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}
no subject
Date: 2011-12-07 06:01 pm (UTC)I was annoyed enough by the sexism in Blyton's books when I was 8. It took me longer to realize the racism. Now that I'm more educated I know it was my white privilege that was the reason for the delay.
Doyalist view: there are various inconsistencies in characterisations and plotlines in the Potterverse, and this is one of them.
This isn't the only time The Great Twinkly One behaves like a Machiavelian plotter and user. Even Rowling admits this was an aspect of his personality. (That interview in which she said he manipulated Harry like a puppet.) Why should some of his acts be excused as plot holes when they make sense knowing his over-arching motivation?
Uh-huh. We're comparing a series of children's books to Exodus.
Because in Rowling's Christian allegory Dumbles is a stand-in for God the Father. He fits right in.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-07 06:19 pm (UTC)Because in Rowling's Christian allegory Dumbles is a stand-in for God the Father. He fits right in.
He does? Not for this practising Christian he doesn't. :) And I'm not at all convinced that's what JKR intended. Dumbledore isn't omnipotent, or omniscient, or even god-like. He's a powerful wizard, but not on the same level as Tolkien's Gandalf, who is an immortal. Surrogate father for Harry, sure. Like God? - nope.
Pilgrim's Progress is a Christian allegory. I don't see HP written in that way at all. Sure, JKR throws in some fairly explicit Christian symbolism into DH. That still doesn't make her work an allegory. There aren't extended metaphors in the HP books. Of course there is plenty of symbolism in them but that's rather different.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-07 08:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-08 11:18 am (UTC)Indeed. That's the Doyalist POV, right there.
If you want, you can imagine Remus as one of the wizards who sometimes waved to Harry in a shop, or perhaps he took a look at Harry but didn't wave. Either way, it fits with Remus' character that he made no open contact with Harry. He certainly slipped out of sight during GOF and it looks like had Voldemort not returned at the end of that year he would have remained so for a few more years.
And that's the Watsonian.
I take it then that we're agreed that Dumbledore is not intended by the author to be some kind of stand-in for God.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-08 03:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-08 04:39 pm (UTC)To me she just comes across like your average cultural vague Christian. She thinks there might be an afterlife. Hardly a fundie attitude. I've never read anything more explicit from her on the subject of religion.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-08 05:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-08 05:31 pm (UTC)This is not a convincing theory, IMO. Dumbledore isn't omnipotent, or all-powerful, he's not even immortal. He doesn't qualify as a 'God' figure. He might well qualify as an 'Odin' or 'Gandalf' type figure. He's in that particular literary tradition.
It's 30 years since I studied English literature but I do know that lit-crit is not based on what a reader thinks an author's beliefs might be.
We are on more solid ground if we discuss Rowling's controversial description of Dumbledore as 'the epitome of goodness' and why some readers find that problematic because he isn't ... he's actually a lot more interesting than that. He's complex, flawed and manipulative. In fact, next to Snape, I think he's one of Rowling's best-drawn characters. I just don't see him through a rosy glow, and it so happens I like Snape better. Not because he's 'nicer'. Snape isn't nice, but he sure is heroic.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-09 01:36 am (UTC)Harry's relationship with Dumbledore reminds me a lot of a classical theological understanding of humanity's relationship with God.
The classical God is rather aloof and unapproachable. At times, he will seemingly abandon us without explanation, yet we are still expected to remain faithful to him. Everything that happens is all part of God's plan, even though some of it makes no sense to us. The experiences and events that cause us suffering only appear "bad" to us because we lack God's perspective to see how they are all part of a greater good; it is not our place to question what God is up to.
And I see Harry's questioning of how much he should trust Dumbledore in DH as metaphorical for a person in real-life who is wrestling with their faith in God. It is not a coincidence that Harry is stuck in his never-ending camping trip during this time; the "wilderness experience" is a significant part of Biblical narrative. In the end, Harry has enough faith in Dumbledore/God to sacrifice his life without hesitation.