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.

[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.

[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.

[litlover12.livejournal.com]

You make some very good points!

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Well said. I think one of the main differences between the two authors is that Lewis had a better understanding of his own beliefs and how they impacted his writing. Rowling tries really hard to convince herself that she is a liberal, open-minded person writing a liberal, open-minded series, but her own inability to see the creepiness of the world she has created really exacerbates the situation, especially when she is supported by her legions of loyal fans/toadies. Someday I hope that she will finally realize what sort of books she has written and is properly horrified.

Oh, and there is also the more obvious difference that C.S. Lewis was writing in a time period where his views were the norm. What is Rowling's excuse and why do so many progressive, liberal people insist on defending her? (speaking for my own experience with other otherwise intelligent, perceptive grad students)

'Sorting too soon'

[malic-ba.livejournal.com]

I'll post this down here where maybe more people will see it.

There are a couple of comments in the sub threads above about whether 'Sometimes we sort too soon' was intended as a compliment.

(Myself, I think that Rowling probably thought it was. I'm not sure how Dumbledore would have intended it, especially since he was talking to the Head of Slytherin House - one who was appointed at DD's whim, as well.)

What do people think Snape 'looking stricken' at that was intended to mean?

Love to hear any replies!

[pearlette.livejournal.com]

Interesting post. :)

I’ve been a fangirl of CS Lewis since forever but I can’t help thinking that your post definitely has him playing Good Cop to JKR’s Bad Cop, as it were. I could pick literary holes in Narnia just as much as the Potterverse, were I so inclined (Susan's fate has infuriated readers for decades) but I happen to love Narnia, so I'd rather not dissect something I love.

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.

Who mocks and torments the Dursleys in canon? You mean Hagrid? Or Dumbledore? But Dumbledore doesn’t despise the Dursleys because they’re Muggles! He lectures them because they are horrible, abusive parents.

what sort of boy would Harry have become if he had realized, even for one moment, that Uncle Vernon and Aunt Petunia were immortals?

Yeah, but ... how many abused children grow up thinking that about their tormentors? Not that Harry’s harrowing childhood is portrayed in a particularly realistic way – indeed, in the first book, the macabre Dickensian horror of his childhood is played strictly for laughs, which is why I’ve always thought JKR’s writing is not unlike that of Roald Dahl’s. As the series matures and darkens, Harry starts to show evidence of emotional damage: he has abandonment issues, anger issues, rejection issues and he withdraws emotionally from his loved ones when under pressure. In real life, however, he would be far more emotionally damaged by his abusive upbringing than he is in canon. But I don’t read HP for its gritty social realism ...!

[r-ganymede.livejournal.com]

...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?

First, I just want to say that, though it's totally clear from the context that it's not what you meant at all, my first thought was still of the immortals from Highlander. As in, Uncle Vernon and Aunt Petunia running around with swords, trying to cut off people's heads. It's an... interesting image XD

Second, I'm not really seeing why the immortal thing even as CS Lewis saw it would make a positive difference to anyone in that situation? My father was an abusive a******, though not as bad as the Dursleys, and believing he would live forever (in any form) would have been nothing but horrifying to me. I can say for certain that it would have made me a worse person with a more negative view of the world.

[pearlette.livejournal.com]

I have given this essay more thought. (I've had to split this into two posts.) To return to the OP:

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 ...?)

[librasmile.livejournal.com]

WOW...just read your essay. LOVE IT. Am settling down to read the comments, all of them. Can't wait.