Feeling guilty about being disinterested in or disliking Rowling's female characters

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

The title is self-explanatory. After rereading HP, I realized how let down I was about the dearth of interesting and/or likable female characters. As someone who has a long list of favorite female characters from various books, movies, TV shows, and video games, the women in the Harry Potter books leave me cold or bored.

Now, granted, the male characters aren’t spectacular either. Harry is passive, Ron is average, Draco is a waste, Snape is a mess, Dumbledore is also a mess, Voldemort is a standard villain, and plenty of other male characters are either boring or obnoxious.

And yet, as disappointing as some of the guys are, I can still find something about them interesting or engaging. I can see their potential or humanity, no matter how static, simplistic, or irritating their characterization is (well, maybe with the exception of James; I can’t stand him no matter how hard I try - and I’ve tried.)

Maybe I’m being sexist and judging the women too harshly. Maybe I’m not giving Rowling enough acclaim for trying to write a variety of female characters in a story revolving around a young boy. Maybe I’m excusing the poor characterization and lack of depth in the male characters when they’re far from complex either.

Whatever the reason is - it is what it is. Even as a young girl who enjoyed the books, I only gravitated towards Hermione and Luna. McGonagall was the sole female authority figure I found respectable. The rest?

Umbridge and Bellatrix are stereotypical images of evil. Narcissa is all about her son. Lavender and her friends are silly girly girls. Pansy is a mean girl. Millicent is an ugly mean girl. Fleur is French and beautiful. Katie and the other Quidditch gals are just there. Tonks is bubbly until she falls for Lupin. Cho is the first love interest. Molly is Harry’s overbearing surrogate mother. Petunia is Lily’s awful sister. Rita is the “pushy” career woman. Trelawney is an oddball. Sprout might as well be nonexistent. Merope is the birther of Evil Incarnate.

And then there’s the two female characters that I dislike the most: Ginny and Lily. They’re depicted as wonderful young women we’re meant to admire and adore. And yet, I’d take rude Pansy and crazy Bellatrix over them any day. Even Harry, who is portrayed as “amazing” at times, is given some flaws and criticisms within the narrative. Not everyone adores Harry and he’s called out by other characters (including his friends) for his behavior. But Ginny and Lily are overwhelmingly worshiped to the point where I can feel Rowling hitting me over the head on how I must approve of their superiority awesome personalities.

Writing this post is not doing any favors for the feminist in me. Strange thing is, from what I’ve read, JKR considers herself a feminist. But her female characters are not compelling or well written enough. Her male characters fall flat as well, but at least with the boys and men, it seems like she tried to give them depth. With the exception of Hermione, I get the sense that JKR didn’t bother to go any deeper with the girls and women. (And it’s telling how Hermione is an Author Avatar and the female character JKR put the most effort into.)

Well, this bitter rambling post has gone long enough, so I’ll end it here. Am I being too harsh and unfair or is there something off about the way JKR writes women? Or is it no different than the way she writes men? I know this topic is far from new, but I'm forevermore late to the party.

Comments

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Your last question is interesting, and I"m not sure I have an answer. I am one of the people who noted that Rowling is a good observer of peoples' actions and looks, but very bad at interpreting them. This is especially true, for me, in the depiction of Severus, but it's pretty universal with her characters. The female character who bothers me the most? Molly Weasely. A younger colleague called her a harridan when we were discussing the books. She's just awful to Ron. Yet, because she's kind to Harry and always giving him food, we're supposed to see her as a generous, earth-mother type. She's not.

But is Mr. Weasely any better, as a character, than his wife? I always liked him, but he, too, is deeply flawed and also somewhat stereotyped.

I do think it's true that it's easier to visualize Rowling's male characters than her female ones. They are mostly so vague that, when Rowling says things about them, it seems to come completely out of left field. Example: She was discussing Pansy Parkinson as the type of girl who would fat-shame others. Excuse me? Pansy,in the books, didn't seem body-conscious at all. She scarcely seemed to have a body. The only description I ever remember of her is "hard-faced".

Yet, it's Pansy who broke my heart in DH. Not by giving up Harry Potter's whereabouts, but by her cry, "Where's Professor Snape?" That child knew who was protecting her. But I bet you anything Rowling wouldn't' interpret it that way.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

I am one of the people who noted that Rowling is a good observer of peoples' actions and looks, but very bad at interpreting them.

I think she has a tendency to treat some of her characters as plot devices or superficial identities rather than real believable people. Going deeper beneath the surface requires extra time and work that I think JKR isn't interested in if it doesn't serve the plot. She's not a character-driven writer.

As for Molly, I think JKR wanted someone to fulfill the mother role for Harry that he didn't get from Lily because she was killed. That's why Molly comes across as more attentive, caring, and generous to Harry rather than to her own children.

This reminds me of another point I forgot to mention: how we receive so little information about Hermione's parents! Hermione is Harry's best friend too, but he never shows any interest in meeting them? Harry and Hermione both grew up in the muggle world - that's something they have in common separate from Ron. And yet, it's Ron's family that's given more attention and significance. They're Harry's ticket to ultimate happiness and the Wizarding World, so I suppose Hermione's family doesn't matter.

As for Arthur v. Molly - I think it's fair to say that many male characters lack depth as well. Nonetheless, when looking at the overall story, it's the men who get more page time in the long-run. As t0ra_chan mentioned above, the important roles in the story are fulfilled all by men. I agree with her. Hermione is the exception and even she is sometimes pushed to the side when compared to Ron. Ron was the thing Harry would miss most in GOF. He's Harry's first friend. His family is more important than Hermione's. And Harry mentions how boring it is without him when it's just him and Hermione.

Example: She was discussing Pansy Parkinson as the type of girl who would fat-shame others. Excuse me? Pansy,in the books, didn't seem body-conscious at all. She scarcely seemed to have a body. The only description I ever remember of her is "hard-faced".

JKR is not one to act morally superior when it comes to fat-shaming. Her overweight characters are consistently portrayed in a negative light. Vernon, Dudley, Umbridge, Millicent, and Peter are overweight characters who are far from noble and nice. Sure, there's Neville and Molly who are plump too, but Neville becomes better looking once he makes himself into a worthy brave Gryffindor. And Molly is the the "good" type of plump person because she's extra giving, nurturing, and motherly.

There's plenty of villainous thin characters too, namely Snape, Voldemort, and the Malfoys, but their thinness isn't insulted on the same level as the overweight villainous characters.

Or maybe I'm reaching too much. I guess what I'm trying to say is Rowling can be just as attentive to appearance as she claims mean schoolgirl Pansy is.

Yet, it's Pansy who broke my heart in DH. Not by giving up Harry Potter's whereabouts, but by her cry, "Where's Professor Snape?" That child knew who was protecting her. But I bet you anything Rowling wouldn't' interpret it that way.

I agree. JKR probably had Pansy say that as an indication Pansy is selfish and uncaring to what happens to the other houses. She only cares for her fellow Slytherins, especially when she points out Harry be handed over to Voldemort in exchange for their safety. She's just another mean Slytherin like her Professor/Headmaster, after all. Ugh.

Overall, I think JKR has trouble with writing both male and female characters, but it's her female characters that are more so overshadowed. At least the men get a chance to be important and have a sliver of depth. I don't think I can say the same for the women (other than Hermione, of course. And Hermione is JKR's exaggerated version of her younger self; that's probably why JKR put more work in Hermione's character in the first place - she was writing a version of herself).

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/As for Molly, I think JKR wanted someone to fulfill the mother role for Harry that he didn't get from Lily because she was killed/

Or from Petunia, because she resented him. However, that's another point in JKR's favor, Petunia is more fleshed out than Vernon is. In DH, we get to see a younger Petunia and her backstory. All we really learn about Vernon is that he has a mean sister whom Harry blows up in PoA.

/we receive so little information about Hermione's parents! Hermione is Harry's best friend too, but he never shows any interest in meeting them? Harry and Hermione both grew up in the muggle world - that's something they have in common separate from Ron. And yet, it's Ron's family that's given more attention and significance/

I think that JKR didn't say anything about the Grangers because they're Muggles and thus 'wouldn't be as interesting' as the Weasleys. I disagree, because I think that Muggle parents trying to cope with their magical child (in a supportive and non-abusive way) could be interesting.

But if she didn't want to talk about them, I'm still confused over why she didn't at least give them first names and the bare minimum of physical description. We know that Harry looks like his father and has his mother's green eyes and that Draco resembles his father and that Ron has his parents' red hair. But what about Hermione? Does she resemble either of her parents? Does one parent have bushy hair and the other have large front teeth? We don't know, because they're never described. The only information that we have about them are their occupations. And these are the parents of one of the main characters.

And yes, Hermione and Harry's shared background of growing up in the Muggle world definitely could've been a bonding moment for them. They're both thrust into a world that they're clueless about and they could rely on each other for support while trying to fit in. But nothing comes of it. Hermione's read all the books about Hogwarts before arriving at the castle, she inexplicably becomes the tour guide for the wizarding world instead of Ron, and the most backlash that she gets at school is from Draco. Harry is surprised at the strange things that he encounters, but soon grows to accept them. He doesn't believe in SPEW any more than Ron does, nobody at school gives him grief for being a half-blood, and he doesn't do anything to try to change the customs of the wizarding world. He gets angry at some of the things he learns, he does think that prejudice against Muggle-borns is wrong, and he does step out of bounds a bit by burying Dobby. But the Muggle world just slips away from him and Hermione. He doesn't miss anything about it and neither, apparently, does she. Which I guess is why Harry never shows any interest in Hermione's parents: they're boring Muggles, so why should he ask if he can visit Hermione's house? Why should he spend time with her family and get to know them the same way that he knows the Weasleys?

/Her overweight characters are consistently portrayed in a negative light. Vernon, Dudley, Umbridge, Millicent, and Peter are overweight characters who are far from noble and nice/

There are also Horace Slughorn and his female counterpart, Hepzibah Smith. Who, while not villainous, are also not portrayed as heroic or benevolent people either.

Actually, this kind of ties in with an earlier comment that you made up above. Commenters here have mocked Harry's inner sniping about Hepzibah Smith's looks in HBP, saying that it looks like he's jealous that she's mooning over Tom. But since JKR obviously didn't mean for Harry to have a crush on Tom, then it's kind of odd that he's harping on about her looks. I mean, yes, he can think that she's ugly because she's fat, but the level of detail that goes into describing Hepzibah's weight and Dudley's weight, etc. sounds more like what the narrative voice is judging than what someone like Harry would focus on. It's very similar to Roald Dahl's tone, but he takes more of an omniscient narrator POV in his children's books instead of a limited third-person POV.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

Petunia is treated with more relevance than Vernon, and I've noticed the fandom is also slightly kinder to Petunia opposed to Vernon. Having Harry's mother as a sister privileges Petunia's character to a certain extent.

I completely agree with the disappointment over not getting more about Hermione's parents and the missed opportunities for Harry and Hermione to bond in a unique way. I also think that JKR didn't want to waste time on "boring" normal Muggles. For all the vicious prejudice against Muggles and Muggleborns in the Wizarding World, it seems like JKR doesn't have much interest in humanizing non-magical people or showing the harsh reality of discrimination/racism affecting Hermione and Harry.

And as a side-note: it kind of bothers me how the few confirmed Slytherin half-blood characters are characterized as evil or morally ambiguous. Snape, Voldemort, and Umbridge are half-bloods and yet their half-blood status is not called in question with their involvement (or association) in a pure-blood supremacist group? I know JKR was going for the message that even those who are discriminated against seek superiority and power over others, no matter how hypocritical. Nonetheless, it's another example to me how JKR wanted to write about serious themes (racism, fascism, etc) but didn't cultivate it well enough in the overall world she created.

As for the commentary on appearance: I think it's a case of JKR's own opinions on looks seeping through Harry's POV. At least, that's the vibe I get at times. As chantaldormand mentioned above, male characters receive more elaborate descriptions about their attire and presentation. Rereading the series, I did get the sense that men have their body language, faces, and eyes given more attention and detail, regardless whether it's complimentary, unflattering, or neutral.

I also think this goes back to JKR being more approving of the "right" kind of femininity for women, since the female characters that are often described favorably are neither too girly or too masculine in appearance and behavior. That's what makes Ginny so appealing in Harry's eyes: she's feminine enough to be extremely pretty and supportive, but not too girly because she's sporty, tough, and fierce. Harry's "chest monster" for Ginny sounded more like what JKR thought a straight teenage boy would think rather than what an actual straight teenage boy would think, if that makes sense.

Re: Umbridge

[jana-ch.livejournal.com]

I don't care what JKR says in interviews and websites: Umbridge is obviously an example of the dark side of Hufflepuff. It shows a decided lack of imagination for every evil character to be a Slytherin whose principal evil characteristic is blood prejudice. *snarl*grumble*rant*

Re: Umbridge

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

I'm with you there. I can see Umbridge being the dark representative of Hufflepuff. A person can be hard-working, diligent, dedicated, patient, and loyal - and still commit terrible and atrocious acts. A Hufflepuff can have their own vision of what's "fair" and be faithful to all the wrong sorts of values. It would've been a great way to represent how each house in Hogwarts has a sinister side, and how cruel people come from every background.

But nope. Umbridge is evil, racist, and irredeemable - so let's make her a Slytherin! Obviously.

And better yet, let's have another example of an unscrupulous Slytherin half-blood, because... why not? It's not only Slytherin pure-bloods who are prejudiced and racist, even those Slytherin half-bloods are infected with poisonous ideals!

I'm shocked JKR didn't take it a step further and had racist Slytherin muggleborns just to twist the "All Slytherins are Horrible" knife further in.

Re: Umbridge

[jana-ch.livejournal.com]

Not only that, Umbridge in Book Five gives no indication that she is a blood bigot in the sense that she looks down on muggleborns, or even muggles. She does not object to non-wizard blood; she objects to non-human blood. As far as we know, her position on the Muggleborn Registration Committee in Book Seven is just a bureaucratic post. It’s her job to suppress muggleborns, and as a loyal bureaucrat she is conscientiously doing her job. When she’s on her own, it’s non-human sapients—giants and centaurs—that she finds objectionable.

It’s sad how Rowling has gone out of her way to simplify her universe. All Slytherins are evil and all evil people are Slytherins. All prejudice is anti-muggleborn bigotry, and all bigotry is anti-muggleborn. And this is happening in a culture that views actual muggles as amusing or dangerous animals, and is right to do so.

Thank God for meta and fan fiction. Most of it is trash (Sturgeon’s Law!), but occasionally one finds a fan analyst or author who can really open up this cosmos and make it into something that is still fascinating decades later.

Re: Umbridge

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

Umbridge's utmost loyalty and dedication to what she deems to be right and fair would've made her a formidable and frightening Hufflepuff. I don't recall if she outright voiced racism against muggleborns, but she did enjoy her position of power in the Ministry. Her racism was more pronounced towards non-human beings. And she wasn't a Death Eater, although she supported Voldemort's regime.

On the other hand, JKR did write on Pottermore an article about Umbridge and claimed Umbridge despised her mother for her Muggle background and her Squib brother. So there's that, although I'm not sure if Pottermore counts as canon or not, even if JKR writes some of the articles herself.

I agree on how sad it is to paint nearly all Slytherins with the same shadowy brush. Before the last book came out, I thought JKR would do a role reversal with the Gryffindors and Slytherins and show how both houses have their faults - and how both need to reconcile and cooperate with one another to take Voldemort down. I thought at least one Slytherin character would be redeemed and Harry would have to work with a Slytherin adversary (Snape or Draco) to win the war. But... it didn't happen. Harry remained the same, the Gryffindors remained morally righteous, and the Slytherins remained morally dubious at best and evil at worst. The "reveal" of Dumbledore being morally ambiguous wasn't a big deal because he remained a favorable mentor figure who did everything for Good's sake.

And yes, Rowling herself has no interest in writing or portraying muggles in the HP universe. She regards them as boring as well. As mentioned above, we learn barely anything about Hermione's parents, and Harry and Hermione don't get to bond over their shared muggle background.

Sorry for the rant, but the disappointment still stings to this day. I'm thankful for fan fiction, meta, and discussions as well. It's why I got back into the HP fandom in the first place.