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: Part 1/2
Date: 2011-12-08 04:10 am (UTC)Like, if I'd been 13 and reading the kind of book implied by the Vernon/Petunia/immortal statement, it would have disturbed me, as a child of abuse who in many ways really identifed with Harry's situation. As it was, I really liked the first three books when I read them at that age, since the series' issues weren't serious enough for me to notice yet.
I've met a lot of Christians / religious people who tend to just sort of assume that their worldview and beliefs are somehow inherently comforting to everyone, even if not everyone believes in them. I know it's not meant in a hostile way, but I like to point out that it isn't true when it happens, because... well, if I don't, they have no way of knowing.
Anyway, it definitely still annoys me that characters keep calling Harry loving when he's not especially loving. So, I do get that.
However, I do still have to object to the Dursleys being used as some kind of strike against him. Harry doesn't actually do anything especially evil to the Dursleys. When Harry sees a Dementor about to suck out Dudley's soul, he immediately, instinctively sends his Patronus to help. It may be a bit too action-y for a Christ figure, but it amply demonstrates that he does care about Dudley on some basic human level.
And... Dudley actually comes to appreciate him for it. In the last book, Dudley says he doesn't consider Harry a waste of space, says he's grateful for having his life saved, etc. Harry realizes that the cold cup of tea he'd found outside his door that morning was actually a gesture from Dudley gone wrong, and the book describes him as "feeling touched" by the whole thing, even if he feels kind of awkward. And then they shake hands.
So, Harry saves Dudley, and more importantly, Dudley ends up starting to become a better person because of being saved by Harry. It's like, the closest thing to actually working as a Christ figure in the entire series, as far as I can see!
I mean, if you want to make a basic point about Harry being an immoral, crappy hero who's not very loving, there are waaaay better examples. Like the time Harry used a torture curse, or the time Harry nearly killed Draco and didn't care, or... well, you get the point.
Harry like Jesus -- no, not really
Date: 2011-12-08 12:13 pm (UTC)However, Harry, we are meant to believe, is somehow super loving, practically a Christ stand-in.
Well, here's one Christian reader of HP who doesn't see Harry overall as some kind of Christ stand-in.
He's not matching up to the version of him the authorial voice keeps pushing at us.
Harry is my second favourite character after Snape but I think there's a great deal of truth in that! (The same goes for Dumbledore's character.)
Having said that, I still don't see Harry as a Christ stand-in, certainly not for the majority of the series, and I'm not really convinced that's the author's intent anyway. She might see Harry as a wholly loving person and her readers might disagree with her, but that's not quite the same as saying he's just like Jesus, is it?
Expecting someone we've been told is just like Jesus to be capable of seeing even people who mistreated him as human and reacting with a basic sense of empathy? Not so wild, IMHO.
But who exactly has told us that 'Harry is just like Jesus'? Has Rowling actually said that? (I wouldn't know, since I don't follow her interviews and my interpretation of her books is based on the finished text.) This sounds more like reader-projection (whether meant positively or negatively).
If he were presented as just a normal boy who'd been abused, it'd be a different matter - and his characterization would work.
I agree. That is actually how I personally interpret Harry.
I'd personally find him far more sympathetic too, instead of an insulting travesty of a Christ-figure.
Well, the answer -- and the key to a better interpretation -- is to leave the Christ-figure stuff out of it. To me the only 'Christ-figure' analogy to be drawn is in DH, with the magical protection for all and sundry that's activated by Harry's sacrifice and faux-death. And I am not convinced that all readers would take that interpretation anyway. Like I said, I don't read many of Rowling's interviews so I've no idea what she has said about this scene, if anything.
And it wouldn't affect my own interpretation, if she had.
Re: Harry like Jesus -- no, not really
Date: 2011-12-08 02:58 pm (UTC)I totally agree on this point. Actually, the magical sacrifice thing in the last book is pretty much the only reason I can see why people keep interpreting Harry as a Christ figure at all. It doesn't really fit with the rest of the series in tone at all. (Whatever some people might believe, references to the power of a person's love are not inherent comparisons to Jesus)
I myself have always interpreted Harry to be a sort of version of Matilda, in that he discovers he has super powers and is rescued from his horrible family. Like I've been saying, if Harry really had read to me as an actual Christ figure this whole time, I wouldn't have liked the series nearly as much, if at all.
And yeah, I don't actually think the whole Dudley thing is a Christ move, any more than any instance of a good action is a Christ move. I just wanted to point out that actually, Harry's behavior towards the Dursleys is actually some of the least objectionable behavior of his in the entire series.
Re: Harry like Jesus -- no, not really
Date: 2011-12-08 03:20 pm (UTC)Of course, in some way all Campbell-heroes have some overlap with Jesus because Jesus as a literary character is himself in the same category.
Re: Harry like Jesus -- no, not really
Date: 2011-12-08 04:31 pm (UTC)This is like saying that because the Fellowship left Rivendell on 25 December, Tolkien was making some kind of reference to Christmas. (Maybe he was, LOL, but I seriously doubt it.)
Dumbledore emphasises Harry's love-ability because that is the power that knocks out Voldemort when he tried to kill Harry as a baby. Which is magical fantasy fare, not necessarily related to Jesus.
Sorry, but I think this is just trying too hard.
r_ganymede, about Harry being like Matilda ... yep, the first HP book did strongly remind me of Roald Dahl. Dahl's stories are pretty cruel, too, but nobody gets het up about that.
Re: Harry like Jesus -- no, not really
Date: 2011-12-08 05:11 pm (UTC)Re: Harry like Jesus -- no, not really
Date: 2011-12-08 05:34 pm (UTC)Re: Harry like Jesus -- no, not really
Date: 2011-12-08 05:33 pm (UTC)And the Potter books are simply loaded with Christian symbolism. I remembered Harry's three day sleep in PS/SS. In COS, Harry defeats the serpent (symbol of the devil) and rescues the captive soul with the help of the Phoenix, the resurrection bird. In POA, we meet a Hippogriff, which is a symbol of Christ because it symbolizes love so strong it can unite opposites (I had to look that one up, I grant you, but all the others jumped out at me). There is a constant emphasis on sacrificial love throughout the books.
When you've noted all this Christian symbolism, and when the author herself has mentioned Lewis and proclaimed that her stories are more moral than Dahl's - it's kind of hard not think of Harry as a Christ figure. And that - Harry as a Christ figure - is precisely what makes these books so very offensive to me.
I wouldn't say nobody gets het up about Roald Dahl. Some people do. But Dahl is not proclaiming that he is writing moral stories and throwing loads of Christian symbolism into them.
Re: Harry like Jesus -- no, not really
Date: 2011-12-08 05:46 pm (UTC)I'm not remotely offended by HP because I don't see Harry as a Christ figure for the entirety of the series. I do see some pretty overt Christian symbolism in DH. Still doesn't make Harry Jesus. :)
(And, good grief, if Rowling's writing offends you ... what do you make of Philip Pullman and his preachy atheism in His Dark Materials? Pullman has said he loathes Narnia and his fantasy novels are almost like a direct rebuff of Lewis.)
Re: Harry like Jesus -- no, not really
Date: 2011-12-08 05:53 pm (UTC)The best comment on Pullman I ever heard was given by a highly intelligent young girl (Greek Orthodox) who said of his books: "It's wrong to mislead children with half-truths." I agree. But Pullman is so very straightforward in his message that you can take it or leave it, as it were. I actually find Rowling more toxic.
Re: Harry like Jesus -- no, not really
Date: 2011-12-08 06:16 pm (UTC)Pullman
Date: 2011-12-09 10:24 am (UTC)I'm not sure whether I would say his writing was misogynist. I can't remember enough about it to comment ...
I agree that JKR isn't misogynist (I've never read a female writer who was ...!) But overall HP is not a feminist fable (which doesn't necessarily make it sexist either. Sometimes I feel that the sort of 'girl power' demonstrated on occasion by Hermione and Ginny is kinda clunky).
I actually find Rowling more toxic.
OK. To me her books are like anything else: you can read into them, or take out of them, what you want.
I am convinced that numerous readers don't notice or care about subtext because they are not interested, or invested, in analysing the HP books to the degree that, say, this comm does. This includes people who think HP is the best fantasy series evah and those who regard HP as fun but nothing much more. So whatever 'toxicity' is supposed to be at work, simply doesn't affect them.
Re: Pullman
Date: 2011-12-10 12:06 am (UTC)The toxicity we aren't aware of is the worst. It becomes part of what we get used to and accept as a normal part of our cultural environment. Without noticing we may end up perpetuating it.
Re: Pullman
Date: 2011-12-10 04:39 am (UTC)Of course, as a wizard rocker, I know it's also true that there are loads of naive readers who sincerely believe the books preach love, friendship and self-sacrifice. If these kids can manage to find positive messages in the text, more power to them.
Re: Pullman
Date: 2011-12-10 05:21 am (UTC)Re: Pullman
Date: 2011-12-10 04:01 pm (UTC)But I also think many of these kids don't see the ways in which the books reflect some very negative things about our Zeitgeist. Extraordinary rendition? Check. Us against them? Check. Tribalism? Check - and on it goes. I really think they don't even notice.
Re: Harry like Jesus -- no, not really
Date: 2011-12-08 11:04 pm (UTC)Dumbledore emphasises Harry's love-ability because that is the power that knocks out Voldemort when he tried to kill Harry as a baby. Which is magical fantasy fare, not necessarily related to Jesus.
Not to mention that in the first few books, it was actually Lily's awesome motherly love of Harry that was emphasized as the source of the protection. Unless Lily is also supposed to be Jesus, the original protection from death / Voldemort is just standard fantasy stuff.