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]

Actually, I think many, many Americans are deeply prejudiced against Arabs and Muslims, and are quite xenophobic. And I'm afraid that Condwiramurs is right about the anti-intellectual feeling in this country. I am the daughter of teachers, and am myself a librarian, and I get very offended by the typically American attitude of "those who can't do, teach".

There are many things I love about my country; we've given a great deal to the world, but we have our flaws, as well.

And I do think that Rowling became as popular as she is because something in her resonated with our current Zeitgeist.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

OK, you have a definite point about the anti-education thing (and oddly enough, I am studying library science, so I can definitely relate). It does say a lot that one of the reasons so many people thought the Potter series was so great was because it was getting children to read! Never mind the content, the simple fact that they are doing it is good enough. *sigh*

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

Yes, you covered the major points I was getting at there pretty well. I'd also add that I see a certain attitude of "with us or against us" and "it's ok if we do it" at play in American culture, together with a sort of valorization of hypermasculinized (for a stereotypical and limited vision of 'masculinity') action, fighting, technology, and preemptive-strike militarism.

I see these things in the HP books too, connected with the vision of bravery articulated in Gryffindor. (And I *fully* agree that their popularity has to do with tapping into that Zeitgeist.) I think it's no accident that (as I think you point out in one of your excellent essays) that the Slytherins in general and Snape in particular are feminized, and are seen as weak, cowardly, deceptive and (over)emotional - all accusations thrown at women for centuries. To a hypermasculine culture, the feminine and the Other are inextricably linked, and is profoundly conservative in the worst way. Thus the "we sort too soon" comment is supposed to be a compliment, and Harry's "bravest man I ever knew" is supposed to stand in for a full recognition of Snape's moral character, because both move him up a notch in the only measure of how "good" one is in any sense: (physical, unthinking) bravery. It's as if Dumbledore and Harry said, "hey, maybe you really are a Man!" in contrast to the humiliation of having his masculinity stripped from him that I see as at play in the SWM scene (where he's clearly being reduced to a sexual object for James' and Sirius' voyeuristic pleasure, paralleling James' viewing of Lily as an object to 'catch' like the Snitch). And I think Severus was aware of this dimension of things during SWM, thus his panicked attempt to separate himself from Lily and reestablish himself over her - the place of the Man as it's been socially defined in this scene - which becomes the first event in a chain that leads to his 'damnation.' Because he's (in the books' view) clearly NOT the Man and thus wrong for Lily, and it's only two decades of sacrifice that opens up the possibility of "ok, maaaybe you could have been A Man if you'd got put in the right House."

All of which, just...ICK.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

I have to say, I think this is the single most original and insightful comment I've ever seen on SWM.

The fact James and Sirius call Severus "Snivellus" is an attack on his masculinity, also, since crying is considered shameful for men, particularly for men of the Baby Boomer and older generations.

In the fanfic, The Trains in This Country Are a Disgrace, Snape gets into an argument with Draco about the "sort too soon" insult.

Draco: 
You
 were 
never 
really one
 of
 us! 
Dumbledore
 said
 you
 were 
Sorted 
too
 soon!

Snape: Do 
not
 insult
 me! He 
insulted 
me 
by
 that! 
I 
was
 Head 
of Slytherin
 House. 
I 
was 
Slytherin
 House!
 If
 I
 was
 Sorted
 too
 soon,
 then
 we 
all 
were! 
It’s 
a 
lie!

 (Italics in original.)




[majorjune.livejournal.com]

The fact James and Sirius call Severus "Snivellus" is an attack on his masculinity, also, since crying is considered shameful for men, particularly for men of the Baby Boomer and older generations.

Based on Rowling's comment regarding crying on the Oprah Winfrey show, she feels crying is shameful for anyone at anytime, regardless of their gender and/or age (James and Sirius call Snape "Snivellus" for the first time on their first train ride to Hogwarts when they were all 11 y.o., and Snape hadn't even been crying, IIRC).

And when it comes down to it, she doesn't show any respect for any of her female characters who are deemed "weepy", either.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Boy, that really bothers you, doesn't it? ;-) For me, the lowlight of the interview was when the two billionaires commiserated each other on how hard it was to get used to the idea they'd never have to worry about money again. Boo hoo! And right in the middle of the worst economic times in 70 years, too. Narcissistic much?

[majorjune.livejournal.com]

Boy, that really bothers you, doesn't it? ;-) For me, the lowlight of the interview was when the two billionaires commiserated each other on how hard it was to get used to the idea they'd never have to worry about money again. Boo hoo! And right in the middle of the worst economic times in 70 years, too. Narcissistic much?

Also both of them comparing their very expensive designer shoes... :-/

The reason the crying comment has stuck with me is that to me that one statement summed up the whole problem with the HP saga, the author's inability to empathize or have compassion for those who are suffering emotionally.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Pretty much, this. I guess unhappy, ill-used people just ought to "man up". *barf*

[wolf-willow31.livejournal.com]

... an attack on his masculinity...

Maybe that explains that weird scene where child Severus is shown wearing what appears to be one of his mother's old blouses. I've long wondered what that was all about.

[majorjune.livejournal.com]

Maybe that explains that weird scene where child Severus is shown wearing what appears to be one of his mother's old blouses. I've long wondered what that was all about.

In my own fan fiction I posit that since this scene takes place in 1969, that little Severus is really wearing quite fashionable hippie clothing of the era... ;-)

But in all seriousness, I first need to bow to natives of Great Britain to explain to us Yanks if there is another meaning to the term "smock" than what we on the left side of the pond think.

Like the word "jumper" -- to me that means a type of dress, only worn by girls. But obviously in Brit-speak it means a type of sweater.

So to me, the term "smock" or "smock-like" doesn't necessarily imply a gender-specific item of clothing, rather a top that is rather loose, with sleeves that are also rather loose, which may or may not be cuffed.

To Rowling, or at least to young Petunia, such a style may seem somewhat feminine, but the reality is that smocks (at least what this American thinks of as smocks) were at one time very common for males of various professions to wear: artists, blacksmiths, butchers, woodworkers, farmers.

And throughout the Victorian era and well into the Edwardian, it was quite common to dress little boys below the age of 5 in nothing BUT a smock-like dress.

Considering how old-fashioned the wizarding world is, especially when it comes to clothing, Eileen Snape may not have realized that smocks weren't considered in-fashion by mainstream nonmagikal society at the time; I'm sure she wasn't following the latest offerings from Carnaby Street in the late 1960s! LOL

karentheunicorn has mentioned that in some ways 9 y.o. Severus' outfit almost seems like he was trying to wear his conception of what wizards wear -- an old-fashioned style shirt/blouse, and an oversized coat that may have been his little boy's attempt at mimicing a wizard's robe.

[maidofkent.livejournal.com]

Do you have the term 'smocking' in the States. It's a kind of gathering of material together into pleats, usually across the bodice, with the thread running distinctly through it. It appears on peasant type smocks, which were long garments worn, as you say, by farmers, shepherds etc. Artists also wore them. Smocks were also worn by pregnant woman - my mother had smock type maternity blouses dating from the late '50s. Cheesecloth smocks were typical 'hippy' wear in the 60s, early 70s. I had several cheesecloth smocks myself.

I think the coat may well be little Severus' attempt both to disguise the smock and look wizard-like. However, I do think that part of the reason for his anger at Petunia was that she hit the nail on the head with her 'your mum's blouse' comment. He's trying to hide it, not show it off. I think it's a cast off of Eileen's. There is also an English phrase 'big girl's blouse' which means someone being a bit wet and wimpy, so that might come into play as well.

[majorjune.livejournal.com]

Do you have the term 'smocking' in the States.

Yes we do, and it means the same as what you defined.

There is also an English phrase 'big girl's blouse' which means someone being a bit wet and wimpy, so that might come into play as well.

Never heard that phrase on this side of the pond, but considering how Rowling has James and Sirius come up with the "Snivellus" moniker for Snape when they first meet on the train -- and it was LILY who had been crying, not Severus -- I'm sure you're onto something there, I would assume Rowling knows that phrase and had it in mind when she described 9 y.o. Severus' outfit.

[karentheunicorn.livejournal.com]

Yes. I always got the idea if his mother didn't dress him then he was attempting to 'be' a wizard in how he dressed. Or maybe being that the Snape's are shown to us in a way that makes us believe they were poor - Eileen didn't have funding to go out and buy him muggle boy clothing. So he's left with an old hand me down coat, etc. etc.

I mean there are a lot of options to go with in this but JKR has made a point of showing us over and over that Wizards don't know how to dress like muggles. Severus being a young boy would be taking cues from what he knew and understood from his mother because that's the side of the family he wants to be like, the magical side.

So its probably a combo of Eileen not being familiar with muggle clothing but also Severus' desire to be a wizard, throw into that the idea that they were poor and I doubt they could go out and buy Severus new clothing, etc. So his options were limited and he was probably doing the best he could in dressing the wizard part.

[oryx_leucoryx]

And also that his father did nothing to remedy the situation - whether because he didn't care or perhaps once he realized his son was irreparably magical gave up on trying to have him conform to typical Muggle standards.

Your mum's blouse

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

On the one hand, if Sevvie had been rummaging through his parents' clothes trying to create the closest approximation he could to what he imagined a powerful adult wizard would be wearing, Tuney's mocking his getup as girly would hurt worse.

And that Wizards don't know how to dress like Muggles might excuse Eileen, the first time she let her son leave the house in that getup. But Sev is out in public in that smock, more than once.

Harry's impression had been that Sevvie had been wearing the coat (on a sunny day, and he was described as being hot and uncomfortable in it) to hide the smock. Moreover, Harry interpreted Sev's changing ASAP into school robes as indicating shame of "his dreadful Muggle clothes."

Not that Harry's interpretations of Snape's motives have ever been accurate before, but....

See, I grew up in a mill town, born a year after our fictional hero. Maybe things were way different in northern Britain, but when I was eight or nine, a little boy wandering around in a smock, or anything else that could possibly be taken to be girly, would have been CREAMED by the other boys and mocked by all the girls. It was just around that time (1969?) that the school rules changed to allow little girls to wear trousers instead of dresses to class. A lot of girls, myself included, weren't really comfortable doing that at first, and the reverse (boys wearing anything that could remotely be taken to be feminine) was totally not done.

Nor was long hair then EVER found on men/boys--I remember the first time I ever saw it, and it was a shocking and disturbing sight to me. A person with a mane of reddish-brown hair half-way down her back turned around, and it was a man!!!

A hippy, yes, and a tourist outsider. If he'd been in a smock as well, I'd have considered him a transvestite--not that I had that concept. (And when my cousin later started to let HIS hair grow, all of us locals understood it to be the intentionally-shocking violation of convention and all standards of decency that he intended it to be....)

I'm trying to remember exactly when that long-haired hippie who so shocked me was, and my best guess is summer of 1970. It might have been 1969.

My point is, whatever people might be used to seeing by 1969/70 in London and New York, in a little mill community (or a working-class neighborhood of a larger city) a scrawny little boy wandering around with long hair and a smock-like garment would have been clearly apprised of the error of his ways by the other boys in the neighborhood.

If Petunia could call it "your mum's blouse," so could the neighboring boys. And try to kill him for it, if they ever saw it. The hair alone would be bad enough.

So, utterly adorable as is the thought of little Sevvie playing dress-up in his parents' closet trying to approximate a wizard's robes, I have to plump for neglect--he was wearing that smock because he had nothing else, and he was trying to cover it up with the coat because he knew that the smock would be considered weird.

Re: Your mum's blouse

[majorjune.livejournal.com]

And that Wizards don't know how to dress like Muggles might excuse Eileen, the first time she let her son leave the house in that getup. But Sev is out in public in that smock, more than once.

We aren't given enough information regarding Eileen to know whether she'd have been able to even get a clue regarding acceptable attire amongst nonmagikal folk, no matter how ofter her son left the house.

We don't even know where Sev's clothes came from; they presumably aren't new, presumably weren't even bought new. Were they thrift-shop acquisitions? Hand-me-downs from Eileen's family? Or Tobias'?

Harry interpreted Sev's changing ASAP into school robes as indicating shame of "his dreadful Muggle clothes."

If Severus WAS ashamed -- we only have Harry's interpretation -- he could have been only ashamed that he WAS wearing Muggle clothing, appropriate/fashionable or not. He may not have wanted the others think he wasn't from a wizarding family.

It also could just have a case of a little boy being so glad to finally get "the real thing" that he couldn't wait to change his clothes.

Maybe things were way different in northern Britain, but when I was eight or nine, a little boy wandering around in a smock, or anything else that could possibly be taken to be girly, would have been CREAMED by the other boys and mocked by all the girls.

I doubt things were different in the area Rowling describes.

What I remember of that era is that 9 y.o. boys pretty much didn't care what they wore, but yes, if an item of clothing was considered effeminate then they would have been at least teased mercilessly.

OTOH, I do remember having to wear smocks in elementary school when we had "art" class, which was really just having little kids smear poster paint on paper. Both girls AND boys wore smocks for these classes so that we could keep our clothes clean. The smocks were the property of the school, tho, and at the end of the art period we turned the smocks back in.

Nor was long hair then EVER found on men/boys--I remember the first time I ever saw it, and it was a shocking and disturbing sight to me. A person with a mane of reddish-brown hair half-way down her back turned around, and it was a man!!!

My school was somewhat strict regarding the length of male students' hair, but by the time I graduated they were allowing guys with hair that was below their collar, they allowed moustaches, and those gawd-awful huge sideburns which would later define the 70s, along with polyester leisure suits! LOL

But society outside of school was pretty accepting of long hair on guys in my area, but then again we're only a 2-hour train ride from NYC, so the Greenwich Village influence crept in...

A hippy, yes, and a tourist outsider.

In my neck of the woods they were deemed "plastic hippies", those who'd go down to the Village and "make the scene" for the weekend, but then hop the train back to the 'burbs in time for school and/or jobs on Monday...

Re: Your mum's blouse

[hwyla.livejournal.com]

Hello - I've not posted before here, but hopefully you might recognize me from Snapedom?

"We aren't given enough information regarding Eileen to know whether she'd have been able to even get a clue regarding acceptable attire amongst nonmagikal folk, no matter how ofter her son left the house."

We are given at least one clue that Eileen certainly 'ought' to have known how acceptable muggle attire appeared. She lives smack in the middle of several streets of row houses. This isn't a witch who has never been exposed to muggles - not even one like Molly who lives on the very outskirts of a town. For Eileen to not know what constituted appropriate attire for Sev, then she must necessarily never actually leave the house or peek out of her windows. This at a time in history when it would have been unthinkable that she did not do the food shopping for her family.

Additionally - we have Petunia speak about the 'Snape' family (Sev is that 'Snape' boy), so they are obviously a source of gossip in the community - she only speaks of WHERE he lives - not anything about gossip that his mother never leaves the house or even whether he has a mother at all.

Now I must admit that SHE might dress Sev that way specifically because she doesn't WANT him to appear mugglish. However, I tend to think that since we have 2 examples in canon of women whose magic was diminished by problems with 'love' (Merope & Tonks) and we have Sev's own words that his parents fight often, I think it reasonable to believe that Eileen's magic was also diminished enough that she could not transfigure Sev's clothes into something that 'fit' or that were more appropriate to the locale. -- Hwyla

Re: Your mum's blouse

[maidofkent.livejournal.com]

Certainly, the same would have applied in northern England. The descriptions of street urchins and Gavroche in particular, from 'Les Miserables', must have been in JKR's subconscious as well, I think when it came to young Severus:

'The gamin is respectful, sardonic and insolent. He has bad teeth because he is underfed and fine eyes because he has sharp wits....the youngster went around in a pair of men's trousers that did not come from his father, and a woman's blouse that did not come from his mother, castaway garments....his father never gave him a thought and his mother disliked him. He was one of those children who are most to be pitied, those who possess parents, but are still orphans....The boy had grown up in the absence of affection like the pallid weeds that grow in cellars...he had no idea how parents ought to behave'.

Re: Your mum's blouse

[night-axe.livejournal.com]

IAWTC. It's not just that little Snape is wearing old castoffs, they're the wrong size: "his clothes were so mismatched that it looked deliberate: too short jeans, a shabby, overlarge coat that might have belonged to a grown man, an odd smocklike shirt" (DH, p. 663). Even the most sheltered pureblood knows to dress their children in the right size clothing. The Snapes may well be so poor there's nothing else for the kid to wear, but why couldn't Eileen shrink the coat a little? She must know the boy looks like the seventh dwarf in it. Plus, she can't be totally clueless about things Muggle since she married Tobias without setting off his weirdo alarms. That quote says to me that at best she doesn't care what her son looks like in public (too depressed, maybe?), at worst she's actively hostile ("it looked deliberate"). There's another heavy hint of neglect and/or hostility when Harry tells us that James had "that indefinable air of having been well-cared-for, even adored, that Snape so conspicuously lacked" (p. 671).

Harry's an unreliable narrator, but when he's watching Pensieve memories the author uses him as a neutral observer. If he drew wrong conclusions it would pointlessly confuse what's supposed to be an objective record. Especially in the big reveal chapter which tells us the truth about Snape at last. So I think Harry's right to assume that Snape knows exactly how bad those clothes look.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

You know, does it seem weird to anyone else that wizards can't figure out how to blend in? I mean, there are muggles everywhere to use as a reference point. Maybe they are just all idiots or something.

the Trains in this Country...?

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Hey! Link, please, oneandthetruth!

Re: the Trains in this Country...?

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Terri, you haven't seen Trains? Sydpad has the full comic friendslocked; you'll have to go to her livejournal and friend her to see the whole thing. Otherwise, the Red Hen has a novelization at her website.

Re: the Trains in this Country...?

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Just finished the novelization, thanks for the tip!

I did see a couple panels of the original comic before it was locked, but not that quote....