On racism in the Potterverse-
Nov. 29th, 2011 12:02 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
mary-j-59.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
deathtocapslockThis 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.
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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Damning Snape?
Date: 2011-12-05 01:16 pm (UTC)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?
Date: 2011-12-05 02:49 pm (UTC)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?
Date: 2011-12-05 04:04 pm (UTC)I like stories where the author doesn't force you to pick a side or at least makes it so you can understand why someone would do XYZ. Just throwing in a torture curse to try and prove Harry isn't perfect is just as lame as suggesting that Snape is somehow evil because he was mean to teenagers.
I think I remember seeing a couple of interviews with Alan Rickman over the years. Various movies he's been in so I can't say exactly which movie I'm remembering now. But when someone asked him about being the bad character or playing the bad part he seems to hedge on those kind of questions. His statement usually runs along the line as he doesn't see the character that way.
Re: Damning Snape?
Date: 2011-12-05 05:21 pm (UTC)I prefer to read about multi-dimensional characters who have both admirable qualities but also serious flaws, and those are the type of characters I try to write.
I also don't like to try to force readers to come to one decision or another, I actually think that's rather boring, from a writer's POV...
I think I remember seeing a couple of interviews with Alan Rickman over the years. Various movies he's been in so I can't say exactly which movie I'm remembering now. But when someone asked him about being the bad character or playing the bad part he seems to hedge on those kind of questions. His statement usually runs along the line as he doesn't see the character that way.
Well I'd think that any actor or actress would have to find the humanity of a character, no matter how much of a villian the character is supposed to be.
I remember reading Bette Davis' autobiography, and she commented on getting the reputation of always playing the villian, and her explanation was that she chose such parts because they were much more interesting to play than the typical leading-lady-ingenue parts of the day.
IOW, she didn't want to play Mary Sues! LOL
And for myself, I don't like writing such characters (Mary Sues and Gary Stus); even my heroes and heroines have severe flaws and emotional/psychological issues. It makes them much more interesting. ;-)
Re: Damning Snape?
Date: 2011-12-07 03:10 am (UTC)I also don't like to try to force readers to come to one decision or another, I actually think that's rather boring, from a writer's POV...
Amen! I might not be the best writer in the world, but that's something that I really try to be careful about. It makes the story so much more interesting.
Re: Damning Snape?
Date: 2011-12-08 07:10 pm (UTC)