On racism in the Potterverse-

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

This 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.

Comments

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

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?

Oh, very good question. As you probably know, I agree with you so much about why Rowling's supposed Christian allegory falls horribly flat (and worse), and this is a major part of it. Also, the point that anti-Muggle prejudice leads to anti-Muggleborn prejudice, yes, I totally agree. (One of the most shudder-worthy analyses of the books I read was one that pointed out that Harry was Just Like Jesus because, among other reasons, they both had two natures: human/divine and Muggle/wizard. Ick ick ick.)

I do disagree slightly with the use of 'race' as the term, however. Not because anti-Muggle/born prejudice is 'not as bad' as our-world racism (of course it's just as bad), but because of the way that it fails to take the particular situation of Muggleborns into account. It ends up collapsing race, talent and abledness together in a very icky way, due to how the HP books are written and how magical inheritance works in them (raisingal has a good essay on this). So I guess I'd prefer 'blood prejudice' or 'anti-Muggle/born prejudice,' although those are not perfect either since they perhaps do not really have the same immediate sense of "-ism = prejudice + power" that racism, sexism, etc. have. But at least they avoid the ickiness around abledness and talent.

Which is not to say that any of your points are wrong - they're not, you hit the nail on the head. Even the most 'enlightened' characters are rather...icky. Arthur, for example, or Dumbledore. But at least it helps explain (sadly) how Hermione can end up feeling the right to mind-wipe her parents as if they had no right to have a say in the matter.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Thanks! And I understand your problem with the word "race"; anti-Muggleborn prejudice seems to me much more like the prejudice of the Inquisition against Jewish and Muslim Conversos in Spain. I've said so before, and shouldn't really have used the word "racism", which is inaccurate here.

I would love to know who wrote that shudder-worthy analysis. So wizards are divine, are they? That is indeed icky!

Glad you liked the essay!

[granatapfelrot.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that's just so weird and rather disgusting.
Hermione and Lily both are the daughters of the equivalent of shaved apes in the value system of the WW, to say it bluntly, so it's only logical, that wizards would be suspicious of them at the very least.
Everything else doesn't make a lick of sense!
In GoF Harry actually defends Hermione with the words 'she's a witch'. I don't remember the specifics, it was a scene with Malfoy at the Quidditch World Cup, I think.
And there is Ron's remark, that inbreeding might ruin/kill magical people or something like that. Is there some brainwashing going on in the WW to make Muggles and Muggleborns attractive as breeding stock? No wonder, that the traditional Purebloods are appalled over Dumbledore and his ideas...
Or maybe the Purebloods see Muggles as animals and Dumbledore's side sees them as people who are somewhat disabled and pitiful?

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

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.

Maybe so, but inexperienced children get installed on the thrones at Cair Paravel over far more qualified adult Talking Animals, dryads, naiads, River Gods, merfolk, etc based solely on their species. And let's not forget Mr Beaver's* remark on how non-humans who look human are untrustworthy and evil.

And let's face it, if you don't agree with or match up to Lewis' ideas of How Things Work, you're literally damned. On a matter of scale, that's somewhat more hubristic than JKR's figurative damnation of the "unworthy".

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.

It's a small thing, but I disagree with your assumption that people can choose whether they love someone. (And whether or not Aslan is worthy of such devotion is another matter entirely.)

These are the Gryffindors, and they are the elect.*

You mean like the Narnians, the only people to whom Aslan bothers to show himself?**

I think you're giving Lewis a bit too much credit here.

* Seriously, Maugrim, Trufflehunter, Reepicheep, Jewel, Fledge, and all the rest get proper names - what's going on with the Beavers? Are they the beaver equivalents of Adam and Eve?

** The Calormenes' faith in Tash is far more impressive, given that he only turns up to herald the end of the world.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

I think we're mostly going to have to agree to differ, but (as I said above), I can see why people have problems with Lewis. Where I disagree with you (and we will therefore have to agree to differ) is here:
1. You mean like the Narnians, the only people to whom Aslan bothers to show himself?** This is canonically incorrect. It is canon that (a) everyone in the Narniaverse will meet Aslan at some point, and (b) that Aslan has different forms in different worlds.

2. if you don't agree with or match up to Lewis' ideas of How Things Work, you're literally damned. On a matter of scale, that's somewhat more hubristic than JKR's figurative damnation of the "unworthy".
Really? I don't see the difference, except that people in the Narniaverse can change and do have choices. Edmund, Eustace, Uncle Andrew, and Puzzle are the examples of this. One of my problems with DH is my conviction that Rowling intends to quite literally damn Snape to hell. The symbolism is quite clear. It's equally clear that Aslan damns nobody. People (and beasts) choose to close their own eyes and ears to him.

About whether you can choose to love - interesting question. My great aunt had a saying: "Love will go where it's sent." Her implication was that you could, indeed, choose to love someone unworthy of you. That said, I do have problems with condemning someone - like Tom Riddle - who cannot love, through no fault of his own.

To sum up, you may think Christianity primitive and barbaric, and perhaps it is. But there is no doubt that Lewis wrote theologically coherent books, while Rowling did not.

Thanks for your comment, anyway.

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

To sum up, you may think Christianity primitive and barbaric, and perhaps it is.

I didn't mean to imply that, and I'm sorry that it came across that way. I do, however, find the Christianity portrayed in Lewis' books to be problematic (in part because he comes across as equally didactic about both his faith in God and his problematic beliefs).

[oryx_leucoryx]

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.

As expected, Rowling shoots herself in the foot further with Pottermore. She wrote there that Neville wanted to be placed in Hufflepuff, but the Hat insisted to place him in Gryffindor. See, if by mistake a deserving person makes a 'not good enough' choice the Powers That Be correct it for hir.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Okay, fair enough. But I guess what I don't understand is: what has this got to do with my essay? With the quotes which I find so moving - and so opposed to what we see in Rowling?

Could you tell me if you really find the first quote: "There are no ordinary people. You have never spoken to a mere mortal," problematic? If you do, could you explain why?

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Oh, good heavens! She really said that? I'm actually a little surprised. Not much - just a little.

I guess, in her way, she's consistent, too. I just find her vision rather appalling. Immoral, as my sister said the other day.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's what gets to me. Given what we see in the Wizarding World, the Death Eaters' beliefs are more logical than anyone else's. To make things worse, in an interview, Rowling asserted that all "Muggleborns" actually had some wizarding ancestry - making the Death Eaters even more right. Sionna_Raven cited that interview. She was shocked. I am, too.

And I do think we're supposed to believe that the "good guys" see Muggleborns as disabled, while the "bad guys" see them as animals. Don't get me started on how everyone treats animals in this series!

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

There's nothing wrong with the quotes you've selected. However, while Lewis' ideals may have been high and noble, I think that in attempting to portray them in the Narnia books he made mistakes which in some cases are shared by the Potter books*. After all, JKR thinks she's written about heroism and love defeating evil, and there are quotes in the books that are noble and inspiring. I just think if we're criticising JKR's fail for what it is regardless of her stated intentions, it feels unfair to me to say "look at these awesome things Lewis said" while ignoring his fail.

Maybe I'm confused. It's past eleven at night where I am and I should probably get some sleep soon.

* This might derive from the "public school adventure" feel running through both stories.

[sunnyskywalker]

What I want to know is, where did the first wizard come from, then? Interbreeding with magical species? (And where did they come from? Are all non-magical species today the result of some ancient ancestor losing the magic genes passed down from the first, magical organism, while a few species held onto them?) Are wizards literally not entirely human?

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

Of course, right? "That silly Navel, thinking he can be in the cannon-fodder house. He just doesn't know how FORTUNATE he is to be among the Elect!" That also completely throws out the window the idea Harry opens at the end of the epilogue, that the Hat will take his son's choice not to be in Slytherin into account! I guess there really are just some people destined for being in Gryffindor and some who are not.

It's occurred to me that Rowling's morality might actually have "worked" (though still would have been problematic) if the Gryffs really *were* shown to be morally superior to the others- but often it's easier to feel sorry for the other houses than for the Gryffs. Rowling really does seem to think that being sorted into Gryffindor absolves you of all moral responsibility!

The big question is, where does Peter Pettigrew fall into all this? Because he's a Gryffindor, but he's also the one Gryffindor who's never presented in a positive light.

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

----To make things worse, in an interview, Rowling asserted that all "Muggleborns" actually had some wizarding ancestry - making the Death Eaters even more right. Sionna_Raven cited that interview. She was shocked. I am, too. She says the same thing in a footnote on page 83 of Beedle.

While the "rogue" ability to perform magic sometimes appears in in those of apparent non-magical descent (though several later studies have suggested there will have been a witch or wizard somewhere on the family tree), Muggles cannot perform magic.

Since magical ability appears to be an inherited trait, this does make some sense. But I think the genetics of magical ability could be complicated enough for it to be possible for two parents without any full-fledged wizarding ancestors to produce a wizarding child. I prefer to believe that magical ability lies on a spectrum rather than being a dichotomous trait, meaning that most people are at least a little magical.

[litlover12.livejournal.com]

You make some very good points!

[mmmarcusz.livejournal.com]

Sometimes we sort too soon?

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

"Given what we see in the Wizarding World, the Death Eaters' beliefs are more logical than anyone else's."

Absolutely, their views are just so obviously the logical result of their society's values, it's hard to criticise them for holding them. It's like raising somebody in a society where everybody is convinced that the Jews are part of an international conspiracy to take over the world, and then acting all shocked when they grow up to be an anti-Semite.

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

That's the obvious answer, but now I'm wondering if it's a complete explanation. After all, Dumbledore originally said that to Snape, and while Snape was revealed in the end to not be a villain, we were never really asked to see him as anything but a jerk who was redeemed because he fell in love with a Gryffindor. So, it's unclear whether Snape really belongs in Gryffindor at all, or if he's just as damned as any other Slytherin.

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

"About whether you can choose to love - interesting question. My great aunt had a saying: "Love will go where it's sent." Her implication was that you could, indeed, choose to love someone unworthy of you."

If by "choosing to love" you mean "making a conscious decision to love somebody, in the same way as making a conscious decision to read a certain book or to watch a certain film," then no, you can't. But if you act in a friendly manner towards somebody, you often find yourself liking them more than you possibly could if you were always hostile and suspicious. So if by "choosing to love" you mean "choosing to act in a way which creates the conditions required for love to flourish", you probably can.

(Actually, I believe C. S. Lewis said something along those lines, didn't he...?)

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

I'd agree with that. I'd also add, however, choosing to acknowledge/accept feelings of warmth, caring or empathy, or give in to a sense of openness to those things, when you feel it begin inside yourself but the situation or person in question might make that a difficult choice. I.e., not repressing or denying such impulses when they occur. I do believe we have capacity for choice there, too.

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

Or another possibility is that everyone has a witch or wizard somewhere on their family tree, sort of like how everyone has royalty on their family tree if you go back far enough.

[sunnyskywalker]

Maybe that first-ever cell back in the primordial soup was magical, but most species eventually lost or had the magic genes disabled, and human wizards and witches are the equivalent of those occasional people who have tails or fur due to some ancient gene accidentally being switched back on? Not that I'm clear enough on how this would work to spin a plausible theory... It's times like these I'm especially sorry my biology teacher was about as competent as Trelawney.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Yes, that's what gets to me. Given what we see in the Wizarding World, the Death Eaters' beliefs are more logical than anyone else's.

Well, but logic is for us, inferior Muggles. Good wizards don't need logic.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Aha! Now I understand. All Death Eaters are Vulcans! Bwahahahaha...

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

You'd need to give some examples, I think. I'd say Lewis's conservative politics come through, but a person's political and theological views aren't necessarily the same.

And when you say, * This might derive from the "public school adventure" feel running through both stories.-

Yes. I think it probably does. Again, fair enough.