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: 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.