. But NO ONE in the Narnia books is condemned because of their birth, social status, or genetic heritage. Everyone has free will and everyone, in the end, can choose to come to Aslan's country. It's up to them whether they will so choose or not.

In the Potter books, there is a sort of Venn diagram of specialness. The vast majority of people are Muggles. They cannot even see Hogwarts, and the special people treat them, at best, with condescension. Inside this large circle is a tiny one, of all the Witches and Wizards. They are the real human beings, the people who matter. Inside this tiny circle, again, is another circle, consisting of perhaps 1/4 of the magical people. These are the Gryffindors, and they are the elect.*

Nobody can choose to be magical, as Calormenes like Emeth and Aravis, Dwarves like Poggin and Trumpkin, beasts like Reepicheep and Puzzle, and ordinary humans like the Pevensie parents can choose to love Aslan. If Muggles could choose magic, Petunia would surely have accompanied Lily to Hogwarts. She didn't. You are either born a Wizard, or you're nothing.

Nor, some fans to the contrary, do you get to choose whether you're a Gryffindor. We've all beaten this dead horse repeatedly, I know, but it's worth repeating. Dumbledore does not tell Harry that our choices make us what we are. He says our choices show what we are. If we choose to be in Gryffindor, that is because we are predestined to be among the elect. If we choose to be in Slytherin, then there is probably no help for us - at least, not as far as I can see.

Against this background of extreme privilege, Rowling attempts to tell a story in which racism is the primary evil. The fact that every Witch and Wizard we see is racist against Muggles simply doesn't matter - because Muggles don't matter. And there is no analysis, in the books, of how anti-Muggle racism leads naturally to anti-Muggleborn racism. It's perfectly okay to mock and torment the Dursleys. But it's not okay to mock and torment Hermione, who is a Witch. It's especially not okay to mock Harry, the hero.

Contrast this, again, with Lewis. He says, ...it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit–immortal horrors or everlasting splendours...Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbor is the holiest object presented to your senses.

Quite a contrast, isn't it? Whatever you think of Lewis, ask yourself this: what sort of boy would Harry have become if he had realized, even for one moment, that Uncle Vernon and Aunt Petunia were immortals?

Just a thought.

Comments

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

Whatever you think of Lewis, ask yourself this: what sort of boy would Harry have become if he had realized, even for one moment, that Uncle Vernon and Aunt Petunia were immortals?

Oh, very good question. As you probably know, I agree with you so much about why Rowling's supposed Christian allegory falls horribly flat (and worse), and this is a major part of it. Also, the point that anti-Muggle prejudice leads to anti-Muggleborn prejudice, yes, I totally agree. (One of the most shudder-worthy analyses of the books I read was one that pointed out that Harry was Just Like Jesus because, among other reasons, they both had two natures: human/divine and Muggle/wizard. Ick ick ick.)

I do disagree slightly with the use of 'race' as the term, however. Not because anti-Muggle/born prejudice is 'not as bad' as our-world racism (of course it's just as bad), but because of the way that it fails to take the particular situation of Muggleborns into account. It ends up collapsing race, talent and abledness together in a very icky way, due to how the HP books are written and how magical inheritance works in them (raisingal has a good essay on this). So I guess I'd prefer 'blood prejudice' or 'anti-Muggle/born prejudice,' although those are not perfect either since they perhaps do not really have the same immediate sense of "-ism = prejudice + power" that racism, sexism, etc. have. But at least they avoid the ickiness around abledness and talent.

Which is not to say that any of your points are wrong - they're not, you hit the nail on the head. Even the most 'enlightened' characters are rather...icky. Arthur, for example, or Dumbledore. But at least it helps explain (sadly) how Hermione can end up feeling the right to mind-wipe her parents as if they had no right to have a say in the matter.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Thanks! And I understand your problem with the word "race"; anti-Muggleborn prejudice seems to me much more like the prejudice of the Inquisition against Jewish and Muslim Conversos in Spain. I've said so before, and shouldn't really have used the word "racism", which is inaccurate here.

I would love to know who wrote that shudder-worthy analysis. So wizards are divine, are they? That is indeed icky!

Glad you liked the essay!

[granatapfelrot.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's just so weird and rather disgusting.
Hermione and Lily both are the daughters of the equivalent of shaved apes in the value system of the WW, to say it bluntly, so it's only logical, that wizards would be suspicious of them at the very least.
Everything else doesn't make a lick of sense!
In GoF Harry actually defends Hermione with the words 'she's a witch'. I don't remember the specifics, it was a scene with Malfoy at the Quidditch World Cup, I think.
And there is Ron's remark, that inbreeding might ruin/kill magical people or something like that. Is there some brainwashing going on in the WW to make Muggles and Muggleborns attractive as breeding stock? No wonder, that the traditional Purebloods are appalled over Dumbledore and his ideas...
Or maybe the Purebloods see Muggles as animals and Dumbledore's side sees them as people who are somewhat disabled and pitiful?

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's what gets to me. Given what we see in the Wizarding World, the Death Eaters' beliefs are more logical than anyone else's. To make things worse, in an interview, Rowling asserted that all "Muggleborns" actually had some wizarding ancestry - making the Death Eaters even more right. Sionna_Raven cited that interview. She was shocked. I am, too.

And I do think we're supposed to believe that the "good guys" see Muggleborns as disabled, while the "bad guys" see them as animals. Don't get me started on how everyone treats animals in this series!

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

If you read the Narnia books attentively, you can see that Lewis really believed the extraordinary statement he made above. Yes, from a modern pov, one can read him as racist and sexist. But NO ONE in the Narnia books is condemned because of their birth, social status, or genetic heritage. Everyone has free will and everyone, in the end, can choose to come to Aslan's country. It's up to them whether they will so choose or not.

Maybe so, but inexperienced children get installed on the thrones at Cair Paravel over far more qualified adult Talking Animals, dryads, naiads, River Gods, merfolk, etc based solely on their species. And let's not forget Mr Beaver's* remark on how non-humans who look human are untrustworthy and evil.

And let's face it, if you don't agree with or match up to Lewis' ideas of How Things Work, you're literally damned. On a matter of scale, that's somewhat more hubristic than JKR's figurative damnation of the "unworthy".

Nobody can choose to be magical, as Calormenes like Emeth and Aravis, Dwarves like Poggin and Trumpkin, beasts like Reepicheep and Puzzle, and ordinary humans like the Pevensie parents can choose to love Aslan.

It's a small thing, but I disagree with your assumption that people can choose whether they love someone. (And whether or not Aslan is worthy of such devotion is another matter entirely.)

These are the Gryffindors, and they are the elect.*

You mean like the Narnians, the only people to whom Aslan bothers to show himself?**

I think you're giving Lewis a bit too much credit here.

* Seriously, Maugrim, Trufflehunter, Reepicheep, Jewel, Fledge, and all the rest get proper names - what's going on with the Beavers? Are they the beaver equivalents of Adam and Eve?

** The Calormenes' faith in Tash is far more impressive, given that he only turns up to herald the end of the world.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

I think we're mostly going to have to agree to differ, but (as I said above), I can see why people have problems with Lewis. Where I disagree with you (and we will therefore have to agree to differ) is here:
1. You mean like the Narnians, the only people to whom Aslan bothers to show himself?** This is canonically incorrect. It is canon that (a) everyone in the Narniaverse will meet Aslan at some point, and (b) that Aslan has different forms in different worlds.

2. if you don't agree with or match up to Lewis' ideas of How Things Work, you're literally damned. On a matter of scale, that's somewhat more hubristic than JKR's figurative damnation of the "unworthy".
Really? I don't see the difference, except that people in the Narniaverse can change and do have choices. Edmund, Eustace, Uncle Andrew, and Puzzle are the examples of this. One of my problems with DH is my conviction that Rowling intends to quite literally damn Snape to hell. The symbolism is quite clear. It's equally clear that Aslan damns nobody. People (and beasts) choose to close their own eyes and ears to him.

About whether you can choose to love - interesting question. My great aunt had a saying: "Love will go where it's sent." Her implication was that you could, indeed, choose to love someone unworthy of you. That said, I do have problems with condemning someone - like Tom Riddle - who cannot love, through no fault of his own.

To sum up, you may think Christianity primitive and barbaric, and perhaps it is. But there is no doubt that Lewis wrote theologically coherent books, while Rowling did not.

Thanks for your comment, anyway.

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

To sum up, you may think Christianity primitive and barbaric, and perhaps it is.

I didn't mean to imply that, and I'm sorry that it came across that way. I do, however, find the Christianity portrayed in Lewis' books to be problematic (in part because he comes across as equally didactic about both his faith in God and his problematic beliefs).

[oryx_leucoryx]

Nor, some fans to the contrary, do you get to choose whether you're a Gryffindor. We've all beaten this dead horse repeatedly, I know, but it's worth repeating. Dumbledore does not tell Harry that our choices make us what we are. He says our choices show what we are. If we choose to be in Gryffindor, that is because we are predestined to be among the elect. If we choose to be in Slytherin, then there is probably no help for us - at least, not as far as I can see.

As expected, Rowling shoots herself in the foot further with Pottermore. She wrote there that Neville wanted to be placed in Hufflepuff, but the Hat insisted to place him in Gryffindor. See, if by mistake a deserving person makes a 'not good enough' choice the Powers That Be correct it for hir.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Oh, good heavens! She really said that? I'm actually a little surprised. Not much - just a little.

I guess, in her way, she's consistent, too. I just find her vision rather appalling. Immoral, as my sister said the other day.

[litlover12.livejournal.com]

You make some very good points!

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Well said. I think one of the main differences between the two authors is that Lewis had a better understanding of his own beliefs and how they impacted his writing. Rowling tries really hard to convince herself that she is a liberal, open-minded person writing a liberal, open-minded series, but her own inability to see the creepiness of the world she has created really exacerbates the situation, especially when she is supported by her legions of loyal fans/toadies. Someday I hope that she will finally realize what sort of books she has written and is properly horrified.

Oh, and there is also the more obvious difference that C.S. Lewis was writing in a time period where his views were the norm. What is Rowling's excuse and why do so many progressive, liberal people insist on defending her? (speaking for my own experience with other otherwise intelligent, perceptive grad students)

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately I think Rowling's views are not that far from the norm in the West today, either. The HP books are creepily accurate representations of thinking in the USA especially (oddly enough). Not sure how different Britain is, but in my experience they aren't THAT far apart....

As to supposedly progressive people defending her: well, frankly, I don't see a great deal of support for close, nuanced reading of ANYTHING in the public sphere, and I also see many people who've never been taught how to do it. People on all sides of the political spectrum shout at each other and insist on the most superficial readings of everything (especially on Faux News, *shudder*), and people go along with it because nobody gave them the tools to say 'hey, wait a minute.' Or at least that's my experience here in the USA, where education is viewed as a secret plot by Satan to destroy the world. Or something.

Is my inner cynic showing through again?

'Sorting too soon'

[malic-ba.livejournal.com]

I'll post this down here where maybe more people will see it.

There are a couple of comments in the sub threads above about whether 'Sometimes we sort too soon' was intended as a compliment.

(Myself, I think that Rowling probably thought it was. I'm not sure how Dumbledore would have intended it, especially since he was talking to the Head of Slytherin House - one who was appointed at DD's whim, as well.)

What do people think Snape 'looking stricken' at that was intended to mean?

Love to hear any replies!

Re: 'Sorting too soon'

[oryx_leucoryx]

My reading: Severus was stricken by Dumbly's insult.

Rowling-sycophants' reading: Severus was responding to the idea that if only he had let the Hat place him in Gryffindor or asked to have been placed in Gryffindor Lily would have been his and his entire life could have been different.

Re: 'Sorting too soon'

[karentheunicorn.livejournal.com]

Stricken implies to me pain so I'm hoping at least JKR meant it that way. It hurt Snape that Dumbledore had the nerve to insult Slytherin. Hopefully that's what Snape's look meant. But he takes it and doesn't respond; later he bitches at Dumbledore about being used. Which actually they never put very much of Severus' rant at Dumbledore in last movie did they? I don't think in the movie he ever accused Dumbledore of 'using' him. Maybe someone can correct me seeing as how I didn't see the last movie and only saw clips on youtubius.

But I'm hoping that looking stricken meant that he took the comment exactly like how I believe the character would. That Dumbledore is a asshole.

[pearlette.livejournal.com]

Interesting post. :)

I’ve been a fangirl of CS Lewis since forever but I can’t help thinking that your post definitely has him playing Good Cop to JKR’s Bad Cop, as it were. I could pick literary holes in Narnia just as much as the Potterverse, were I so inclined (Susan's fate has infuriated readers for decades) but I happen to love Narnia, so I'd rather not dissect something I love.

It's perfectly okay to mock and torment the Dursleys. But it's not okay to mock and torment Hermione, who is a Witch. It's especially not okay to mock Harry, the hero.

Who mocks and torments the Dursleys in canon? You mean Hagrid? Or Dumbledore? But Dumbledore doesn’t despise the Dursleys because they’re Muggles! He lectures them because they are horrible, abusive parents.

what sort of boy would Harry have become if he had realized, even for one moment, that Uncle Vernon and Aunt Petunia were immortals?

Yeah, but ... how many abused children grow up thinking that about their tormentors? Not that Harry’s harrowing childhood is portrayed in a particularly realistic way – indeed, in the first book, the macabre Dickensian horror of his childhood is played strictly for laughs, which is why I’ve always thought JKR’s writing is not unlike that of Roald Dahl’s. As the series matures and darkens, Harry starts to show evidence of emotional damage: he has abandonment issues, anger issues, rejection issues and he withdraws emotionally from his loved ones when under pressure. In real life, however, he would be far more emotionally damaged by his abusive upbringing than he is in canon. But I don’t read HP for its gritty social realism ...!

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

In the first book, Hagrid punishes Dudley for his father's actions. And Fred and George torment Dudley, also. That's what I was talking about.

If it were possible to see the Dursleys as real people, and to see Harry as actually damaged by them - then, yes. I'd understand the universal contempt for them. As it is, I could never take Harry's abuse seriously. He is not in the least cowed by them, and also, it's so very obvious that Petunia, at least, is living her whole life in fear.

And I can't really excuse Dumbledore's treatment of the Dursleys in book 6 - it strikes me as entirely hypocritical, since he was aware of Harry's treatment for ten years and did nothing about it.

I agree that the Narnia books are not perfect - see my comment about Lewis's sexism above. But I really do think that there is a shallowness and mean-spiritedness in Rowling that I, at least, do not find in Lewis. You may disagree.

Thanks for your comment.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Who mocks and torments the Dursleys in canon? You mean Hagrid? Or Dumbledore? But Dumbledore doesn’t despise the Dursleys because they’re Muggles! He lectures them because they are horrible, abusive parents.


No, if he had only chastised them (however hypocritically) about their treatment of Harry, that would have been one thing. But he enters their home uninvited and bangs them on the head with magical drinks, telling them off for rudeness for not inviting him in (when they had no idea he was coming over) and for refusing the drink - when he knows they fear him and his magic. He is behaving completely sadistically to them. The following chapter he tells Harry that Apparating directly into Horace's home would be as rude as barging through the front door - exactly what he did to the Dursleys. He doesn't treat them with any modicum of dignity. Precisely because they were Muggles.

[r-ganymede.livejournal.com]

...ask yourself this: what sort of boy would Harry have become if he had realized, even for one moment, that Uncle Vernon and Aunt Petunia were immortals?

First, I just want to say that, though it's totally clear from the context that it's not what you meant at all, my first thought was still of the immortals from Highlander. As in, Uncle Vernon and Aunt Petunia running around with swords, trying to cut off people's heads. It's an... interesting image XD

Second, I'm not really seeing why the immortal thing even as CS Lewis saw it would make a positive difference to anyone in that situation? My father was an abusive a******, though not as bad as the Dursleys, and believing he would live forever (in any form) would have been nothing but horrifying to me. I can say for certain that it would have made me a worse person with a more negative view of the world.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Thanks for your response! That certainly bears thinking about. If the Dursleys had been presented as realistically abusive, and if Harry's response to them had seemed more realistic, I could have understood the contempt with which they are treated throughout the books. As it is, it's just so clear that Harry is their superior, that Petunia, at least, is living her life in fear, that Dumbledore quite deliberately set up this situation - I just can't take them at all seriously as abusers.

Other than Frank Bryce and Dudley's friends, the Dursleys are the only normal people we see in the books*. And I find the universal prejudice against "Muggles" just appalling. I think it would have helped Harry, as a character, had he ever realized that Muggles were his equals. I find Harry, in HBP and DH, a thoroughly unpleasant kid, just as I find the Wizarding World altogether rife with prejudice. That's what I was getting at. It just bugs me that books that purport to be opposed to prejudice can actually enshrine a couple of varieties of that evil.

Your situation was also markedly different from Harry's because what you had to endure was real. You could not fly onto rooftops or seal bullies behind glass or escape your family entirely for ten months of the year.

But I am sorry if I was offensive. Thanks for your comment.

*I've got to say that I don't find the Dursleys very normal, thank Heavens, though I'm a Muggle and proud of it!

[pearlette.livejournal.com]

I have given this essay more thought. (I've had to split this into two posts.) To return to the OP:

In the Potter books, there is a sort of Venn diagram of specialness. The vast majority of people are Muggles. They cannot even see Hogwarts, and the special people treat them, at best, with condescension. Inside this large circle is a tiny one, of all the Witches and Wizards. They are the real human beings, the people who matter.

Muggles are incidental to the storylines because they’re not the people the author is telling us a story about. Yep, they are often comic relief. But what of that? This is not a fully adult series, when all's said and done. The HP series has always struck me as a slightly more adult version of Roald Dahl. And the Potterverse is not a fully realised world.

Inside this tiny circle, again, is another circle, consisting of perhaps 1/4 of the magical people. These are the Gryffindors, and they are the elect.*

I don’t quite agree that’s what JKR has done. Yes, Gryffindor is her favourite House, we all know that. But this is not the same thing as depicting Gryffindors as the elect. Why do I think that? Because their own world doesn’t treat them like that. My own interpretation of the Wizarding World is that its administration and politics are corrupt and decadent. I am not sure whether JKR intended it to come across like that, but that is certainly how it comes across to me. But the WW never grants Gryffindors special favours. They are certainly not regarded as ‘the elect’ by Ravenclaws, Hufflepuffs and Slytherins! Indeed, being a Gryffindor during the First and Second ‘Voldie-wars’ guarantees trouble because so many Gryffindors put themselves on the front line re: resisting Voldemort. (And, yes, I dearly wish that JKR had shown more Ravenclaws, Hufflepuffs and Slytherins doing the same.)

To repeat: the author’s bias towards her own imaginary House is NOT the same as granting Gryffindors an elect status within the confines of their own imaginary universe. She just doesn’t write them like that. And as we see very plainly, individual Gryffindors can be douchebags, just like a Hufflepuff can be a douchebag (Zachariah Smith).

Nor, some fans to the contrary, do you get to choose whether you're a Gryffindor.

And yet Harry tells little Al that he can pretty much choose to be in Gryffindor if he doesn’t want to be in Slytherin. (Frankly, I hope the Hat sorted Al into Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff ... I just don’t see him as a Slyth, as cool as that would be!)

It does seem odd to me, on a snark comm of all places, that you would interpret canon so literally. Surely as readers we can reach our own interpretations of the Sorting Hat process, especially given seeming contradictions in canon. I mean, does the Hat over-ride people’s inclinations? (I have no idea, and frankly care even less.) Rowling’s fictional brand of magic can work however the heck you want it to work. (Why else would we bother with fanfiction ...?)

[pearlette.livejournal.com]

/cont:

If we choose to be in Slytherin, then there is probably no help for us - at least, not as far as I can see.

Since JKR does include at least three/four redeemed Slytherins – Snape, Horace, arguably Draco or Regulus – I cannot agree that she condemns the House outright. Yes, I would have much preferred a far more nuanced (and downright grown-up) portrayal of Slytherin in the series but actually I think we got that portrayal in SNAPE. For me, his character makes up for a lot (and I don’t care a hoot whether Rowling intended that or not. ;) )

It seems to me that Rowling wrote herself into a pickle. In the first two books, which are children’s stories and not yet the Young Adult genre of the later books, the Slytherins are pretty much pantomime villains and are treated as such. But as the series progressed and darkened, and as its readership matured, obviously that one-dimensional view of Slytherin no longer suffices. Which is why readers get twitchy. But then at least there’s Snape ... and Horace. Two nuanced and interesting characters.

Against this background of extreme privilege, Rowling attempts to tell a story in which racism is the primary evil. The fact that every Witch and Wizard we see is racist against Muggles simply doesn't matter - because Muggles don't matter.

Muggles don’t matter much in this fictional universe because they serve pretty much as plot devices and nothing else (Hermione’s parents being a prime example). Rowling’s magical people at best show a puzzled paternalism towards Muggles. I wouldn’t call that racism: to me it just show that the Potterverse is not a fully realised world. Rowling’s Muggle Britain is nothing like the real Britain and it’s not meant to be, either. The Prime Minister is purely fictional – she wasn’t intending that guy to represent John Major or Tony Blair!

It's perfectly okay to mock and torment the Dursleys.

Yes, because they’re douchebags who abuse a child. I’m totally OK with mocking people like that, especially in fiction! Their abusiveness has got nothing to do with their being Muggles. We see plenty of abusive wizards, after all.

It's especially not okay to mock Harry, the hero.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Who mocks Harry? (Voldemort? Of course he mocks Harry, LOL, that’s his job. :D) Who else mocks Harry? Snape? That’s complicated: many readers, including me, don’t approve of Snape’s bitterness towards Harry (just for the crime of being James’s son) but also think that sometimes his discipline of Harry is merited (since Harry can sometimes be a prat). Seriously, I don’t know what you mean by this or who you are directing this comment at: other characters in the Potterverse? or the actual reader?

[oryx_leucoryx]

The Gryffindors are treated as the elect in that they can get away with everything and the story doesn't recognize their immorality. Even if for a short time Harry is troubled by James' bullying of Severus, he is forgiven and the same action is perceived as all in good fun when Harry thinks of it again. Similarly with the easy way Harry gets off of nearly killing Draco - and Severus is 'mean' for punishing him. etc etc. Gryffindors can be douches, but except for the one or two whose douchery is directed towards Harry their douchebaggery is considered good and fun. See the Marauders, the twins, Hermione, Harry.

And yet Harry tells little Al that he can pretty much choose to be in Gryffindor if he doesn’t want to be in Slytherin.

But Harry is wrong. If the Hat decides you don't belong where you want to be it can override your request. (Mechanistically I don't see why this shouldn't be so, and apparently in Pottermore Rowling claims this is what happened to Neville - he actually wanted to be in Hufflepuff.)

[librasmile.livejournal.com]

WOW...just read your essay. LOVE IT. Am settling down to read the comments, all of them. Can't wait.