19th-century Mores (yay!)

[mary_j_59]

Travis Prinzi got back to me with a very nice note last night, so all systems are go! He and I disagree strongly on (1) theology and (2) the way we see the "Potter books", but he liked my paper, anyway. :) It may still need a little editing, but I do think it makes sense.

Here goes:
Author mary-j-59
Title J.K. Rowling and the mores of the 19th

Comments

[hope_24]

Interesting essay.

I like your take on ambition. There's probably even more in Dickens that you could utilise on this point that would strengthen your argument further. There's Bitzer and Uriah Heep for example. This re-inforcement of the idea of keeping to one's place in society ties in with your Oliver Twist analogy. Although Oliver ends up in an orphanage and then a den of thieves, he ends up being led back to his rightful class. Equally, although Harry is mistreated in the lower-middle-class household of his relatives, he's eventually led back to the social sphere of his parents. Snape is put firmly back in his place for aspiring first to Lily and then to power. 'Natural order' is restored at the end of the day.

I'm not sure about 'What's Bred in the Bone Will Come Out in the Flesh', simply because I think there are counter examples that can be offered. Florence in Dombey and Son, Caddy Jellyby in Bleak House or Margaret in North and South.

As I said, interesting essay, and loads of stuff for discussion.

[mary_j_59]

Yes - thanks for your comment. Rowling's unexamined assimilation of 19th-century mores (my thesis here) does not explain all the flaws of her novels. Her extreme determinism does seem more Calvinist to me. One question I still have is: to what extent is Rowling even aware of the somewhat hateful messages that come through so strongly in these books? I do think it's possible she's not aware at all; she truly seems to think she's written different books

[threeoranges]

I agree with most of your points (especially "what's bred in the bone" and its relevance to Linton vs. Hareton and Tom vs. Harry). What intrigues me is that the Victorians, for all their faults, did at least acknowledge the necessity for society to help the disadvantaged: in the world of JKR, however, there seems no such "necessity". Rescues certainly do happen in the Potter books, but when they do it's intended to illustrate not the need, but the deserving nature of the person receiving the assistance.

I've attempted to express my feelings here, in an essay entitled "Harry vs. Merope, or why Blessed = Virtuous". It's not entirely synthesized yet, but I think I more or less made my point in that and the subsequent comments: at no point does JKR stress the need for the wizarding society to look after its weaker members. If Harry gets help, it's because he "deserves" it. If Merope doesn't... she clearly doesn't

[mary_j_59]

Thanks - another wonderful comment. I agree with all you say here.

[gothslytherin]

Very interesting essay. The 19th Century is one of my great interests, and I had seen a few of these points on the internet before, it always makes for a good read. Thank you!

[mary_j_59]

That's fascinating! I don't know Trollope at all, so could not have picked up on that one. ) But it is pretty obvious (to an adult reader with some knowledge of the literature Rowling is copying) that the Weasleys, for example, in spite of their poverty, are in a much more stable and established position in the WW than the nouveau riche interlopers, the Malfoys. I am always shocked when I come across essays defining the Weasleys as working-class. Snape is, rather obviously so, and they are not

[threeoranges]

To be fair, the Brehgert/Georgiana Longstaffe relationship in THE WAY WE LIVE NOW is intended to expose antisemitism in the so-called civilized upper-classes. This ranges from the blatant:

MY DEAR FATHER,-

Can it be true that Georgey is thinking of marrying that horrid vulgar Jew, old Brehgert? The fellows say so; but I can’t believe it. I’m sure you wouldn’t let her. You ought to lock her up.

Yours affectionately,

A. LONGESTAFFE. (Chapter 78)

to the rather subtle and very well-observed delineation of Georgiana's own behaviour:

My Dear Mamma,

I am afraid you will be very much astonished by this letter, and perhaps disappointed. I have engaged myself to Mr Brehgert, a member of a very wealthy firm in the City, called Todd, Brehgert, and Goldsheiner. I may as well tell you the worst at once. Mr Brehgert is a Jew. [This last word she wrote very rapidly, but largely, determined that there should be no lack of courage apparent in the letter.] (Chapter 65

[ellid]

This is absolutely brilliant, especially the part about rewriting. If one goes back and looks at the series at a whole, it's quite clear that the best, and best-written, of the seven books are the first three, where Rowling was still contractually obligated to listen to her editors. Once she had enough power to dictate to them, she could, and did, turn in what reads like unedited first drafts. Very bad, and why in the long run I can't see her books being taken seriously as literature after her death.

[mary_j_59]

Thank you! Honestly, I'm not sure that *I* rewrite as much as I should; I"m only just starting a couple of novels, and on these as well as everything else I work on, I tend to rewrite as I go. It's just shocking, though, that a published author of a long and complicated tale would claim never to reread nor rewrite her own work. It seems rather arrogant

[ellid]

There's a meanness of spirit at the core of the Potter books, and a streak of authorial frigidity, that really bothers me - I mean, come on. She spends almost the entire series glorifying motherhood, and then sends a woman (Tonks) who's given birth less than a month earlier out to die in a battle? In what universe does *that* makes sense? Rowling gave birth to two children while writing the Potter books and surely knows better, but she was so intent on having yet *another* orphaned (male) wizard baby that she included a patently ridiculous plot element.

The books are often compared to Tolkien, but I truly can't see Harry Potter being named the most influential piece of literature of the early 21st century thirty years after JK Rowling dies. Then again, Tolkien didn't treat his characters like puppets, and was a fanatic about rewriting. Rowling should take a lesson from him.

[raisin_gal]

Oh yes, on the Sirius-Dumbledore cruelty issue. Sorry for going even more OT, but I think we can have a whole discussion on how Dumbledore mistreated Sirius for his own benefits for basically his whole life (since for an educator to not punish a boy for his murderous action is also a sin towards *him*) for his own personal agenda and benefit, if only there were a forum called Siriusdom