by Travis
If you want to read a take on social justice issues in the series that is polar opposite of my own – but is a good read from the other point of view – Mary has a new essay up at her livejournal. Mary finds Rowling terribly lacking in her portrayal of social justice issues, having something of an uncritical habit of accepting the white, middle class norms of her 19th century literary favorites.
I’m of the opposite opinion – that Rowling has written a very nuanced view of many social justice issues, that much of what people think is prejudice in Rowling’s part is really her commitment to portraying social justice issues in all their vast, ugly complexity, and that she embraces a Fabian gradualism, paired with a libertarian respect for free will, which does not satisfy modern and postmodern revolutionaries. All of this is spelled out in detail in my book.
But in the meantime, do read Mary’s essay, 19th Century Mores. Like I said, it’ll give the other point of view, with which I know some readers here agree. We’ve had some pretty heated debates along these lines in the past, but Mary’s essay is a well-written example of the position opposite my own; I may interact with it in a forthcoming podcast.
revgeorge on 
Flu-Bird on 
R. Ross on 
Lily Luna on 
Arabella Figg on 
Loading ...
{ 34 comments… read them below or add one }
I’m torn on this topic. Sometimes I believe Rowling is brilliant with her social commentary, and at others she is awkward and . . . .a little preachy. I really noticed this is the way she portrayed Scrimgeour, and Harry’s sermons to him on his tactics in the ‘War on Voldemort.’ They sound like tracts, and are just as poorly written. Yet she then goes on to a brilliant conclusion to the house elf issues with perhaps the most beautiful passages in the series after Dobby’s death. She’s best when she ’shows, not tells.’ With that, I completely agree with the quote in the essay: ‘I and a few other people have mentioned that Rowling seems to be a very good observer; she can build up believable characters when she describes them from the outside, but she renders them unbelievable when explaining their motives. ‘
I watch what the characters do, not what they say.
So I am sympathetic to the critique of the way the wizards treat muggles. The lack of respect for their free-will, by obliviating, and not ‘trusting’ them to coexist with them, is rather disturbing and almost magical ‘eugenics’. . . .
This is a hard and complex topic. Perhaps that is the genius of Rowling that she makes us write and think on these very issues. I know as I write, I often find myself exploring ideas and perhaps not always expressing absolutely what I believe to be true, but writing down what comes to mind. Is that really what Rowling is doing? And hence, can we judge her themes? Perhaps the social justice in the novels do not present a completely coherent view, but rather vignettes from many angles?
Excellent thoughts, ProfessorL. Yes, Mary definitely nailed it in that one quote; I often love Rowling’s characters and sometimes dislike the way she talks about them in interviews.
I think there’s another option to this whole subject, besides “Rowling is brilliant” or “Rowling is uncritical” (or sometimes one and sometimes the other) – I think she portrays social justice issues in all their complexity, which means sometimes we’ll cheer what she writes, and sometimes we’ll wince. But we’re meant to wince. Social justice is a big messy issue in the first place, so she needs to be messy when she writes it, or it doesn’t accurately portray reality. She embraces all the paradoxes and conflicts and writes them baldly, even if it’s difficult at times to read. She trusts her readers to be able to look at a text and see where the injustices in the WW are to be found.
Let me clarify one point: I don’t think Rowling often “renders [her characters] unbelievable” in the text itself. I think most of the time, her characters are fairly consistently created within the story.
Good point about the ‘messy’ part. Perhaps that’s the often why Harry Potter debates also get a little messy. Nothing is neat and tidy– Utopia means ‘no-place,’ and that great author proceeded to get his head cut off. I would love to see Rowling get into a intellectual debate on some of the issues raised by the essay with her intellectual peers (Like an old-fashioned Chesterton vs. Bernard Shaw moment)
That was an interesting, well-written essay Mary had. I don’t read the stories the way she does at all. I had a hard time finishing it just like I had a hard time in school reading the Dickens works she liked to reference the Harry Potter stories to.
I like that slytherin point to start the essay, because I always thought that Rowling would make more of an effort towards house unity by the end of the series. The only examples we have are Professors Slughorn and Snape. Slughorn brought back help in the battle of Hogwarts which is easily overlooked given what else is occuring in the story. Snape’s story of redemption is good, but I don’t empathize as much with that character as the rest of the fandom seems to.
Points I need for clarification:
What makes something post-modern? (It seems like that term is thrown around a lot these days especially in Harry Potter analysis, and I’m not well trained in literary analysis and dictionary definitions on the subject don’t make much sense to me).
What makes Rowling a calvinist or not?
I said in the comments over there that one of the most unlikely propositions about Rowling’s faith that I’ve heard is that she’s a Calvinist.
Postmodernism is a much bigger question. You’re right – the term gets thrown around way too much without its being defined. The very short version, from Lyotard’s definition, is “Incredulity toward metanarratives.” A “metanarrative” isn’t just any grand, overarching story – it’s one that legitimizes itself autonomously (so-called “objective” views from nowhere) and legitimizes autonomous human reason. In other words, it’s my “objective, true” view becoming the overarching story that will save the world, and because it will save the world, all of you must submit to it, or I’ll throw you in jail.
Calvinist??
Maybe she said that because Rowling belongs to the church of Scotland which has calvinist roots? But I don’t see any of that in her work.
Both the Anglican Church and the Church of Scotland have Calvinist (more or less) roots, but neither of them heavily emphasize these things anymore. But no, it’s nowhere to be found in her work – unless, maybe, you could all the coincidences that got Harry out of trouble in DH as being predestined providence of some kind.
I’m in agreement with Mary concerning 19th century British Lit’s influence on HP, but I think I might posit another reason some of her depictions uphold those 19th century mores — many of them are largely intact in the English speaking world. Married motherhood is still the vastly preferred normative behavior for women — and by extension, so do we still privilege legitimized children and married couples seeking to raise a family. Just look to the American discussion on illegal immigration to see how dehumanized and ostracized the “other” is in our culture. Those of low socioeconomic standing still face alienation and exclusion — that’s what a gated community is all about. The one ubiquitous defense of migrant workers I often hear is as racist as any of the bile flung their way: “They do jobs no white person would do.”
For me, Mary’s essay is hits several major comparisons that are important, but I do think this discussion and the analogies are masking the fact that Rowling’s depictions of 20th century society are essentially spot on, but that our society is different from the 19th century only in kind, not necessarily degree. Our prejudices are, in many ways, rather different from Dickens’s, the Brontes’, Hardy’s, and others. But we privilege what we like and condemn what we don’t with just as much fervor and, sometimes, vitriol.
In our culture, it seems to me that the ideology of freedom has helped us mask some of preudices behind a rhetoric of liberty and freewill. For the realist/naturalist writers of the 19th century, “other”-hood was a function of social order bequeathed by a much bigger order, either a cosmology put in place by God or as a natural function of the newer scientifically defined causality. In other words, people were what they were, but not always because they could control it.
In America, especially, the myth of the meritocracy has allowed us to hide our prejudices behind the sense that working hard will give one his/her just rewards. If somebody is poor, homeless, or uneducated, then those problems are their fault because they didn’t work hard enough to rectify the situation. After all, we live in a free society; anyone can become anything they choose.
In a way, our prejudices are more vicious because we blame the targets of those prejudices. Poor, single mothers either shouldn’t have gotten pregnant in the first place or should work harder to feed their kid(s). Exploited immigrant workers (illegal or otherwise) should have stayed in their country. It goes on and on.
HP’s greatest achilles heel is fashioned from its inconsistencies. I do love the books, but there is no denying the books are immensely uneven stylistically, artistically, thematically, etc. I think is one more example. The last point Mary makes I think is the most salient. For all the books’ wonder and importance, they’re still the works of a relatively young writer who is making some real mistakes. It’ll be interesting to see if and where Rowling goes from here.
So, JKR, that post modern deconstructor of societal mores has now been deconstructed herself.
Really don’t have enough time to comment on Mary’s essay, but basically, she makes some good points & comparisons but I disagree with her conclusions.
I’m more in alignment with Travis & the focus on gradualism. The truth is, we will always have prejudices of one sort of another & there will always be different social classes. The trick of life is to get along with each other & be able to look at others as human beings despite our prejudices & social classes. There’s a lot of gradualism & finesse with that.
Which is what I think JKR gets across in her work. People’s attitudes were challenged. Some things changed; some radically, but others more subtly. What’s Harry doing in the very last two pages of DH? He’s challenging his own long held beliefs that nothing good can come from Slytherin by encouraging his son that to enter Slytherin would not be a bad thing.
To me, it would’ve been more unbelievable & inconsistent for things to have so radically changed. 19 years is, after all, a very short time.
So, here’s what JKR needs to do. Write a postquel where Albus Severus enters Slytherin & becomes best buds with Scorpius & introduces him to his cousin Rose, who then start dating & then examining how the Malfoy’s & Potter’s & Weasley’s react.
Not that I’m demanding or anything…
I think the other problem you’re going to run into is that if you assume that HP is a series about social justice, you’re going to have lots of problems. It’s not that. It’s a series about Harry, and it gives us a passing snapshot of the Wizarding World, which is, like ours, a very unjust place in many, many ways. Which is why even many of the “good guys” embrace glaring prejudices and benefit from unjust societies.
The only places I get hesitant is when Rowling herself makes an unfortunate choice about describing an oppressed group – for example, the house-elves should have used their powerful magic and ability to apparate in the battle of Hogwarts; instead, they were described in a comic-relief sort of way.
I don’t mean to belabor the point, but I don’t think the Fabian connection is a cute find; I think Fabian gradualism is the interpretive key to the sociopolitical commentary in the series, without which key, much will be missed.
Travis said, “I don’t mean to belabor the point, but I don’t think the Fabian connection is a cute find; I think Fabian gradualism is the interpretive key to the sociopolitical commentary in the series, without which key, much will be missed.”
I’d hope you’d think that, since it appears to be the underpinning of your book!
Another point on social commentary, social justice & all is well & good but it has one glaring temptation to sin involved, and that is the overriding belief that you’re doing something for someone else’s benefit & by golly they’re going to be helped whether they like it or not! You can also call it “do-gooderism” or “we know better than you do what’s good for youism.” C.S. Lewis said that the most dangerous people were those who were trying to do things for the good of others.
I see this in Hermione’s crusade for the house elves. They’re going to be freed whether they like it or not. She refuses to take their feelings into account & whenever anyone says the house elves like it that way, she simply says the house elves are deluded. Which may or may not be true but it’s also not up to Hermione to make the sole determination of that. My point being is that there are also dangers & prejudices associated with those who desire what is called social justice.
To defend Mary’s work a bit, I think her point isn’t that Rowling is secretly arguing in favor of racism, or that Rowling should more openly argue against it. Mary’s point is that Rowling seems to want to say one thing about social prejudice, but is betraying something in much of her writing that is undermining how we might understand a major issue in the novels.
Travis, you’re right to point out that HP isn’t primarly about social injustice. But, it is a major underpinning behind the central conflict(s) in the series. Everything Voldemort does is predicated on social distinction and class. Harry’s primary internal conflict centers on his place and purpose in the world — something inextricably linked to his sociopolitical identity. And Ron and Hermione are nothing to the series if not a study in how Harry’s internal conflicts play out in a concrete way — they’re hyperboles for Right versus Easy. Harry’s supposed to be a more nuanced understanding of each side and why people choose that path.
The problem Mary is highlighting, at least broadly, is that Rowling’s version of “nuanced” often reverts right back into an implicit reassertion of social prejudices she’s trying to critique. Mary is at least partially right. Travis mentioned the house elf revolt at the end of DH. I don’t have the book in front of me at the moment, but go back and reread the scene and take note of the “comic relief” (to borrow Travis’s term) and the language that persistently describes them as diminutive. They’re size isn’t referenced as some kind of ironic empowerment; instead, it’s hilarious. Mary’s already detailed the problems with Goblins.
Intrigued by the comments above, and wanting to join the discussion, I finally read Mary’s essay.
I think she draws some interesting parallels between the characters of Dickens and E. Bronte on the one hand, and of JKR on the other. And there’s no doubting that as a tribal species we are prejudiced against those who look, sound and act differently from us, and that we try to defend the just-world hypothesis by ascribing people’s disadvantages to their characters rather than factors beyond their control.
However, I think that she (Mary) is cherry-picking the examples she uses to make her points about 19th century mores. Not only are there examples in the HP books which refute her conclusions, some of the examples she uses to make her points can support the opposite conclusion.
First off, the point that JKR paints ambition as a bad thing. Mary bases her argument on the characterization of Slyhtherin house as “ambitious”, on Voldemort’s megalomaniacal ambition, and on the putting down of the “little social climber”, Severus Snape.
I think there are many meanings of the word “ambition”. To do well. To succeed. To be the best. To have power and status. The ambition to do well is not condemned in the books. Hermione, the genius-child of her generation, is universally praised. Lily Evans, a previous poster-child for academic success, is also praised. As are many others who excel in the skills of wizardry: Dumbledore, FredandGeorge.
I think that JKR condemns ambition when it means ambition for power over others. And while Voldemort – the social “upstart” is the main example of this, Dumbledore, one of the good guys, is also seen as flawed because of it. As are many other characters, associated not only with Voldemort but with the Ministry (Umbridge, anyone?).
Interestingly, ambition to have and exercise power (based on the idea of White Man’s Burden) is a very 19th century more. And it is this more that JKR attacks very strongly, in both her good and evil characters.
Mary, on the other hand, defines ambition in terms of the drive to change one’s social status. I don’t see how the two examples she cites show this. Tom Riddle’s humble beginnings are not held against him. In fact, he is very successful at Hogwarts. No one cares where he comes from – they only care for his accomplishments (and his handsome looks and his charisma).
The other example Mary cites is that “little social climber” Severus Snape. I fail to see how one could describe Snape in those terms. Snape does not care for friendship, social standing, status, approval or admiration. He appears to be almost asocial, impervious to social influence with one exception. Like Voldemort, he falls because of his grab for power – and all that that entails.
Bottom line: JKR’s metanarrative dings anyone who reaches for power over his fellows, regardless of their standing in the social order or need to change it.
Her second point is that JKR reaffirms the 19th century more that “a child inherits his moral character from his parents”. She cites Harry and Tom as examples. To which I respond: how do we then account for the Black brothers, scions of one of the most intolerant and prejudiced Pure Blooded families, who both give their lives in defending the world from the uber-champion of Pure Bloods? And how about Hagrid, that ultra-nurturant son of an exceedingly careless mother? Or Snape, the son of a (probably) abusive father whose love for a woman redeems him? Or Barty Jr, ungrateful son of a loving father? Or the insufferable Percy, the priggish son of a totally non-pretentious mother and father?
Her third point is that JKR paints a very racist world: foreigners or those who are different from the racial majority are portrayed negatively, (Fleur and Victor Krum, and the semitic Goblins) and treated badly (the cheerfully cavalier treatment meted out to humans by wizards. )
There is some truth to this one. JKR does give us facile stereotypes with her foreigners, especially in the matter of accents. And she does dehumanize or infantalize goblins, elves, giants and of course, humans. On the other hand, there is one race which stands as equals: the centaurs. And there are a couple of foreigners who are not stereotypes: Karkaroff and Grindelwald.
Fourth point: a woman’s place is in the home; there are no nontraditional roles for women. I have in the past made the same argument. My heart was broken by Hermione’s fate: married to the well-meaning oaf, Ron, her intellectual discourse limited to comments on how he passed his driving tests. On the other hand, there is the example of Minerva McGonnagle. And Neville’s grandmother, who brings him up alone. And the Hogwarts House founders, Helga Hufflepuff and Rowena Ravenclaw. And Madam Maxime, the head of BeauxBatons. All fairly non-traditional roles for women. And I don’t interpret the killing of Bellatrix Lestrange by Molly Weasley as a comment about the moral superiority of women who have children over those who don’t. I see it as the triumph of the drive to create and nurture life over the drive to destroy.
Mary summarizes by saying that in JKR’s metanarrative, moral virtue is inherited – and uninfluenced by events – that women are best when they support men and children, and that foreigners are inferior. There is some support for some of this, but it is not by any means unilateral support. There are exceptions which open up different world views.
Red Rocker,
I agree with your analysis of Mary’s essay, in most points. I couldn’t not help disagreeing on some, namely the roles for women. The metanarrative of the feminist movement is already starting to break down & the movement’s only forty or so years old.
But that aside, I hardly fail to see how women are denigrated by marriage & family, especially in the works of JKR, since she herself is a woman & spent part of her time as a single mother. And yet in her works most women are in marriage relationships with family. I don’t think Hermione being a high powered member of the Ministry of Magic is meant to show that women are kept down by marriage & kids. Nor is Ginny kept down by having her athletic career & then commentary career while still being married & having children.
I think JKR places a strong emphasis on motherhood & it’s tremendous impact on the family. Motherhood in her own life seems to colour & drive her view of motherhood in the books. I suppose, though, that she can’t be a great author because she’s married & has children. That would be the real stereotype.
Red Rocker said, “in JKR’s metanarrative…women are best when they support men and children…”
Yes, and the question I purpose is, what’s wrong with that? Having that ideal doesn’t necessarily have to look down on or exclude women in other roles or positions, especially those who find themselves in situations because of tragedies or events not of their own making, like Grandma Longbottom or Andromeda Tonks.
I think we could posit the opposite point, that men are at their best when they’re husbands & fathers. And that the ideal of that doesn’t mean that men can’t be worthwhile in any other position or role.
I think JKR has subtly struck a blow, through Molly Weasley, at the stereotype that a woman who’s a full time mother can’t be as good or influential or powerful as a woman who’s the head of a corporation or nation. Somehow in our modern world we’ve gone from the one extreme that said women could only be mothers & wives & nothing else to an extreme that believes that women are somehow lessened by being mothers & wives & can’t be just a mother.
There is still truth to the old saying, “The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world.”
Regarding Hermione, who is going to be influenced most by her & her views on prejudice & tolerance? People who are having her rules & regulations imposed on them top down or her children whom she raises to share her views?
I think the ideal that JKR espouses is embodied in the last chapter of Proverbs regarding a woman who fears the Lord.
So, unless Jo is somehow being antiwoman, I don’t see how one can necessarily take the way she portrays marriage & motherhood as a negative or a patriarchal holdover or stereotype.
I don’t think Mary was explicity criticizing the view that a woman’s most fulfilling role is to support and nurture her husband and family. She was just saying that this is a very 19th century more and out of place in the writings of a 21st century author, especially one who is politically “rather liberal”.
I would disagree with her (Mary’s) conclusion that this misplaced metanarrative is the result of JKR not re-writing her books. Molly Weasley is such a force of nature that no amount of writing could have diminished her determined domestic bullying. But perhaps a re-write might have saved Hermione from her apparent fate. Rather than playing cozy families at King’s Cross, Harry and Ron might have taken the kids to King’s Cross while Hermione kept in touch via e-owl from a high-powered wizarding conference somewhere and they all kept track of Ginny at some international Quidditch match. You know – make it real that these women had lives outside of their families.
Lots of great commentary here. Dave, I think you hit the nail on the head here: “I think I might posit another reason some of her depictions uphold those 19th century mores — many of them are largely intact in the English speaking world.”
I agree with your points in coming to Mary’s defense in your second comment, and I need to clarify that I’ve been involved in the comments there also – all at rapid pace and off the top of my head in breaks at work…and at this point, I can’t keep straight to whom I’m responding.
Red Rocker, very, very well said. “Cherrypicking examples” is exactly what I thought was going on (and it continues in the myriad of comments there – for example, the belief by some that Hermione’s memory charm on her parents clearly demonstrates that she’s a racist, because her parents are Muggles … ). And I also agree that some of the examples she chooses could be read exactly the other way around.
The only place we’d sorta disagree is on Mrs. Weasley and Hermione at the end (though I do see where you’re coming from with Hermione at the end); I address the Mrs. Weasley think in the book, but I mostly let feminists who think Mrs. Weasley is great do the talking
Red Rocker said, “Rather than playing cozy families at King’s Cross, Harry and Ron might have taken the kids to King’s Cross while Hermione kept in touch via e-owl from a high-powered wizarding conference somewhere and they all kept track of Ginny at some international Quidditch match. You know – make it real that these women had lives outside of their families.”
But Jo did show them as a high powered executive & an International Quidditch star…extra-textually.
Anyway, what parent misses their child’s first day at school if they can help it? In the wizarding world it’d be just as easy for Hermione to be getting communications at King’s Cross as it would be to send them from the ministry. And I think it would diminish Jo’s point on the importance of the family.
Wow, Travis! Just looked at some of the commentary from over at Mary’s essay site. The particular exchange you had with Cardigrl is pretty interesting & informative. Let me say that I agree, mostly, with you in the matter. I’m not sure people over there are doing literary criticism such much as literary destructionism.
So. although Mary makes a few valid points, I think she really does carry many things too far & stretches certain things in the books beyond a reasonable reading of them. I also note that she tends to interpret some things in the books based on Rowling’s extra textual statements & interviews. Which is not the same as the text itself, no matter how helpful or insightful they may be into the text. Her conclusion that the books are & remain racist & sexist & what not because Rowling does not do rewrites & is a young writer, I find to be a very simplistic answer.
So, I find her analysis to be a very heavy handed, almost brutal, treatment of the text as opposed to a more nuanced examination which we generally find here on The Hogshead or at Hogwarts Professor.
revgeorge, I do see difficulty in relying too much on Rowling interviews, to be sure. As is evidenced by the comments, both views on what Rowling thinks of her readers has been supporter from interviews.
There is a certain level of “deconstruction” going on there, though I’d put deconstruction within the overall camp of literary criticism, just for clarification. What is found there is not altogether different than what you’ll find in most of the literature that has been dissatisfied with Rowling’s social commentary (essays in Anatol, Heilman, and Whited, for example). I think Mary did it better than most of those essays in her linking it to 19th c. British lit.
Ultimately, I agree some good points were made, but that overall, it’s not the best or most defensible position.
I’m thinking that Mary is also misrepresenting 19th century mores, at least as they appear in E. Bronte and Dickens.
She accuses Dickens of disapproving of ambition, citing the example of Pip, who seeks to elevate himself beyond the social class to which he was born.
I think that’s an oversimplification of what happens to Pip. It’s been a while since I read Great Expectations. But what I remember is that Dickens is critical of Pip – rather Pip is critical of himself since the tale is told in the first person – for being ashamed of his brother-in-law, Joe, not because Joe represents Pip’s social origins, but because Joe is a truly noble man. The issue of Pip’s sister – who is a fairly vulgar woman as far as I can recall – does not arise; it would not be elitist to be ashamed of her, it would only be human. Pip transcends his origins by getting an education and learning to speak and act like a gentleman, and none of this is criticized. His lesson is not that one should not learn new ways, but that one should not lose track of real values: honesty, decency, moral virtue, all represented in the book by Joe. Or something like that.
Now to Heathcliff. He’s bad. And his son is weak. Does his badness – and his son’s weakness – lie in his lower socio-economic origin? Does Heathcliff see himself and his son as “tin” to Hareton’s (and his father, HIndley’s) “gold”? And is his – and Cathy’s – transgression their aspiration to mate with someone from another socio-economic class?
I don’t think the details support such conclusions.
First of all, Heathcliff calls his son “tin” because he is weak, and spoiled. But as far as I can recall, he despises him not because he is his son, but because he equally despises his mother, Isabella, whose privileged social class does not make her “gold”. And he calls Hareton “gold” because, paradoxically, Hareton reminds him of himself when he was a young man, growing up under Hindley’s ungentle rule: brutalized, treated like a servant, and yet somehow retaining his innate dignity and strength.
I could be wrong, but in both cases, my understanding was that Heathcliff was referring to the innate worth of the two boys, and not to their social origins.
As for the doomed romance, while the mores of the time made a marriage between the daughter of a land-owner and a stray orphan quite inappropriate, the logic of the story seems to say the opposite. The love between the two is so strong that Catherine should have had the strength to put aside her regard for the mores and follow her heart. The transgression on her part was not in daring to love Heathcliff, but rather in lacking the intestinal fortitude to follow her heart. And as for Heathcliff, his transgression was his inability to forgive. Hardly a sin limited to the lower socio-economic classes.
For me, the 19th century mores at work in Wuthering Heights pale before the words spoken by Catherine Earnshaw:
“If all else perished, and he remained, I should still continue to be; and if all else remained, and he were annihilated, the universe would turn to a mighty stranger: I should not seem a part of it…Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He’s always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being.”
Red Rocker, I’ve not yet read Great Expectations, so I can’t comment on that. But I read both of those issues in Wuthering Heights the exact same way you do.
Speaking of “gold,” your analysis on this has been just that. Thanks.
No, you’re probably right. It just rubs me the wrong way. Especially the prejudice that we have nowadays that the way everybody did it in the past wasn’t as enlightened as we do it now. It’s quite possible that 19th century mores could be just as valid & perhaps even more helpful than the mores we have today.
I think I also understand more & more about what John always points out about Rowling’s work, that it certainly is a confection & conflation of many different literary styles & symbols & mythologies et al, but that she uses them in her own unique way which doesn’t necessarily fit into how we like to skim through a work & pigeon hole it & make wide ranging equations instead of looking at things individually. Just as an example, this almost one to one equation of Snape with Heathcliff.
Strangely enough, a lot of what JKR writes is being taken as allegory instead of a more complex & nuanced work, almost the same way Chronicles of Narnia is pigeon holed by so many as allegory. It just seems to me to be a lot of sloppy literary criticism.
Ah well, I’ll enjoy the day when you don’t have to say, “I wish I could say more but that’s chapter twelve of my book.”
Yes, thank you for the analysis, Red Rocker. Very helpful. I’ve never read Wuthering Heights but I did see the Monty Python semaphore version.
I read Mary’s essay and all the comments–well nearly all. I hesitated to even read it as I know from past experience that she and I just don’t have the same opinions of the last three HP books. Not at all. And no amount of discussion has brought us to any closer understanding, so I refrained from making any comments there.
I feel much better reading what all of you have had to say as it makes more sense to me. I think in any discussion about HP one has to take all the books into consideration, not just selected bits and pieces. And you’ve all done it so well.
Just in the last few years I have discovered that I really like Dickens. I can see some of the comparisons that Mary made with Oliver Twist and Great Expectations, but my conclusions weren’t the same at all.
If I were to compare Snape to any 19th century literary character, it would be Sydney Carton from Dickens’s “A Tale of Two Cities”. Carton isn’t particularly a nice person. In fact, he is quite rude and irritating throughout much of the story and seems very selfish and uncaring, but he redeems himself in a truly noble (and very Christian) way. IMO, Rowling came very close to doing the same thing with Snape. (And I’m happy to say that I saw that one before we got to the last book.)
I never can see Snape as Heathcliff, however. Heathcliff was a despicable character (actually, that’s the way I felt about all the characters in Wuthering Heights), who had no good qualities and did nothing to redeem himself. Not only does he end up destroying himself, he destroys everyone he comes near. Red Rocker, thanks for your excellent description of the characters in “Wuthering Heights”. Even though I didn’t like the book at all, I did read it the way you did.
In reading Mary’s essay, one of the things that struck me is that she and some of the commenters seem determined to see HP as a social commentary. But I see it as a story about people. And people are not perfect. They don’t always make the right choice, and when they make a wrong choice they aren’t always penalized for it. That’s life.
And that was what Rowling gave us — a view of life with all its imperfections, and how good fights against evil. What we, as the readers, do with that view is left up to us. Because Rowling shows us the weaknesses of characters or the negative sides of our institutions or the injustice in the way society is doesn’t mean that she is promoting any of it. She is just showing it and it’s up to us to see that it is wrong and that something needs to be done. Just what that is also falls in the catagory of something we need to figure out. She has shown us the problem but the books are not a how-to manual for fixing all the ills of our world. That is one of the things that I found so appealing. As an author, Rowling is trusting that the reader is smart enough to get her point of view and then do something useful to make things better.
That’s where I see that it’s valid to compare Rowling to Dickens. He did the same thing with many of his books. He showed the problems of his day. But I never got the message that Mary said — that Dickens was saying someone was stuck in their social class and should stay there. What I took away, and from commentaries I’ve read, Dickens was showing what was wrong and leaving it to the reading public to figure out that there needed to be some changes to improve life for everyone.
The only real exception I have to that is the characterization of Jews in Dickens books. It is, by any standard, racist — there I will agree with Mary. But apparently that viewpoint wasn’t so uncommon for the times in which he was writing. Analyzing a book written 150 years ago by today’s cultural values is interesting because it gives us the opportunity to apply the message to our own lives. However, we still should remember to read the story in the context of the times in which it was written. And those times were different. That doesn’t excuse the racism, it just gives us a glimpse of what life was like 150 years ago.
revgeorge, you brought up a phrase that I used to use quite a lot when I was in junior high. I felt like I just didn’t fit well in the social structure of my school. And I resented that most of the kids wanted to pigeon hole everyone. Just where do you fit in? Are you popular? Or not? Part of the In Crowd or the Out Crowd? I didn’t feel like they ever figured out just who I was
So what I see with Mary’s essay and some of the comments is that they are trying very hard to put Rowling into a category and she just doesn’t fit in any one category — she’s not someone who can be pigeon-holed. And that’s another thing that I really like about HP — it’s not obvious where it fits, which makes it all the more interesting.
Pat
Agree with Pat that Sydney Carton is a much better fit for Snape than Heathcliff.
Carton’s life is pretty much wasted; the only thing that gives it meaning is his love for Lucy and his willingness to sacrifice everything to keep her and her loved ones safe. There is no drive to hurt anyone, or to exact revenge. His love for Lucy is also pure – meaning it’s not sexually expressed – and pretty respectful. He is content to love her from afar.
Heathcliff, on the other hand, is a driven man. All of his actions, after Cathy’s death, have one object: to destroy the two families, the Earnshaws and the Lintons. There is no desire to protect anyone, post-Cathy. In fact, he actively torments her child, young Catherine, kidnapping her and forcing her into a marriage with his son. His feelings for Cathy do not carry on to her child or any member of her family. His love is very sexual – even if it’s not openly stated in the book, there is little doubt that he and Cathy share a physical bond.
Commenters have described Snape as being selfish and obsessed in his love for Lily. But compared to Heathcliff, he is downright altruistic and forgiving. Much closer to Carton, in fact, who is motivated by a selfless love, than Heathcliff who is, as Pat suggests, a really unpleasant chap.
Pat, very excellent observations. I think you are right in that JKR’s isn’t writing social commentary, as Travis also pointed out, as much as she is just showing us the wizarding world & all its prejudices & problems as well as its good attributes. And showing is often times better than telling, if you know what I mean. In a sense, JKR, in her social commentary, is trying to sneak her readers past watchful dragons that would take note if she were grinding an axe on something.
But the main point of the books isn’t social commentary per se but the triumph of love over death & hatred.
Quote:
Her second point is that JKR reaffirms the 19th century more that “a child inherits his moral character from his parents”. She cites Harry and Tom as examples. To which I respond: how do we then account for the Black brothers, scions of one of the most intolerant and prejudiced Pure Blooded families, who both give their lives in defending the world from the uber-champion of Pure Bloods? And how about Hagrid, that ultra-nurturant son of an exceedingly careless mother? Or Snape, the son of a (probably) abusive father whose love for a woman redeems him? Or Barty Jr, ungrateful son of a loving father? Or the insufferable Percy, the priggish son of a totally non-pretentious mother and father?
————
While Sirius differed from his family in ideology, he was very much like them in character. He had a cruel streak as wide as Bellatrix’s – as is shown by his treatment of Snape, both in their schooldays and in POA, before he knew Snape had been a Death Eater (’served him right’? for what exactly? death for tattling?). Sirius’ total devotion to Harry is similar to Regulus’ devotion to Kreacher. Sirius was a Black through and through.
The same goes for the two Crouch men – that they ended up on opposing sides does not mean they had different personalities. It is hard to determine what Barty Jr was really like because most of the time we see him he is acting a part, but to be such a successful actor he must have been very thorough, detail oriented and dedicated to his goal – just like his father. Of course his father was also acting to an extent – covering up the secret of the son he had been hiding at home. Which means both were excellent liars. Both were prepared to do whatever it took for their respective goals and it seems both believed in those goals unquestioningly.
As for Percy – he was the most humble of the Weasleys. He was the only one who apologized, despite the fact that he was wronged by his family at least as much as he had wronged them. (Also, he wasn’t any more ambitious than his siblings. Molly thought the twins lacked ambition, but in reality their ambition was in a direction she did not appreciate – making money rather than doing well at school and climbing up the Ministry ladder. Ron was ambitious to stand out – see the Mirror of Erised, and Ginny’s ambition was to become Mrs Harry Potter.)
Snape – we do not know enough about his parents except they were not a good match and must have made each other miserable. We don’t even know who held the power in that relationship. The way Snape seems to identify with his mother (his choice of nickname, and also, I believe, his House preference) suggests to me that the snapshot Harry saw in his memories was not representative. While we are on the topic of Snape – where do you see him as seeking power over others? We do not know what motivated him to join the Death Eaters.
Oryx,
There is a lot to what you say. All of the children whose examples I offered in defense of the argument that a child’s moral character is not invariably inherited from their parents do in fact share some similarities with their parents. Sirius is an arrogant elitist – he just bases his elitism on courage and defiance of the rules rather than birth. Barty Jr. shares his ruthlessness with Barty Sr. who did after all initially let him be incarcerated in Azkaban. Percy gets his overzealous regard for the rules from his mother, who’s constantly trying to get her children to behave. Percy, in fact, is Molly’s surrogate in the lives of his younger brothers. And Snape is as cruel to the non-Slytherin children as I suspect his father was to his mother, if not to him. And no, we don’t know much about his parents’ relationship. We see his mother crying, we know they argue a lot, we know that his father “doesn’t like anything much”. You’re right: we don’t know who held power in that relationship. But Snape’s love for Lily – and the nature of his love for Lily – doesn’t sound much like his father’s love for his mother.
None of this is too surprising. Of course children take on a lot of their morality from their parents. How could they not? My point is that in the HP universe, it is not an inevitable conclusion. Children appear to have the power to choose to act according to different moral principles. Thus Sirius – the arrogant elitist PureBlood – chooses Gryffindor, is best man at a wedding of a PureBlood and a MudBlood, and dies fighting against Voldemort. Barty Jr kills his father, who has risked his career to give him shelter. And Percy allies himself with his father’s enemies at the Ministry (before he turns to the Light Side).
My conclusion that Snape sought power over others is an assumption, true. All we really know is that he studies Dark Magic, and wants to join Voldemort. However, everything we know about Dark Magic leads me to believe that it is not practiced to help others, that it is harmful and hurtful towards others. And Voldemort’s whole aim in life appears to be to gain power, power over Muggles, other wizards, and of course, eventually, over death. It is possible that Snape seeks to ally himself with him for a purpose other than gaining power – greater knowledge of Dark Magic, perhaps – but the whole purpose of Dark Magic is power, including power over others.
On Snape: when you say Snape was cruel to non-Slytherin children do you mean as student or as teacher? As student all we know is he used the M word and found Mulciber’s unknown hexes funny. We don’t know that he did anything cruel at all. As teacher we see him insulting several students, taking away points and giving detentions. We do not see him doing anything cruel. On the contrary – whenever anyone appears to be in real danger he rushes to help, or is anguished that he can’t help (examples: his reaction when a student is taken to the Chamber of Secrets, rushing upstairs past his broken-in office because he heard the screaming from what turned out to be Harry’s egg, rushing from his office leaving Harry with the Pensieve when he heard Trelawney yelling or when Montague was found addled in a toilet). The spells in his book were mostly no Darker than the norm at Hogwarts, except for Sectumsempra, reserved for ‘enemies’ – which he clearly had, considering he nearly died in the Shrieking Shack. Harry experimented quite a lot with that book and that was the only problematic spell he ran across, so there is little to corroborate Sirius’ claim that Snape was a precoscious practitioner of Dark Arts. He may have had a lot of theoretical knowledge in the area though, and IMO his argument with Lily was that he considered the categorization of certain aspects of magic as Dark and therefore taboo arbitrary, he was not going to avoid a spell because Lily or anyone else called it Dark if he felt it was appropriate for the situation at hand.
His motivations for joining Voldemort may have been any of the following (at the very least): looking for acceptance (because he knew he had lost what acceptance he had from Lily), looking for appreciation for his talents, rebelling against an establishment that put Slytherins down and expected the worst from them, seeking a postion from which he could protect Lily once Voldemort won, looking for a father substitute in Voldemort (Barty Jr’s reason). Not all of these reasons are about power.
Regarding Percy: He never went Dark, not for a second. His disagreement with his parents is completely understandable and does not require attributing any immoral or otherwise negative motivation to him. In OOTP he acted on the information that was available to him. In HBP he remained with the Ministry at a time the Ministry claimed to be fighting Voldemort. At most he can be accused with naivete, but with Dumbledore’s tendency to act in secrecy in the past it is no wonder few people believed him.
People who are very similar in their thinking and in their emotional constitution can end up with different beliefs because they have different input available to them. That does not mean they have different moral character, sometimes it is the same moral character applied to different things. Had Arthur been in Percy’s place, he may have acted just like Percy did (to remind you in the first war Arthur worked with the Ministry and did not join the Order).
Take away Snape’s attraction to the Dark Arts, and you lose the reason for his rupture with Lily. You also lose the reason why it was such a bad idea for Harry to depend so much on the used Potions book in 6th year Potions. For me, his attraction to the Dark Arts is so much a part of what defines him, that I find it difficult to know where to even begin to refute the suggestion that there is no evidence for it. But one could start by his panegyric to the Dark Arts in his very first DADA class.
You posit some interesting reasons for why Snape was drawn to Voldemort. Any of them are possible, but most are not too probable, especially the one about joining the Death Eaters so he could protect Lily and the one about looking for a father substitute.
About Percy going Dark. I was writing facetiously (referring to the language of Star Wars). No, there is no evidence that he ever wanted to become a Death Eater. He was, however, the Minister’s man, when the Minister was clearly anti-Dumbledore and anti Order. He was not aligned with the rest of the good guys, and it would be difficult to argue that he was fighting for anything except the powerful status quo. He was, very clearly in my mind, the perfect bureaucrat, who let his judgment be overborne by the demands of authority. That is, until he came to his senses.
The way I read Mary’s point about inherited morality was in terms of doing good vs doing evil, i.e. the children of people who do good things also do good, the children of people who do bad things also do bad. Thus children continue in their parents’ foot-steps. When you look at it in terms of good vs evil, it’s more difficult to see how the same moral character could result equally in bad and good actions. I like to believe that a good person would know what good acts looked like, from sheer habit if nothing else. Bottom line: I doubt very much that Percy believed he was doing a good thing by supporting the Minister against Dumbledore (and Harry and his parents), although he might have attempted to persuade himself of it. He was not depicted as doing the right thing; rather the impression I got from the text was that he was trying to advance his career by catering to the man in power. He was, in other words, being self-serving.
As for Arthur not joining the Order in the first war: unless the Ministry and the Order / Dumbledore were similarly at odds during the first war, his not joining the Order would not have had the same implications.
But in either case, Percy is not my primary example of a child’s morality being different from his parents’, because he does eventually return to the family tradition of acting decently. The Black brothers, and Barty Jr. would be the major examples.
Snape and Lily indeed differed on the Dark Arts – for Lily they were something to be avoided, taboo. For Snape they were another form of cool magic. But I’d say until his invention of Sectumsempra his interest was theoretical.
I don’t know why you consider protecting Lily or looking for a father figure less plausible than other reasons. Snape had conflicted parents and he clearly identified with his magical mother over his non-magical father. Barty Jr was dissappointed with his own father and saw Voldemort as a substitute. Why not Snape too? Especially as once he left Voldemort he seems to have clung to Dumbledore as yet another father figure? Regarding Lily – Snape left Voldemort because he did not trust Voldemort’s word not to kill Lily if she acted reasonably (I suppose he did not expect Lily to act in a way Voldemort would consider reasonable for her). This is entirely consistent with a previously held naive belief that as Death Eater he would be able to warn her, bargain for her etc.
I disagree with you about Percy. From book 1 he saw Dumbledore as brilliant but mad. Why would he trust him about Voldemort’s return? He sided with the Ministry because he had no reason not to.
Quote:
When you look at it in terms of good vs evil, it’s more difficult to see how the same moral character could result equally in bad and good actions. I like to believe that a good person would know what good acts looked like, from sheer habit if nothing else.
————
Ever had a political disagreement with someone whose morality you generally respect? This happened to me on some debate forum several years ago. A person with whom I generally agree on issues of beliefs, moral principles, individual rights, the position of the individual vs society, came to hold a view opposing to my own regarding a central question of that time. How did people of generally similar ways of thinking come to be in such opposition? Because we varied in our opinion regarding reliability of information sources and because we disagreed on the risk/benefit analysis of the options that were available at the time. Happens to the best of friends. That he was mistaken (as he admitted later on) did not make him a bad person.
IMO Percy was in the same position, except his beliefs, and the actions he took based on those beliefs, had more significance than my debate partner’s, because Percy had the opportunity to make a difference. Percy’s views were the same as those of the ‘man on the street’ in Wizarding Britain. I don’t see him being dishonest or deliberately ignoring data that was available to him. The only place where he was ethically wrong, rather than merely mistaken was that he let the political disagreement escalate into disrespectful behavior towards his parents, though again, I understand him, considering Arthur’s accusations of potential spying.