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: 2011-12-19 01:37 pm (UTC)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.
Muggles are incidental to the storylines because they’re not the people the author is telling us a story about. Yep, they are often comic relief. But what of that? This is not a fully adult series, when all's said and done. The HP series has always struck me as a slightly more adult version of Roald Dahl. And the Potterverse is not a fully realised world.
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.*
I don’t quite agree that’s what JKR has done. Yes, Gryffindor is her favourite House, we all know that. But this is not the same thing as depicting Gryffindors as the elect. Why do I think that? Because their own world doesn’t treat them like that. My own interpretation of the Wizarding World is that its administration and politics are corrupt and decadent. I am not sure whether JKR intended it to come across like that, but that is certainly how it comes across to me. But the WW never grants Gryffindors special favours. They are certainly not regarded as ‘the elect’ by Ravenclaws, Hufflepuffs and Slytherins! Indeed, being a Gryffindor during the First and Second ‘Voldie-wars’ guarantees trouble because so many Gryffindors put themselves on the front line re: resisting Voldemort. (And, yes, I dearly wish that JKR had shown more Ravenclaws, Hufflepuffs and Slytherins doing the same.)
To repeat: the author’s bias towards her own imaginary House is NOT the same as granting Gryffindors an elect status within the confines of their own imaginary universe. She just doesn’t write them like that. And as we see very plainly, individual Gryffindors can be douchebags, just like a Hufflepuff can be a douchebag (Zachariah Smith).
Nor, some fans to the contrary, do you get to choose whether you're a Gryffindor.
And yet Harry tells little Al that he can pretty much choose to be in Gryffindor if he doesn’t want to be in Slytherin. (Frankly, I hope the Hat sorted Al into Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff ... I just don’t see him as a Slyth, as cool as that would be!)
It does seem odd to me, on a snark comm of all places, that you would interpret canon so literally. Surely as readers we can reach our own interpretations of the Sorting Hat process, especially given seeming contradictions in canon. I mean, does the Hat over-ride people’s inclinations? (I have no idea, and frankly care even less.) Rowling’s fictional brand of magic can work however the heck you want it to work. (Why else would we bother with fanfiction ...?)
no subject
Date: 2011-12-19 01:38 pm (UTC)If we choose to be in Slytherin, then there is probably no help for us - at least, not as far as I can see.
Since JKR does include at least three/four redeemed Slytherins – Snape, Horace, arguably Draco or Regulus – I cannot agree that she condemns the House outright. Yes, I would have much preferred a far more nuanced (and downright grown-up) portrayal of Slytherin in the series but actually I think we got that portrayal in SNAPE. For me, his character makes up for a lot (and I don’t care a hoot whether Rowling intended that or not. ;) )
It seems to me that Rowling wrote herself into a pickle. In the first two books, which are children’s stories and not yet the Young Adult genre of the later books, the Slytherins are pretty much pantomime villains and are treated as such. But as the series progressed and darkened, and as its readership matured, obviously that one-dimensional view of Slytherin no longer suffices. Which is why readers get twitchy. But then at least there’s Snape ... and Horace. Two nuanced and interesting characters.
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.
Muggles don’t matter much in this fictional universe because they serve pretty much as plot devices and nothing else (Hermione’s parents being a prime example). Rowling’s magical people at best show a puzzled paternalism towards Muggles. I wouldn’t call that racism: to me it just show that the Potterverse is not a fully realised world. Rowling’s Muggle Britain is nothing like the real Britain and it’s not meant to be, either. The Prime Minister is purely fictional – she wasn’t intending that guy to represent John Major or Tony Blair!
It's perfectly okay to mock and torment the Dursleys.
Yes, because they’re douchebags who abuse a child. I’m totally OK with mocking people like that, especially in fiction! Their abusiveness has got nothing to do with their being Muggles. We see plenty of abusive wizards, after all.
It's especially not okay to mock Harry, the hero.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Who mocks Harry? (Voldemort? Of course he mocks Harry, LOL, that’s his job. :D) Who else mocks Harry? Snape? That’s complicated: many readers, including me, don’t approve of Snape’s bitterness towards Harry (just for the crime of being James’s son) but also think that sometimes his discipline of Harry is merited (since Harry can sometimes be a prat). Seriously, I don’t know what you mean by this or who you are directing this comment at: other characters in the Potterverse? or the actual reader?
no subject
Date: 2011-12-19 04:29 pm (UTC)And yet Harry tells little Al that he can pretty much choose to be in Gryffindor if he doesn’t want to be in Slytherin.
But Harry is wrong. If the Hat decides you don't belong where you want to be it can override your request. (Mechanistically I don't see why this shouldn't be so, and apparently in Pottermore Rowling claims this is what happened to Neville - he actually wanted to be in Hufflepuff.)
no subject
Date: 2011-12-19 05:16 pm (UTC)Well, all of that is undeniably true. That's what I meant by author bias, of course. Just take the example of Harry's 'Crucio' in DH (the fans who bend over backwards trying to justify this boggle my mind). Either an Unforgivable really is an Unforgivable that should never be used, or ... just tear up the rule book of your own universe. Taking a Watsonian view for a second, I sincerely hope that adult Harry deeply regretted using the Torture Curse and I sincerely hope he never used it again. My own interpretation of Harry would not allow him to!
But Harry is wrong.
So Harry is wrong. :D And I agree with you: I see no reason whatsoever why the Hat can't, or won't, over-ride!
I'm not in Pottermore so can't comment on Pottermore 'canon'.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-19 05:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-19 08:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-12-19 10:14 pm (UTC)I got an email from them about a week or so ago, wanting me to take a survey I think. I've been too busy to look at it too closely, but what I did notice is that they're still talking about it being in beta testing and still not open to the general public. I guess that's what the survey is for, to garner feedback for them to do more tweaking before eventually opening it up to everyone.
no subject
Date: 2011-12-29 04:22 am (UTC)