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

[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).

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

You know, I always thought that the comment about non humans looking like humans was warning against uncanny valley and that kind of thing. You have to admit that the idea of people who look human but really are not is pretty creepy.

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

Creepy is not the same as bad, though. And even so, I think it's a "your mileage may vary" concept - Superman looks human, for a start.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

You do make a point. I guess maybe I am just used to horror-ish settings where trusting things that look human usually goes badly.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Um - wow. I never know what to say to people who are so deeply offended by the Emeth scene. I just don't read it the way you do. To me, the point isn't that "sometimes we sort too soon". It is that there are good people in all groups and all religions. As I said in another discussion, I believe (and I think this scene shows) that there will be Pagans, Muslims, Hindus, Bhuddists, Atheists, Agnostics, and many others in heaven.

Of course, that said, Lewis did think Christianity was "true" in a way these other religions aren't. But he and Tolkien both also thought that there were germs of truth in all religions. It wasn't that the Pagans, etc, were entirely wrong; it was just that they didn't have the full picture.

That, to me, is not at all the same thing as "we sort too soon."*

And yes, Tolkien, who was very humane and reflective, was a conservative Catholic. Divorce, at that time, was absolutely forbidden by the Church. Lewis, who married a divorced woman and who wasn't Catholic, would obviously have been more liberal in this one regard.

As to Lewis's slams against pacifism, vegetarianism, modern education and so on - yes, he gets a bit mean there. But I do consider those views political, not religious. I don't agree with him on any of these points, btw.

As to Aslan not eating with the sinners and tax collectors, he was merciful to both Eustace and Edmund. If they don't stand in for the sinners and tax collectors, I don't know who does!

Someone else on livejournal - I'll have to find the citation - pointed out that, had Rowling written the Narnia books, Edmund would have been bullied relentlessly for seven years after repenting and would then have died a miserable death. There's a big difference between someone who shows that change and redemption are possible and someone who shows the opposite.

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

To me, the point isn't that "sometimes we sort too soon". It is that there are good people in all groups and all religions. As I said in another discussion, I believe (and I think this scene shows) that there will be Pagans, Muslims, Hindus, Bhuddists, Atheists, Agnostics, and many others in heaven.

That may well have been what he was trying to say, but I'd have found it far easier to read it that way if it had gone something like, "My father has many names and many faces, and all who do good are welcome in my country." However, thanks to Tash actually turning up for the apocalypse, we're left with "All who do good are welcome in my country, oh and by the way the god you've loved and worshipped all your life is really a demon, so a large part of your spiritual life has been a lie."

Someone else on livejournal - I'll have to find the citation - pointed out that, had Rowling written the Narnia books, Edmund would have been bullied relentlessly for seven years after repenting and would then have died a miserable death.

Ha! I like that. (It's odd that both Lewis and Rowling seem far better at making bad-then-redeemed characters sympathetic rather than people like Peter and Harry. It's clearly not an inherent thing to this sort of character, since Avatar: The Last Airbender manages to present all the heroes as good.)

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/That may well have been what he was trying to say, but I'd have found it far easier to read it that way if it had gone something like, "My father has many names and many faces, and all who do good are welcome in my country." However, thanks to Tash actually turning up for the apocalypse, we're left with "All who do good are welcome in my country, oh and by the way the god you've loved and worshipped all your life is really a demon, so a large part of your spiritual life has been a lie."/

Yeah, that's why many people have problems with that quote and find it patronizing and insulting. To use real-life names, it'd be like saying, "All good deeds are accepted by Jesus, no matter who does them, and all bad deeds are accepted by Muhammad." Ergo, Muhammad is evil and Jesus is good. The Muslims who think that they're being moral are really Christians deep-down but don't know it, and the Christians who are evil are No True Christians who are really following the corrupt teachings of Muhammad and don't know it. No Christian could ever be truly Christian and be evil and no Muslim could ever be truly Muslim and be good.

You could argue that Tash is supposed to stand in for the devil, not a god/prophet of another religion, so the quote is really meant to slam Christian hypocrites who claim to be holy and righteous, but do terrible things. But considering that the Calormenes, who follow Tash, live in the desert and are frequently described as having dark skin...yeah, people can get plenty of Unfortunate Implications from that.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

They can. But it's absolutely clear, in the books:
1. That Calormene and Calormenes are not "born evil", nor is their society wholly bad. We know this because
a. A glorified Calormene is part of Aslan's country, and
b. Emeth and Aravis, two noble-hearted people, learned their values in Calormene.

2. That the Calormenes are NOT stands-in for Muslims. Nor is the worship of Tash at all equated with Islam. Tash is a demon, and his worshippers are Pagans who practice human sacrifice. In the world of the books, their beliefs actually ARE wrong. But they are not entirely wrong. As I said above, Aravis and Emeth learned honor, courage, family love and loyalty from somewhere. See my statement above, about what Lewis and Tolkien hoped to imply about pre-Christian religions.

I'm sorry, but on this quote (which is actually several pages), I think you and Sharaz Jek and I really will have to agree to differ. I just don't see it as cruel and condescending at all. But then-

I do think my religion is true, but I also think it's a religion. Because they are, in part, human constructs, all religions also contain falsehoods. Not because people are bad, but because we're imperfect. People can also use religions as instruments of control and oppression, which is very wrong. Christians certainly do that, and have done that!

What I'm saying is that everybody who practices any religion, Christian or not, will at some point undergo Emeth's experience. All of us are wrong, at least occasionally. But we can learn! And there is hope and joy in that.

I just see (as does Horridporrid, on livejournal) much more hope, kindness and compassion in Lewis than I do in Rowling. Your mileage may vary, as the saying goes.

But we probably won't get any further discussing this. In the way of offering a hand of peace, one place where I think Lewis does fail is his sexism. I do agree (and I forget who said this) that I'd far rather my young cousins and any other girls I know model themselves on Aravis or Jill rather than Hermione or Ginny - or, heaven help us, Lily or Petunia. And Orual rocks SO HARD! That said, it is troubling to me that Lewis's scariest villains are powerful women.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Well said, Mary. C.S. Lewis certainly had his faults, but as a product of his time, it is much less unsettling than JKR's determined elitism.

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

I'd far rather my young cousins and any other girls I know model themselves on Aravis or Jill rather than Hermione or Ginny

Jill is awesome - I think we can all agree on that. Aravis though - I cannot get over how at the end she goes off with Lucy to squee over wedding stereotypical girly stuff. So much awesome all through the book, her entire plotline so much better than Shasta's, and then suddenly Lewis sidelines her (and Lucy - she reads almost as out of character here as Aravis) in such a bizarre way.

In fact, I don't remember Lasaraleen as being that bad a character either - she may have been stereotypical-boarding-school-girly-girl, but she was loyal and brave and trustworthy as well. Something JKR could have learned from.

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

Oh, those weren't my own personal views. I really don't have a firm opinion on the matter. I do enjoy the Narnia books. I'm not really sure if the racism allegations hold true or not or whether that quote really is meant to be all-accepting. I was just echoing what I'd heard from other people.

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

"You could argue that Tash is supposed to stand in for the devil, not a god/prophet of another religion,"

If Lewis had any real-life religion in mind when writing about Tash, I'd guess that it was Phoenecian/Canaanite paganism rather than Islam. I'm not sure if the Calormenes worship images of him, but he's definitely given some physical appearance, since the characters can recognise him when he shows up in TLB. He's also (IIRC) offered human sacrafices. In the Bible, Baal and other such gods were worshipped as graven images, given human sacrifices, and their priests were frequently opposed to the Israelite priests, just as Tash is opposed to Aslan in TLB. You could say that Christianity and Islam have often been opposed, but on the whole I think that Tash is more like the Canaanite gods than he is like Allah, for all the superficial Arabness of Calormene culture.

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

As to Aslan not eating with the sinners and tax collectors, he was merciful to both Eustace and Edmund. If they don't stand in for the sinners and tax collectors, I don't know who does!

Oh, and as for this, I mean that there's no mention of any attempts by anyone on Aslan's team to win over the Wolves, Hags, Werewolves, etc. Restricting "tax-collectors and prostitutes" to Edmund and Eustace feels a bit like saying Matthew's status as an apostle is enough of an effort for Jesus to have made. Just as in Potter, the Order doesn't make much of an effort to win over anyone on Voldemort's team except for Dumbledore with Draco (which arguably is just to ensure Snape fulfils the Vow and cements his position at Voldemort's right hand).

hags werewolves etc

[urbanman1984.livejournal.com]

The hags, werewolves and minotaurs are just fairy tale monsters used for window dressing. Lewis gave them no more thought than that. They are not supposed to represent human characters. I think it is the Calormenes and Telmarenes who are supposed to represent the bulk of misguided humans. And being fair to Lewis, he comes across as much less bigoted than many Christian traditionalists do. The Last Battle states that it is possible for virtuous people of all religions to go to heaven. Many sub-sects of the major religions say that anyone not in their denomination goes to Hell automatically, no matter what.

Re: hags werewolves etc

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

The hags, werewolves and minotaurs are just fairy tale monsters used for window dressing. Lewis gave them no more thought than that. They are not supposed to represent human characters.

Not good enough. Tolkien made an effort to fit the orcs into a properly ethical Christian framework. If you write sapient beings into a Christian allegory, you can't just say "they don't count" because that's really missing the point.

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

"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!"

I always read that scene as more "God accepts good deeds, no matter who does them and in whose name they are done." And to be fair to Lewis, Aslan objectively is the one true good in the Narniaverse, whereas Gryffindor isn't objectively the best Hogwarts house (much as Rowling and some of the fans might think otherwise :p).