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: Your mum's blouse
Date: 2011-12-13 07:21 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2011-12-15 06:37 pm (UTC)"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