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

[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).

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Okay, fair enough. But I guess what I don't understand is: what has this got to do with my essay? With the quotes which I find so moving - and so opposed to what we see in Rowling?

Could you tell me if you really find the first quote: "There are no ordinary people. You have never spoken to a mere mortal," problematic? If you do, could you explain why?

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

There's nothing wrong with the quotes you've selected. However, while Lewis' ideals may have been high and noble, I think that in attempting to portray them in the Narnia books he made mistakes which in some cases are shared by the Potter books*. After all, JKR thinks she's written about heroism and love defeating evil, and there are quotes in the books that are noble and inspiring. I just think if we're criticising JKR's fail for what it is regardless of her stated intentions, it feels unfair to me to say "look at these awesome things Lewis said" while ignoring his fail.

Maybe I'm confused. It's past eleven at night where I am and I should probably get some sleep soon.

* This might derive from the "public school adventure" feel running through both stories.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

You'd need to give some examples, I think. I'd say Lewis's conservative politics come through, but a person's political and theological views aren't necessarily the same.

And when you say, * This might derive from the "public school adventure" feel running through both stories.-

Yes. I think it probably does. Again, fair enough.

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

You'd need to give some examples, I think.

The biggest one that springs to mind is the Emeth scene - it reminds me so much of "sometimes we sort too soon". No good person could really belong to a different religion/house! (Though to be fair, Lewis' tribalism at least lets people join the "right" one, so I'll give him that at least). And the fact that only humans are allowed to be monarchs of Narnia, and Mr Beaver's comment about how you can't trust non-humans that look too much like humans gives me, at least, a strong feeling of "people have natural places and they should stay in them". Which as you say, could well be a political view of his (I don't know much about Lewis' political views besides straw-manning pacifism and gender equality in Eustace*) but equally fits a particular sort of authoritarianism that often influences religion (but at this point I'm getting uncomfortably close to psychoanalysing an author I know little about - though I do think that Lewis seems far more interested in describing Aslan's power and unaccountability than his love or humility**). You're right about the political/religious divide, though as I said, he's equally didactic in both, so it's sometimes hard to tell if he's saying "this is how I think things should be" and "this is how I think God says things should be".

*Though I was surprised to find that he disagreed with Tolkien in thinking that the state was justified in allowing divorce - Tolkien in his books always came across as less adamantly certain and (in the posthumously-published notes and private writings) more reflective than Lewis, so it was weird finding that.
** Aslan never dines with the Narnian equivalents of tax-collectors and prostitutes, for example - though I have seen it argued that Narnia is an Unfallen world (I'm not sure what effect the immigration of humans and whatever Jadis' species is would have on this, though).

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

"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."

If by "choosing to love" you mean "making a conscious decision to love somebody, in the same way as making a conscious decision to read a certain book or to watch a certain film," then no, you can't. But if you act in a friendly manner towards somebody, you often find yourself liking them more than you possibly could if you were always hostile and suspicious. So if by "choosing to love" you mean "choosing to act in a way which creates the conditions required for love to flourish", you probably can.

(Actually, I believe C. S. Lewis said something along those lines, didn't he...?)

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

I'd agree with that. I'd also add, however, choosing to acknowledge/accept feelings of warmth, caring or empathy, or give in to a sense of openness to those things, when you feel it begin inside yourself but the situation or person in question might make that a difficult choice. I.e., not repressing or denying such impulses when they occur. I do believe we have capacity for choice there, too.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Yes! Very well put.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

Thanks. :)

Damning Snape?

[malic-ba.livejournal.com]

Hi, thanks for another most interesting thread.
Just wondered what you meant by JKR "quite literally damning Snape to hell". You mean in an afterlife, as opposed to making sure his entire life was utterly miserable?
Is that based on where and how he dies in DH? If not, what is the symbolism you have in mind?
It would be great if you would elaborate, because this intrigues me.
Thanks!

Re: Damning Snape?

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Yes, it's the symbolism, but not that alone.

As far as the symbolism goes, he is killed* by a serpent, and the serpent is often equated with the devil.

We never see him redeemed in the afterlife, though Rowling had plenty of opportunities to show him as such. Instead, she chose to focus on Dumbledore.

He gets no portrait - according to Rowling, because he abandoned the school and thus was not worthy of one.

She just couldn't bother to actually show that the man had been redeemed. And that really, really bugs me.

*Of course, he's not really dead. To have the hellish, loveless life Snape apparently had, and then to give everything for a boy who hates him, and then to die that way - it's just too much. So I prefer to believe that he vanished and got no portrait because he's not dead!

Re: Damning Snape?

[malic-ba.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

I know the Shack isn't actually underground, but having it reached by a tunnel in the book POV seemed symbolic of this to me too.

We don't see much of the afterlife though. I'm not sure if they really have a 'hell' (except for Voldemort who gets left under a seat in King's Cross for eternity?).

(When I first heard the 'no portrait' comment I could not believe it and had to reread the end to make sure. JKR's vindictiveness to this character - and to so many fans, not just Snape's, in the later books - appalls me.)

Alive or dead he must at least be free now.

Re: Damning Snape?

[oryx_leucoryx]

Well, for the whole split/torn soul to mean anything there must be some consequence in the afterlife for damaging one's soul. Which is, of course, exactly what Dumbles demanded that Severus do.

Re: Damning Snape?

[karentheunicorn.livejournal.com]

Yea, exactly. It all depends on if AK'ing someone who is gonna die anyway and who wants to be killed is murder. So I have no clue if Severus gets a soul split from that. If you take the mechanics of the spell then yes - it would spit a soul every time right? If it works like a machine, gear moves here, magic goes there. But it's hard to say with the wonky spells, Severus seemed to assume that killing Albus would lead to damange to his own soul. Dumbledore argues that Severus would have to decide if it did. So do we believe Dumbledore? Or was he just manipulating Severus?

Hell, what about Bellatrix and Molly; Molly did a killing curse on bellatrix, is her soul split to? There was no deal between them about killing each other, it was on with them, one or the other. Or at least I assume it was the AK since JKR didn't give us the actual words just that Harry witnessed it and seem to know what was coming next. Gonna assume it was an AK.

Re: Damning Snape?

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Wait... Snape never got a portrait? OK, that's just kicking someone while they are down. :-(

Re: Damning Snape?

[nx74defiant.livejournal.com]

JK stated that Snape didn't get a portrait because he "abandoned" Hogwarts by leaving. (But DD leaving Hogwarts to the mercy of Umbridge wasn't abandonment I guess, silly me).

In another interview she stated that Harry got Snapes portrait put up in Hogwarts.

Re: Damning Snape?

[karentheunicorn.livejournal.com]

Nope, at least not IN the book. Now in an interview, apparently Harry was so noble he saw to it that Snape would get one; but as far as us getting that in the actual book, nada. So, apparently Snape could not get one on his own - Harry had to be all gryffindor and use his super special chosen one powers on the rest of the magical world.

It's not like Snape the Headmaster had anything to do with it or that the castle's magic knew what he was doing OR the other headmaster portraits were apparently unable to vouch for him, nope. And apparently not even his memories were good enough; Harry left those in the Headmasters office...BUT NOPE...none of that mattered. The rest of the adult magical world apparently had to wait for Harry to say it was okay.

Apparently self assisted killing of oneself while Headmaster isn't abandoning the school though, thats all brave and shit, What Snape did is apparently not brave.

Re: Damning Snape?

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

To have the hellish, loveless life Snape apparently had, and then to give everything for a boy who hates him, and then to die that way - it's just too much. So I prefer to believe that he vanished and got no portrait because he's not dead!

Well, when you put it that way... that poor man. If JKR really intended such a fate for him, then shame on her!

Re: Damning Snape?

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Of course, he's not really dead. To have the hellish, loveless life Snape apparently had, and then to give everything for a boy who hates him, and then to die that way - it's just too much. So I prefer to believe that he vanished and got no portrait because he's not dead!

I thinks that's why so many women are fans of his. It's not sexual; it's empathetic. Women as a group know better than men what it's like to live your whole life for someone else, working in the shadows for the well-being of others, getting blamed when things go wrong, but getting no credit when things go right.

Of all the HP characters, Snape is the only one who gets no satisfaction in life whatsoever. Harry has a lousy childhood and crazy adolescence, but a good adulthood. Neville has a lousy childhood and adolescence, but a good adulthood. James and Lily died young, but their lives were great up until then. Dumbledore, of course, lived to be ancient and had a great life all the time. Only Severus has a neglectful, possibly abusive childhood, tortured adolescence, and adulthood of slavery whipsawing between two psychopaths--then dies a lonely, painful, degrading death on a dirty floor in an abandoned building before he's 40. Hellish (and damned) is right. His life reminds me of a jacket I saw in high school. It had a map of Vietnam on the back, and it said, "When I die I'm going straight to heaven because I've spent my time in hell."

Of all the ugly things Rowling has said and written, giving Snape this horrendous life, then trashing him repeatedly in interviews on top of that is the ugliest. She reminds me of Bart and Lisa on The Simpsons, laughing uproariously as Scratchy the cat gets mutilated and murdered in various horrible ways. But that's a satire. JKR is serious. I don't know which is more appalling about Rowling: that she's serious, or that she doesn't realize how awful she sounds.

Re: Damning Snape?

[karentheunicorn.livejournal.com]

I always think about the comment about how - he's so horrible to Harry and other students and JKR thinks he's so shabby or something like that, for being horrible to teenagers. Really? That's gets you hate mail from your creator? Because you don't have patience to deal with teenagers dramatica?

Seriously? Apparently spending time with teenagers who can kill you is supposed to make you like them? And Hogwart does appear to have a general amount of murdering crazy people coming out of it's halls. Imagine being on edge for a majority of your life (He was a student then a teacher) I couldn't tolerate teenagers when I was a teenager. What must it be like spending all your time at a school full of 11-18 year olds who could potentially kill you by waving a wand?

If he was an asshole at 20, imagine what 10 or so years of that did till the golden boy Harry Potter arrived.

And plus, the dude was trapped. From the moment Lily died, Dumbledore gives Severus this story about Voldemort is gonna be back and Harry will be in danger. I'm still trying to figure out how DD knew then, Dumbledore must have known then the connection was more than just happenstance. So, Severus is stuck in his 20 because he decides to trust Dumbledore.

So I don't get JKR still even after the books are over still continuing to speak badly of Snape. Because he was mean to teenagers? I don't know about anyone else but I know quite a few teenagers who need they're asses handed to them.

Re: Damning Snape?

[majorjune.livejournal.com]

So I don't get JKR still even after the books are over still continuing to speak badly of Snape.

I know that when I myself write a story, I as the author have a clear picture in my mind of who the hero/heroine/good guys are.

But I've been surprised on more than one occasion when a reader has actually "bonded" more with a secondary character, or one who may not even be a good guy/gal...

And for me, that's fine. I'm actually emotionally attached to ALL of my characters, both the "good" and the "bad" ones, and I have never sought to dictate to my readers which character they should like.

Rowling, OTOH, seems to be a very controlling woman who has only one vision of her saga in her mind, and she constantly seeks to force readers to only abide by HER vision, not the reader's own vision/interpretation...

So Rowling doesn't like Snape; she can't understand why many readers do like him, and seeks to force us to change our minds and except only HER world view...

Re: Damning Snape?

[malic-ba.livejournal.com]

All so very true.

I prefer to try to understand the internal reality of a story and not what might have been going on in the author's head. It even bugs me a little when others speculate about the author's private life. Usually.

But with JKR and all those interviews, and especially with Snape, it's like, WTF?? She actually comes out and says he's based on a real person, one of her teachers at school who was mean. His name is actually in the public domain now! Then she writes this character an utterly hellish life and miserable death, points out how ugly he is in nearly every scene, runs him down in interviews too, and gets all upset when fans like the character. (And yet, somehow, has him acting more morally than anyone else in the books.)

What's going on with that? Is she really just that vindictive, or is it something else?

Not that I really want to know the backstory. It just seems such an extreme reaction.

Poor Snape, his universe really is aligned against him.

Re: Damning Snape?

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

thinks that's why so many women are fans of his. It's not sexual; it's empathetic. Women as a group know better than men what it's like to live your whole life for someone else, working in the shadows for the well-being of others, getting blamed when things go wrong, but getting no credit when things go right.

Of all the HP characters, Snape is the only one who gets no satisfaction in life whatsoever.

You are so right, on both these points. Way back in the "Is Snape Sexy" thread on Snapedom, I explained that I loved Snape because I identified with him, not because I found him sexy. And - just as some people can't get over "he deserved it" (of Mr. Nettleship), I can't get over Rowling's having said that Snape was more culpable than Voldemort, because, unlike Voldemort, he had been loved. Who ever loved him? Snape has a remarkable capacity to love others, but he never gets any love in return - not that I can see.

Oh, well. I guess we all read these books differently, but it's nice that there are people here who share my bafflement!