On racism in the Potterverse-

[mary_j_59]

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.

Comments

[condwiramurs]

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

[mary_j_59]

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]

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?

[mary_j_59]

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]

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

[mary_j_59]

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

[sharaz_jek]

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).

[mary_j_59]

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?

[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]

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.

[sweettalkeress]

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.

[mmmarcusz]

Sometimes we sort too soon?

[litlover12]

You make some very good points!

[mary_j_59]

Thanks!

[charlottehywd]

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)

[condwiramurs]

Unfortunately I think Rowling's views are not that far from the norm in the West today, either. The HP books are creepily accurate representations of thinking in the USA especially (oddly enough). Not sure how different Britain is, but in my experience they aren't THAT far apart....

As to supposedly progressive people defending her: well, frankly, I don't see a great deal of support for close, nuanced reading of ANYTHING in the public sphere, and I also see many people who've never been taught how to do it. People on all sides of the political spectrum shout at each other and insist on the most superficial readings of everything (especially on Faux News, *shudder*), and people go along with it because nobody gave them the tools to say 'hey, wait a minute.' Or at least that's my experience here in the USA, where education is viewed as a secret plot by Satan to destroy the world. Or something.

Is my inner cynic showing through again?

[charlottehywd]

I don't take as harsh a view of things as that, but how do you mean? I know that some Americans are still quite prejudiced, but it no longer is as institutionalized as it is in JKR's world. I think that it was much more that way a few decades back.

But then, maybe I am idealistic.

[mary_j_59]

Actually, I think many, many Americans are deeply prejudiced against Arabs and Muslims, and are quite xenophobic. And I'm afraid that Condwiramurs is right about the anti-intellectual feeling in this country. I am the daughter of teachers, and am myself a librarian, and I get very offended by the typically American attitude of "those who can't do, teach".

There are many things I love about my country; we've given a great deal to the world, but we have our flaws, as well.

And I do think that Rowling became as popular as she is because something in her resonated with our current Zeitgeist.