The first thing that struck me that I hadn’t noticed before was Voldemort’s response to Snape’s information about Harry’s departure from Privet Drive:

“Saturday … at nightfall,” repeated Voldemort. His red eyes fastened upon Snape’s black ones with such intensity that some of the watchers looked away, apparently fearful that they themselves would be scorched by the ferocity of the gaze. Snape, however, looked calmly back into Voldemort’s face and, after a moment or two, Voldemort’s lipless mouth curved into something like a smile.

The eyes fastening, the others looking away, and Snape’s calm response all suggest that Voldemort is in the habit of regularly performing Legilimency on every one of his Death Eaters, every time they bring him information. This says a few things to me: (1) Snape was a tremendous Occlumens; (2) Snape was in incredible danger every moment he returned to Voldemort; (3) Dumbledore was right not to divulge his entire plan to Severus.

The last of those three claims will be the most controversial, but the first two are important, however obvious. We’ve discussed a bit how much Snape’s identity – double agent, needing to fool a very skilled Legilimens – affects his need to maintain a harsh and cruel demeanor. This verifies that Snape was in danger, every moment he reported to Voldemort, of being “found out.” Snape, his most trusted Death Eater, was still examined every single time.

The second issue of importance in this chapter is the Malfoy foreshadowing. The Malfoys have been thoroughly rattled, and are not the arrogant practitioners of the Dark Arts that we met in earlier books. Allegiance to Voldemort did not work out so well for them. I’ve written elsewhere of Dumbledore’s strategy, rooted in his belief in the power of love, to “save the Malfoys” and in turn, save the world. The shaken Malfoys in this scene will become instrumental to Harry’s survival and victory at book’s end.

Finally, we have the death of Charity Burbage. I recall on first reading this that learning the prisoner’s identity was a bit anti-climactic, given the build-up of the mystery earlier in the chapter. But symbolically, it all works very well. Voldemort spews his racist message, and then, quite literally, kills “Love.” The cries for help from Snape are a foreshadowing of the exchange we’ll later learn he had with Dumbledore just a few weeks prior – that he’s only watched the deaths of those he could not save.

Related Posts

• Chapter 20: Xenophilius Lovegood
• Chapter 19: The Silver Doe
• The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore
• Chapter 17: When a problem comes along you must whip it. No one gets away until they whip it.
• Chapter 15: The Goblin’s Revenge

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.

Related Posts

• Hog’s Head PubCast #65: Culture Wars & Harry Potter
• Hog’s Head PubCast #54: Revolutionaries and Gradualists

by Travis

I promised folks at Prophecy 2007 that I’d get this post up before the end of August. I apologize for the terrible delay. This is the content of my discussion at Prophecy 2007.

At Lumos 2006, and in his book Unlocking Harry Potter, John Granger enumerated the evidence that J.K. Rowling has written distinctly postmodern literature in the Harry Potter series. John writes:

The fictional world she has created is a troubled place whose Grand Narrative excludes groups from power in its mythology and imposed rational order, the hierarchy of blood, wealth, and race. (Granger 6)

The postmodern nature of the books is one of the many things that causes it to resonate so deeply with readers. But what exactly is postmodernism? It’s by no means an easy concept to wrap one’s mind around, and pop expressions of postmodernism do its complexity no justice whatsoever. One tires quickly of hearing things like, “Postmodernism just means everything is relative and that there’s no absolute truth.” The best way to begin wrapping our minds around this subject is to observe the definition of postmodernism as given by Jean-Francois Lyotard in The Postmodern Condition:

I will use the term modern to designate any science that legitimates itself with reference to a metadiscourse and making an explicit appeal to some grand narrative, such as the dialectics of Spirit, the hermeneutics of meaning, the emancipation of the rational or working subject, or the creation of wealth. For example, the rule of consensus between the sender and the addressee of a statement with truth-value is deemed acceptable if it is cast in terms of a possible unanimity between rational minds: this is the Enlightenment narrative, in which the hero knowledge works toward a good ethico-political end- universal peace…Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives (xxiii-xxiv).

It’s crucial to understand what Lyotard is and is not saying about metanarratives here. The metanarratives against which postmoderns argue are not any and all grand, large-scale stories. They are stories that legitimate themselves autonomously. The Enlightenment Project is the foundation for this: In interests of human universal peace and prosperity, the Enlightenment Project seeks the rational answers found in human science and philosophical discourse which will lead us to a proper human morality.
What happens when rational minds can’t come to agreement on the best ways to achieve universal human peace? The ones with the power get the final say, and the ones without the power get oppressed. Since all the language is centered in quests for world peace and prosperity, the people in power deceive themselves into thinking that the oppression of anything that gets in the way of their own methodology of attaining said peace is justified, because the cause is noble. The justification for the oppression is inherently built into the lofty language of the stated goals.
A troubling example of this is the misuse of the so-called “American Dream.” Why is there such widespread economic disparity between races in America? Too frequently, we hear a very simple response to this: in America, anything is possible; as long as you work hard enough and continue to believe in your dream, it will come true.
The problem with this is that the logic behind it results in the following faulty conclusion: anyone who has not succeeded in America has not done so because he or she has not worked hard enough. This, in turn, leads to racist conclusions: black people are lazy (or black culture is lazy). It fails to take into account systemic oppression, both past and present, and therefore maintains, on the basis of the American Dream metanarrative, a “system of advantage based on race” (Wellman, quoted in Tatum 7).
Justin Holcomb, editor of Christian Theologies of Scripture (NYU Press, 2006), helpfully clarified the definition of “metanarrative” in an article at Common Grounds Online (http://commongroundsonline.typepad.com):

Metanarratives are over-arching meanings and beliefs, but for the purpose of legitimizing autonomous humanity, validating the modernist “views from no where” and supporting the “myth of neutrality.” When we use meaning to legitimize ourselves, our desires, and our autonomy [we] have constructed a metanarrative.

It’s the myth of objectivity, that one rational human being can come to the right conclusion for all humankind, bringing the hero knowledge to the people for their salvation – but based on nothing other than the human’s own supposed objectivity. And it turns out we’re not all as objective as we think we are.
Clearly, as John Granger has explained, and as we’ve just seen by definition, we’re dealing, to some extent, with postmodern literature here. The whole series opens with the cartoonish Dursleys, sad caricatures of the consequences of strictly rationalistic and materialistic thinking. Harry’s dream about the flying motorcycle is met with outrage, because the idea of “anything acting in a way that it shouldn’t” angered the rationalistic Dursleys (Stone 26).
As Hermione said later in the same book, “A lot of the greatest wizards haven’t got an ounce of logic,” which makes them a bad fit for an Enlightenment metanarrative (285). It was intolerance toward the magical powers of the Wizarding World and their unique perspective on the world that drove them into hiding. But strangely, the postmodern critique of modernism is, at least at first, on the periphery of the Harry Potter series. We only see glimpses of it. Instead, Rowling has focused on “another idea.” Observe the following from an interview in 2000:

Bigotry is probably the thing I detest most. All forms of intolerance, the whole idea of “that which is different from me is necessary evil.” I really like to explore the idea that difference is equal and good. But there’s another idea that I like to explore, too. Oppressed groups are not, generally speaking, people who stand firmly together — no, sadly, they kind of subdivide among themselves and fight like hell. That’s human nature, so that’s what you see here. This world of wizards and witches, they’re already ostracized, and then within themselves, they’ve formed a loathsome pecking order (“Rowling Thunder”).

So what we have with Harry Potter is much more a critique of institutionalized racism and prejudice that happens within a community that has already experienced its own oppression from others.
This may be an interesting critique of postmodernism in itself. While postmodernism lays the blame on the structuralist thinking of modernism, Rowling lays the blame at the feet of human beings themselves, no matter what the philosophical paradigm. She creates for us a magical world – by no means a rationalistic, modern, Enlightenment world – that contains the same types of prejudice and racism present in our own.
We turn now to the Wizarding World’s “loathsome pecking order.”

Wizards vs. Muggles
Wizards vs. Muggles is obviously the first area of prejudice we see in the Wizarding World. This is a complex matter. Prior to Deathly Hallows, I would have argued that Wizards vs. Muggles was peripheral to the story, but Book 7 changed the way I looked at the entire series. I’ll get to this more in a few minutes.
Some, particularly anti-Potter fundamentalists (but not limited to them), have criticized Rowling for painting all Muggles with a broad, prejudiced brush, thereby being guilty of the very prejudice she seeks to dismantle. This is an unfortunate reading. Dumbledore, the most prejudice-free character in the series, the “epitome of goodness” [insert quote], and Harry’s moral model, is described as a “muggle-lover,” and he clearly is concerned, at the end of Chamber, about anything that might hinder Arthur Weasley’s “Muggle Protection Act.” We’re also intended to think well of Hermione’s parents, who appear to be models of progressive thinking, based on the kind of social conscience developing in Hermione.
What makes the Wizards vs. Muggles issue complex is that it’s an opportunity to look at things from the point of view of the oppressed, which is a difficult thing for the privileged to do. Memory modification, for example, is a difficult issue: does it constitute oppression of Muggles? How can it, when it is absolutely necessary for the survival of the Wizarding World? After all, the Wizarding World is in hiding because of the oppression of Muggles! Without hiding, and without memory modification, the Wizarding World would be found out. Despite their magical powers, the miniscule Wizarding World would stand no chance against vast Muggle armies. Secrecy is absolutely necessary for the survival of the Wizarding World.
Yet it’s the Wizarding World’s combination of secrecy and power that makes them so potentially dangerous to the Muggle world, should the Muggle-haters take control. In a most extreme example, recall Bob Ogden’s visit to the House of Gaunt. Morphin was to be brought up on charges of using magic on a Muggle. We see that even the great Albus Dumbledore was at one point lured by the idea that Wizarding power could be used to rule over Muggles. It’s complex, and I offer no fixed solution to the dilemma here.

Purebloods, Half-Bloods, and Muggle-borns
Purebloods, Half-Bloods, and Muggle-borns is clearly the central power story of the series. It is the fundamental rift in the Wizarding World, and the backstory to the entire conflict at Hogwarts and beyond. What is told in the 7 years of the series is a story founded upon the division between two former best friends: Godric Gryffindor and Salazar Slytherin.
What we find in the Harry Potter books is a fairly nuanced view of Racism that even finds some similarities with current progressive thinking on the issue, namely, Critical Race Theory. There are probably enough racial pitfalls in Rowling’s writing to diverge with some Critical Race Theorists – her gradualism, which I’ll outline below, being a prime example. But we can take a look at the series through this lens and find some profound insight into the problem of Racism.
Beverly Daniel Tatum gives the following definition to racism:

Many people use the terms prejudice and racism interchangeably. I do not, and I think it is important to make a distinction. In his book Portraits of White Racism, David Wellman argues convincingly that limiting our understanding of racism to prejudice does not offer a sufficient explanation for the persistence of racism. He defines racism as “a system of advantage based on race.” In illustrating this definition, he provides example after example of how Whites defend their racial advantage – access to better schools, housing, jobs – even when they do not embrace overtly prejudicial thinking. Racism cannot be fully explained as an expression of prejudice alone. (Tatum 7)

Once Voldemort has taken over the Ministry, there’s a very “racist” fountain put in its place: Wizards sitting on thrones made up of Muggles. It doesn’t get more blatantly prejudiced than that! There is a significant amount of blatant prejudice in the series – quite obvious when it comes from the mouth of Voldemort, less obvious, but still rather clear, when coming from the mouths of folks like Ron and Hagrid (as it relates to house-elves, for example). Yet, for the most part, as it relates to the question of Wizards vs. Muggles, or even Purebloods vs. Muggle-borns, there is a general perception in the Wizarding World that this kind of prejudice is a bad thing. Why, then, does the prejudice persist?
How do we explain the perpetuation of racial divisions within a society that has dropped open and outright bigotry? Joyce E. King’s notion of “dysconscious racism” is helpful here:

Dysconsciousness is an uncritical habit of mind (including perceptions, attitudes, assumptions, and beliefs) that justifies inequity and exploitation by accepting the existing order of things as given…. Dysconscious racism is a form of racism that tacitly accepts dominant White norms and privileges. (King 133)

In American culture, there is an incredibly important factor in the social construction and peretuation of racism that is usually missed by Whites: the fact that racism put Whites as a soci-cultural advantage over members of other races. We are used to our advantages – so used to them we don’t even realize they are White advantages. We legitimate ourselves with the metanarrative of the American Dream, the myth of “meritocracy,” i.e., that if you just work hard enough, you’ll achieve your dreams, and if you fail, it’s because you didn’t work hard enough.
Instead of being something that is inherent to human nature, “Race” is a social construction. Kenneth Roberts wrote the following in 1922:

The American nation was founded and developed by the Nordic race, but if a few more million members of the Alpine, Mediterranean and Semitic races are poured among us, the result must inevitably be a hybrid race of people as worthless and futile as the good-for-nothing mongrels of Central America and Southeastern Europe. (Roberts, in Brodkin 28).

So, race wasn’t always black and white, was it? This is the same kind of thing Slytherin would have said about Wizards marrying Muggles. Indeed, it’s the same type of sentiment that opens up Deathly Hallows, and it’s the motivation for Voldemort’s murder of the Muggle Studies teacher, Charity Burbage.
It’s interesting to note that by Deathly Hallows, there is no more talk of the problem of half-bloods. Any witch or wizard who can prove any magical blood in their family history is acceptable in the Wizarding World, according to the standards set by the Voldemort-influenced Ministry. Why? If Muggle blood is a problem, why are half-bloods accepted? The answer is really quite simple: the number of purebloods who remain are so few that they would not have the power to maintain their advantage. Hence, “races” were shifted in the public consciousness to maintain pureblood power and advantage.
The lesson here is this: Race is socially constructed. By whom? By the people who are advantaged by the oppression of others. If you’re looking for excellent insight into how this still happens, let me recommend to you Peggy McIntosh’s now well-known essay, “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” which you can find for free online by using Google Scholar. Ms. McIntosh is a white female who unpacks all of the privileges she had received, without even realizing it, simply because she’s white.
Horace Slughorn is a perfect example of a person for whom race becomes constructed solely on the basis of his own comfort and privilege. It’s clear that Slughorn is, at the very least, a dysconscious racist, by King’s definition. He has most certainly accepted some deeply ingrained prejudices against Muggle-borns, and that is evident in his conversation with Harry. “You mustn’t think I’m prejudiced” (Half-Blood Prince 71). We’d all say that, wouldn’t we? Because it’s quite virtuous to not be prejudice, and our social conscience tells us that prejudice is wrong.
The argument could be made that he’s not really all that prejudiced. After all, as long as a Muggle-born works hard and achieves high marks and does well in the Wizarding World, Slughorn is quite impressed with the individual. He isn’t so prejudiced against Muggle-borns that he deliberately fails to recognize excellence in someone like Hermione. In that case, he’s far beyond the Malfoys, many Slytherins, and the Ministry under Voldemort’s control. And after all, he does fight against Voldemort in the end.
But Slughorn is a racist. He is a passive racist, perhaps – he doesn’t actively seek to oppress a race – but he is a racist nonetheless. To know of racism and to not be actively, deliberately opposed to it is to be a passive racist. And why is Slughorn a passive racist?
Two words: “creature comforts” (67).
Slughorn loves his creature comforts; in other words, he loves his privilege as a pureblood. He loves his powerful connections. He most certainly holds some sort of prejudice against Muggle-borns, but he instantly drops it – not even on the virtue of the Muggle-born’s achievement – but on the presupposition that inducting the brilliant Muggle-born into the Slug Club will get him solid connections in the future. He doesn’t drop his prejudice on principle; he does it for privilege.
Another fascinating example of institutionalized racism that maintains pureblood advantage is the enforcement of the restriction against underage wizardry:

“So if you’re underage and you do magic inside an adult witch or wizard’s house, the Ministry won’t know?”

“They will certainly be unable to tell who performed the magic,” said Dumbledore, smiling slightly at the look of great indignation on Harrys face. “They rely on witch and wizard parents to enforce their offspring’s obedience while within their walls.” (Half-Blood Prince)

What makes the enforcement of this law racist is this: by its very nature, it can only be enforced upon Muggle-borns, because it is only in a Muggle-born’s home that the Ministry can be sure that it was the underage wizard performing the magic. As such, the Ministry is able to turn a blind eye to underage witches and wizards of magical families practicing over the summer.

Wizards vs. Non-human Magical Brethren
We can further consider the problem of wizarding advantage when thinking of the way the various magical brethren have been oppressed. They are forbidden wands, which prevents them from rising to a great power, therefore keeping them in check. The enslavement of the house-elves is another obvious wizarding advantage that is maintained – even by the “Good Guys” of the series, like Ron and Hagrid – by very racist thinking. In fact, it might be argued, based on the way the majority of the Wizarding World thinks about house-elves, that the social conscience of the Wizarding World is a few hundred years behind our own.
A final note on the power structures in the Wizarding World. I think it can be argued that the Ministry in Book 7 can be analyzed with Foucault’s use of the “Panopticon” -

Foucault also compares modern society with Jeremy Bentham’s “Panopticon” design for prisons (which was unrealized in its original form, but nonetheless influential): in the Panopticon, a single guard can watch over many prisoners while the guard remains unseen. The dark dungeon of pre-modernity has been replaced with the bright modern prison, but Foucault cautions that “visibility is a trap”. It is through this visibility, Foucault writes, that modern society exercises its controlling systems of power and knowledge (terms which Foucault believed to be so fundamentally connected that he often combined them in a single hyphenated concept, “power-knowledge”). Increasing visibility leads to power located on an increasingly individualized level, shown by the possibility for institutions to track individuals throughout their lives. Foucault suggests that a “carceral continuum” runs through modern society, from the maximum security prison, through secure accommodation, probation, social workers, police, and teachers, to our everyday working and domestic lives. All are connected by the (witting or unwitting) supervision (surveillance, application of norms of acceptable behaviour) of some humans by others. (“Michael Foucault”).

In short, with the taboo on Voldemort’s name, the rounding up of Muggle-borns, and other such tactics, the Ministry has created a sort of prison state in which constant surveillance is the norm – once again, keeping people in check, preventing them from rising up in protest.

Dumbledore the Deconstructor
Dumbledore, who we now know was once tempted and tried by power, has become the deconstructor of this “loathsome pecking order.” The way he runs is school is not exactly a Panopticon – how often does Dumbledore seem completely missing from the daily activities of the school? Dumbledore is an advocate for Muggles, and his concern for house-elves and other magical brethren is so much a part of him that, staring at a boy who has just lost his godfather, Dumbledore finds it necessary to explain that Sirius’s unkind behavior towards Kreacher drove him toward his treachery.
Just because Dumbledore refused the position of Minister three times doesn’t mean he’s not a political figure. Obviously, he holds two very high-ranking positions: Supreme Mugwump of the International Confederation of Wizards and Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot. These two positions make sense, given Dumbledore’s concerns: justice and international cooperation. But what exactly has Dumbledore done? Fandom has been rife with complaints that Dumbledore has not used his political power to affect any lasting change. Indeed, many analyses of Dumbledore sound eerily similar to the Death Eater Amycus’s charge: “Always talking and doing nothing, nothing” (HBP-28).
A better explanation can be found in the subtle links Rowling makes between a political group called The Fabian Society and Dumbledore’s Order of the Phoenix (Colbert 190). Several connections can be found in the names of Order members.

* Emmeline Vance – Emmeline Pankhurst, a women’s rights activist was one of the earliest members of the Fabian Society, and “vance” means “forward” (as in “advance”), which makes sense in light of their progressive political outlook (Colbert 190). The connection is made stronger by the fact that she is wearing a green shawl when Harry sees her, something commonly worn by suffragettes (again, see Colbert).
* Fabian Prewett – one of the deceased wizards who was in the order. ‘Nuff said.
* Sturgis Podmore – one of the founding members of the Fabian Society was Frank Podmore; it was he who named the group (see wikipedia).
* Kingsley Shacklebolt – Kingsley Martin was a member, and he edited a”left-leaning political journal.”

Furthermore, many authors were among the early members – Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, and Edith Nesbit, the latter being a favorite of Rowling’s. But what does this have to do with Dumbledore? If Rowling means to connect the Order with the Fabian Society, then we have a very reasonable explanation as to why Dumbledore has not succeeded in effecting widespread change in the wizarding world, and why his beliefs have not always resulted in action, even though he holds such high positions of power.
Simply put, the Fabian Society believes in slow, eventual change, not revolution. This was one of their early defining characteristics, in fact. They are a socialist society, but different from Marx in his belief that equity would come about by a lower-class revolution. Rather, they believed in gradual change over time.
Take the house elves as an illustration. Dumbledore’s treatment of the house elves represents a sensitive stance toward their psychological slavery and a transitional period towards a time of greater freedom for their kind. Dumbledore doesn’t lead a revolution like Hermione wants to do; he makes the change happen slowly. He simultaneously respects their free will and provides an atmosphere in which they are not required to submit to certain aspects of the house-elves’ enslavement.
This gradualism seems to be the key to Rowling’s politics and the house-elf problem. She said this of Hermione:

Hermione, with the best of intentions, becomes quite self-righteous. My heart is entirely with her as she goes through this. She develops her political conscience. My heart is completely with her. But my brain tells me, which is a growing-up thing, that in fact she blunders towards the very people she’s trying to help. She offends them. She’s not very sensitive…. She thinks it’s so easy. It’s part of what I was saying before about the growing process, of realizing you don’t have quite as much power as you think you might have and having to accept that. Then you learn that it’s hard work to change things and that it doesn’t happen overnight. Hermione thinks she’s going to lead them to glorious rebellion in one afternoon and then finds out the reality is very different, but that was fun to write. (“J.K. Rowling Interview”)

The Fabian Society was named for Fabius Maximus, a Roman general during the attack by Hannibal. His legacy is described in this way:

Later, he became a legendary figure and the model of a tough, courageous Roman, and was bestowed the honorific title, “The Shield of Rome”. (Similar to Marcus Claudius Marcellus being named the “Sword of Rome”) According to Ennius – “one man, by delaying, restored the state to us.” Vergil, in the Aeneid, has Aeneas’ father Anchises mention Fabius Maximus while in Hades as the greatest of the many great Fabii, quoting the same line. While Hannibal is mentioned in the company of history’s greatest generals, military professionals have bestowed Fabius’ name on an entire strategic doctrine known as “Fabian strategy,” and George Washington has been called “the American Fabius.” (“Fabius Maximus”)

Dumbledore’s legacy is the same. While many criticized his methods, Book 7 demonstrated that he had put all the plans in place. Frank Podmore, one of the founders of the Fabians and the one who named the group, said this: “For the right moment you must wait, as Fabius did most patiently, when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his delays; but when the time comes you must strike hard, as Fabius did, or your waiting will be in vain and fruitless” (quoted in Colbert 190-91). Harry Potter was Dumbledore’s “right moment to strike.”

Conclusion
There is much that can be said, and perhaps even some things to criticize, about Rowling’s treatment of the issues of power and racism in the Harry Potter series. Overall, she has given us a tremendous starting place for talking about many of these issues.
Harry took down Voldemort. A massive defeat against the Dark Lord was won. But what of the other issues raised by Rowling throughout the series? What of the social evils she addressed? Some will be disturbed that house-elves are still enslaved at the end of Book 7. What of the unity of the four houses of which the Sorting Hat sang? And has their been any healing whatsoever in the Pureblood-Muggleborn divide?
It would seem that Rowling has raised many issues that she did not resolve, issues which have very, very serious parallels in our world (slavery, racism, prejudice). Why did Rowling not directly address these issues and bring them to happy resolutions? Does she really mean us to think that slavery is an acceptable state for house-elves, or that racism and prejudice will continue to be perpetuated, even by the “good guys,” in the Wizarding World?
I don’t think so, and our answer lies in Rowling’s belief in gradualism, following the Fabian Society. Whatever you might think of this connection, whether you agree with Fabian politics or not, it’s best that Rowling didn’t nicely wrap these issues up by the end of Book 7. The depth and complexity of the problems are far too great to have simple, one-year answers.
We were never going to see a sudden shift in house-elf rights or a radical transformation in centuries-old prejudices in the Wizarding World. Rowling knows that when injustice is so deeply rooted in society that it’s considered a positive moral norm (even the “good guys” reinforce the injustice for supposedly good reasons) that one revolution isn’t going to change everything. So instead of revolution, we get little victories:

* Kreacher’s Transformation - Dumbledore was correct. Kreacher needed to be shown kindness. Many were skeptical of Dumbledore’s advice here, believing that, at best, kindness towards Kreacher would keep his evil at bay, hold him off from doing anything too rash or detrimental to the Order. Instead, kindness to Kreacher caused a change in his entire person. Harry, Ron, and Hermione actually acted towards Kreacher in a way that valued validated his own desires, and Kreacher responded with an amazing turnaround. Still a slave? Yes. And that is tragic. But his will was changed from bitterness to a willingness to help the side of good, and that’s a huge step. It will be ages before house-elves want the kind of freedom Hermione was trying to crusade for with S.P.E.W. But perhaps with Voldemort gone, quicker progress will be made.
* “Albus Severus” – The key to the healing of house division is the healing of the Gryffindor-Slytherin rift. Again, this is centuries old, and it will not heal overnight. But because of the bravery of Severus Snape and the forgiveness of Albus Dumbledore (and later, Harry Potter), a change has begun, a little victory won. When Harry was in school, he would have been appalled at any idea that Slytherin was not altogether evil, and he would have bought the lie that all dark wizards have come from Slytherin. “19 years later,” however, Harry is willing to say that Albus Severus would have no need to be ashamed of being in Slytherin whatsoever. Instead of disparaging the house, he spoke of Severus Snape, “the bravest man” he ever knew. This is a monumental change in Harry’s thinking (perhaps also affected by the fact that he was part Voldemort for 16 years of his life!).
* The Victory Feast – After the defeat of Voldemort, Rowling makes it a point to note that no one sat according to houses at the four tables McGonagall had replaced in the Great Hall. It was a victory to be celebrated by unity, not division. It is unfortunate that no Slytherins had joined the fight. But this is yet another little victory that will hopefully result in greater unity down the road.
There may be others, but the point is this: Rowling believes change happens not by force, but by the changing of hearts over time. The conclusion of M. Scott Peck’s The People of the Lie is perhaps the best commentary one can find on what Rowling was trying to do with chapters 34-36 of Deathly Hallows, and how the defeat of evil – including racism and prejudice – are to be accomplished:

The healing of evil – scientifically or otherwise – can be accomplished only by the love of individuals. A willing sacrifice is required. The individual healer must allow his or her own soul to become the battleground. He or she must sacrificially absorb the evil.

The what prevents the destruction of that soul? If one take’s evil itself into one’s heart, like a spear, how can one’s goodness still survive? Even if the evil is vanquished thereby, will not the good be also? What will have been achieved beyond some meaningless trade-off?

I cannot answer this in language other than mystical. I can say only that there is a mysterious alchemy whereby the victim becomes the victor. As C.S. Lewis wrote: “When a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backwards.”

I do not know how this occurs. But I know that it does. I know that good people can deliberately allow themselves to be pierced by the evil of others – to be broken thereby yet somehow not broken – to even be killed in some sense and yet still survive and not succumb. Whenever this happens there is a slight shift in the balance of power in the world (269).

That’s what happened with Harry’s willing sacrifice. The defeat of the evil of Voldemort was monumental. The effect of the sacrifice was “a slight shift in the balance of power in the world.” Not an immediate, revolutionary healing, but a slight shift, a turn towards the good, a catalyst for little victories that will hopefully lead to lasting change.

Bibliography

Brodkin, Karen. How Jews Became White Folks and What That says about Race in America. Rutgers University Press, 1998.

Colbert, David. The Magical Worlds of Harry Potter. Tandem Library Books, 2002.

“Fabius Maximus.” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabius_Maximus. 2 Aug 2007.

Granger, John. “Disney Does Derrida.” Lumos 2006.

Holcomb, Justin. “Responding to Carl Trueman – Christianity is NOT a Metanarrative.” Common Grounds Online. http://commongroundsonline.typepad.com/common_grounds_online/2007/05/editors_note_ju.html. 9 May 2007.

“J.K. Rowling Interview,” CBCNewsWorld: Hot Type, July 13, 2000. URL: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/0700-hottype-solomon.htm.

Joyce E. King, “ Dysconscious Racism: Ideology, Identity, and the Miseducation of Teachers.” The Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 60, No. 2 (Spring, 1991), pp. 133-146.

Lyotard, Jean-Francois. The Postmodern Condition. Manchester University Press, 1984.

“Michael Foucault,” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault.

Peck, M. Scott. People of the Lie. Simon and Schuster, 1983.

Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. New York: Scholastic, Inc.,
1999.

Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. New York: Scholastic, 2007.

Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. New York: Scholastic, Inc., 2000.

Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. New York, Scholastic Inc., 2005.

Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. New York: Scholastic, Inc.
2003.

Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. New York: Scholastic, Inc., 1997.

Tatum, Beverly Daniel. Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? (New York: Basic Books, 2002).

Related Posts

• No Related Post

Social Justice a peripheral theme; Dumbledore’s mistakes; the Dursleys and 12 Grimmauld Place; E-Owl: Will Voldemort be redeemed?

Hog’s Head PubCast is available through iTunes.

Pub Menu

• Eroej Kab on Dumbledore and house-elves
• Hog’s Head PubCast #25: House-elves
• Mrs. Lovegood on 12 Grimmauld place part 1 and 2
• Garuda: Hindu Phoenix
• J.S. Batchler: What Will Harry Do?

Related Posts

• No Related Post

Commenting on the place of the werewolf (and other evil creatures) in history and literature, Siamak Tundry Nacify offers the following observation:

Throughout history, we have attributed onto others what we viewed as undesirable in ourselves, finding scapegoats upon which we could pin our notions of fault and blame and whose sacrificial death then could bring atonement. In this way, we put our sins upon the wolf and then put the wolf, instead of ourselves, to death – in literature, in folklore, in myth, in films, and, unfortunately too often, in real life. (“The Werewolf in the Wardrobe,” in The Psychology of Harry Potter, page 210).

This is an important observation – that we create evil beings which are really a representation of our own evil, and then make sure they get killed in our stories (we, of course, are the heroes who do the killing). In doing so, we believe we purge the evil from ourselves by taking the side of the good.

Not only do we create werewolves to kill, we ostracize the perceived abnormal and the diseased in order to have a place to point the finger, to make assumptions, and to believe, “At least I’m not like that.” It happened in the past with lepers; it happens today with victims of HIV/AIDS. Nacify notes that “there is a high cost in social interactions with diseased others,” making it socially important to “quickly…identify sick individuals and to avoid interacting with them” (p. 214).

The problem, of course, is that human evil still runs rampant across the earth and in each one of us. Despite the many times we’ve slain werewolves, vampires, and dragons in our daydreams and stories, it is not so easy to separate ourselves from our darker sides. Despite all the times we’ve attempted to avoid the “diseased others” in our society, we find ourselves excluded by somebody, and greatly offended because of it – making us hypocrites, of course.

I think Rowling knows this, and while her use of the werewolf Lupin illustrates our folly in scapegoating quite profoundly, she also offers a substantive solution to the problem: self-sacrifice, instead of the sacrifice of others.

Lupin serves the roles of scapegoat and diseased others very well, fitting the literary and psychological need for a person to blame as well as the “diseased other,” having been contaminated in his blood by a bite from another diseased other. And if there was ever a bad guy to be avoided, it’s Fenrir Greyback! But you see how easy it is to make false assumptions about someone like Lupin. While Remus is nothing at all like Fenrir, it is more than likely that most people in the Wizarding World, upon learning Lupin’s secret, would be much more likely to impute the evil character of Greyback upon his name, rather than the good character of Dumbledore.

In place of stigmatization, Rowling offers us the self-sacrificial character of Dumbledore. The radical difference is this: while the rest of the Wizarding World points the finger at assumed evil – werewolves are evil, kill them! – in order to purge itself of its own guilt, Dumbledore looks into the face of his would-be killer, the racist Slytherin Draco Malfoy, and offers him redemption and protection before dying for him. Instead of saying, “Let’s sacrifice werewolves, Death Eaters, Slytherins, etc., for the cause of good,” Dumbledore says, “I am willing to die. I’ll be the one to be sacrificed.” It is the willing sacrifice of the one who does not deserve it that has transformative power, the power to destroy evil with good. (Sounds a lot like M. Scott Peck, doesn’t it?)

Not only is Dumbledore willing to die for others, to be the sacrifice, he does not shun the “diseased others.” Indeed, one of the most powerful aspects of Dumbledore’s character is his willingness to graciously accept anyone. Who but Dumbledore would have the mercy to forgive Severus Snape and take him on as a confidante? Who besides Dumbledore would have actually clapped, out of courtesy and respect, at the end of Delores Umbridge’s start-of-year speech in Order? Who but Dumbledore would think it appropriate to show manners to Death Eaters, standing before him on the tower, mocking him? Who else would be trusting of werewolves, half-giants, centaurs, mer-people, and every other magical being that the Ministry has ostracized?

Harry, Dumbledore’s apprentice, is slowly but surely learning this. He learned it from his mother’s sacrifice. He learned it by watching Dumbledore. He has learned it in the yearly figurative death-resurrection pattern of each volume of the series. He has most certainly shown a willingness to die for the right cause book by book. He has befriended the social outcasts: Lupin, Hagrid, Luna, Neville. He has more to learn before the close of Deathly Hallows, but learn it he will, and he will save the world because of it.

If indeed Rowling is influenced by the Christian story, and we have every reason to think she is, this theme fits perfectly with the person of Jesus. While Dumbledore and Harry are not “Christ figures” in the direct way the Aslan was to Narnia (both Dumbledore and Harry are deeply flawed human beings), they are conduits for the Christ-message, the proclamation of sacrificial love’s victory over evil and death. Jesus is the epitome of these themes: He touched lepers. He ate with prostitutes, corrupt tax collectors, and the worst sinners of society. He was not afraid of diseased others; in fact, he seemed to prefer their company to that of the finger-pointing Pharisees. And ultimately, his entire life was a rush toward the evil-defeating, death-destroying, self-sacrificial love of the cross on behalf of his own enemies.

He demanded that people put down their accusatory stones and pick up their own crosses, and this is the message Rowling is communicating so powerfully through Dumbledore and Harry.

Related Posts

• No Related Post

Comparing and contrasting Dumbledore and Hermione; battling racism in ourselves and our society

Pub Menu:

• PubCast #17: Racism, Part 1
• Dumbledore, the Order of the Phoenix, and the Fabian Society
• The Fountain Told a Lie: Deconstructing the Wizarding World
• Beverly Daniel Tatum: Why are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?

Related Posts

• No Related Post

Racism in Harry Potter; Owl Post: Harry Potter Beer Names

Seriously, I’m going to do a write-up on this one for those who don’t/can’t listen to the pubcast (Update: A short summary can be found under the “Pub Menu” by clicking on “more”). I’m on vacation this week (California, here I come!), so I should have time to do that. On the other hand, there will not likely be a pubcast next week as I don’t think I’ll have the resources to do it out there. Look for Part Two of this in a couple weeks.

Pub Menu:

• Random Beer Name Generator
• Karen Brodkin (Sacks) – How Jews Became White Folks and What that Says about Racism in America
• Unfortunately the specific Brodkin Sacks article and the King article I mentioned are not available through online sources. If you have access to JSTOR, you could get the Joyce E. King article on “Dysconscious Racism.”

Summary: There are obvious examples of racism in the Harry Potter series, most clearly seen in the pureblood/halfblood, wizard/muggle, and wizard/other magical brethren issues presented in the series. The most obvious examples of “racism” in Harry Potter come from folks like the Malfoys and other Death Eaters. It is this kind of racism that we can all look at and say, “I agree. That’s bad.”

Racism, however, is not ultimately about treating people differently based on their physical differences. In fact, not all people who are now considered “White” (in America) were “White” just a hundred years ago. At one point, it was only blond, Aryan whites that were considered to be superior to other races. What changed? Economic circumstances.

As such, we understand that race is something that is socially constructed, and its ultimate goal is power, privilege, and prosperity at the expense of those races that are considered “inferior” or are oppressed. And as racism is therefore about power and not simply about treating someone differently based on differing physical characteristics, racism becomes institutionalized, and therefore protected against deconstruction.

There are several examples of racism as power in the Harry Potter series. Think, for example, of Cornelius Fudge. When Dumbledore exhorts him to send envoys to the Giants at the end of Goblet of Fire, Fudge is appalled, because “people hate them…end of my career.”

We can see this also in the character of Slughorn, who only drops his racist tendencies when the muggleborn has the potential of being a person of influence; and in the way the laws against underage wizardry are enforced (see discussion in comments below).

The last example about enforcing underage magic represents something called “dysconscious racism” – an “uncritical habit of mind” that fails to take into account the privilege gained by the oppressors. For example, if a white person explains the failure of blacks in America to bridge the achievement gap by citing either the history of slavery or denial of equal opportunity, they have missed a significant portion – the lasting institutionalized social privilege granted to whites as a result of that oppression. (See Joyce E. King)
A person who is dysconsciously racist in principle hates racism and thinks it an evil thing. But until we realize our privileged status as a result of past (and present) oppressed, we remain racist, most often without realizing it, while hating racism in principle.

We can see this sort of thing in the Weasleys. Arthur, of course, has proposed the Muggle Protection Act, a key element in the fight against Wizard-Muggle racism; and clearly the Weasleys are treated badly for their class status (poor). Yet prejudices have been passed down through the Weasley family as evidenced by Ron’s frequent prejudicial statements against Giants, werewolves, and house-elves, and Molly’s desire to own a house-elf. We can see this sort of thing in Hagrid, who, though oppressed as a half-giant, carries his own prejudices as well.

As John Granger says, it seems that Dumbledore is the only one without prejudice.

As such, after a second episode discussing objections and observations based on this episode, we’ll examine Dumbledore’s take on eliminating prejudice and racism (especially as compared and contrasted with Hermione’s bombastic approach with S.P.E.W.).

Related Posts

• No Related Post

I’ll freely admit that in my essay, What Happened to Ollivander?, the actual parts about Ollivander are the far-fetched parts. Really, it fills a plot hole – it’s an interesting way to solve a much greater problem lingering in the Harry Potter series, but one that is probably much more ignored in fandom. That problem is the wizarding world’s prejudice. We see it towards all kinds: muggles, giants, centaurs, goblins, house-elves. The idea of Ollivander being hid to supply wands for the magical brethren who are being oppressed in one way or another fits the problem, although it may be the furthest thing from the solution on Rowling’s mind.

So let’s get into the real backbone of that essay, the real reason I wrote it. That is simply this: Rowling is writing postmodern literature, telling us a story that deconstructs another more powerful, oppressive story.

PoMo 101

The key to understanding postmodernism and what Rowling is doing is getting a handle on the word metanarrative. A metanarrative is any overarching story about The Way Things Really Are. In short, it’s a story that tells us what reality is really like. To illustrate, we can take the extreme example of Hitler, whose German supremacy was the metanarrative driving the actions of the German government and military. Those who did not follow the story were trampled upon. We can even find traces of metanarrative in the rhetoric of our own president. When President Bush speaks of freedom and democracy being the goal of history, the real place where history is headed, he’s using metanarrative talk.

Metanarrative is rooted in Enlightenment thinking (though metanarratives certainly existed prior to the 1700s). The Enlightenment Project taught us, in layperson’s terms, that we all have excellent rational faculties, and if we all apply them, we’ll arrive at a universal reality. In other words, we’ll all, of our own rational capability, come to the right code of ethics, the right morality, the right way to treat our fellow humans. The problem, of course, became quite evident: After a few hundred years, not everyone agreed, and to complicate the problem, those who were in power used that power to silence the minority points of view. Suddenly, in the words of Voldemort himself, “there is no good or evil; only power, and those too weak to seek it.”

Because that’s what metanarratives basically boil down to. If I think reality is one way, and you think it’s another, and I’ve got a gun and you don’t, my reality wins. French philosopher Lyotard has defined postmodernism (admittedly, “simplifying in the extreme”) as “incredulity towards metanarratives.” Certainly, it is much more than that, and you learn from reading the likes of Derrida and Eco that it has a significant amount to do with the nature of truth and language itself. But the driving force behind postmodernism is the injustice caused by the powerful on those who had no power and dared to believe something different, or just be different.

The real problem is not the stories themselves, of course. We all have beliefs about reality that we hold to tenaciously. The problem is when the powerful impose their stories on the less powerful, the minorities, those who are different.

A postmodern writer, then, spends his or her efforts deconstructing these grand, overarching narratives. We’ve come to learn that we see reality in different ways, interpreting through the lenses of our own cultures; there is no “universal reason” that is driving us all to the same conclusions.

Metanarratives in Harry Potter

So Rowling has set up for us metanarratives in the Wizarding World that parallel the ones in our own, and she’s deconstructing them. Now, it should be noted that Rowling is not a pessimistic postmodern; she does believe we can “reconstruct,” so to speak, and move from wild cynicism about metanarratives to an ultimately better understanding (for more detailed looks at this, see this post at Muggle Matters, and be sure to read the comment by Felicity as well).

Voldemort/Slytherin
We’ve already mentioned Voldemort and his belief about power. We can add to that his taking up Slytherin’s crusade against Muggle-borns. The belief that only pureblood wizards should be accepted and valued is nothing short of an oppressive metanarrative, meant to destroy Muggles and Muggle-born wizards. Voldemort intends to act this metanarrative out in real history, and as such, the central problem of the Harry Potter series, Rowling’s contribution to the Problem of Evil, so to speak, is an oppressive idealogy, a metanarrative.

The Ministry’s Metanarrative: Prejudice and Slavery in the Wizarding World

The great irony is that the Ministry of Magic, as well as a large part of the Wizarding World, while hating Voldemort’s oppressive metanarrative, is operating on its own. But just because the line of prejudice isn’t drawn between purebloods and “mudbloods” doesn’t make it any better. The most obvious example of prejudice in the Wizarding World is the fountain, portraying the centaur, goblin, and house-elf regarding the wizard with great admiration. All one needs to do is consider the centaurs’ attitude towards wizards to know that the statue is a lie.

Prejudice in the Wizarding World exists far and wide. The fact that there even needs to be a Muggle Protection Act proposed in the first place demonstrates the prejudice against Muggles. We can hear echoes of prejudice in Slughorn’s surprise at the talent of certain Muggle-borns and in Ron’s repeating the “willing slave” line about the house-elves, which enslavement is in itself another obvious example. Despite some creative theories proposing that the house-elves represent house-wives, and Hermione is a rabid feminist, Rowling has been explicit in saying that the house-elf story is about slavery:

The house elves is really for slavery, isn’t it, the house elves are slaves, so that is an issue that I think we probably all feel strongly about enough in this room already. [original source]

So she’s telling metanarratives we know: prejudice, slavery, and even legislative action against those who are different. Consider, for example, the law against underage wizards using magic. This is nothing short of institutionalized prejudice against Muggle-borns, because, as Dumbledore explains in the spider-infested shed at the Weasleys, the Ministry only knows that magic was performed, not who performed it. It would be impossible to prosecute an underage wizard born to a witch and/or wizard, unless the parents were really honest and willing to turn their children in. In short, it’s a law that prevents muggle-borns from developing their talents during the summers while turning a blind eye toward established wizarding families.

And then there’s the wand issue, which is the inspiration for my Ollivander essay. The law forbids non-human magical creatures from carrying wands. There is plenty of canon evidence that both house-elves and goblins could use wands (Winky, for a house-elf example; and Harry’s OWL question is about goblins and wand restrictions), and we should assume that the law is not arbitrary: it’s obvious the Ministry is afraid of the goblins, and the house-elves have been oppressed for centuries. Banning wand use for each group is for the manifest purpose of maintaining wizarding superiority.

In short, banning wand use maintains the Wizarding World’s metanarrative that Wizards are better than all other magical creatures, and that, indeed, the entire rest of the magical world looks up to Wizards.

Dumbledore the Deconstructer

Albus Dumbledore does not wand to be Minister for Magic. He’s been offered the position three times, and continues to turn it down. Why? Because he is our postmodern deconstructer. He’s the one tearing down the false wizarding metanarrative. Consider the following:

Dumbledore employs house-elves and pays them if they want it. He does not demand respect of them as their usual owners would. He does not even demand that they always speak well of him; they may call him a “barmy old codger” if they’d like. As I argued in my Ollivander essay, House-elf life at Hogwarts under Dumbledore is a transitional period toward the hope of their future freedom (a hope that I think will get some wings and take off in book 7). Dumbledore agrees with Hermione’s views about the enslavement of the house-elves; he just has a different and more sensitive way of working for their freedom.

Dumbledore maintained good enough relations with the centaurs, who hate wizards, to have them show up and pay respects at his funeral. His hiring of Firenze must have been simply scandalous.

Dumbledore has accepted all sorts of “questionable” wizards, giving trust, acceptance, and second chances: Snape, a repentant Death Eater; Lupin, a werewolf; Hagrid, a half-giant; Mad-Eye Moody, an ex-auror gone a bit senile; Trelawney, an obvious fraud; Firenze, a centaur; Draco, offering redemption to his would-be murderer.

Dumbledore entreated Fudge to “extend [the giants] the hand of friendship;” otherwise, “Voldemort will persuade them, as he did before, that he alone among wizards will give them their rights and their freedom!” (GF-36). Once again, scandalous as far as Fudge was concerned. Two points are important from this exchange: (1) It’s obvious from Dumbledore’s argumentation that wizards have denied the giants their rights and freedoms, and (2) Fudge’s response, that people hate the giants and it would end his career, demonstrates plainly how widespread the prejudice is.

Dumbledore, from the start, has been the voice of tolerance, love, and acceptance. When Rowling wrote him as “the epitome of goodness” [source], she meant it. He is the representative for the deconstruction of the oppressive Wizarding World metanarrative.

I am agreed with Merlin that writing Dumbledore as manipulative is over-deconstruction. He sums it up beautifully here:

Dumbledore himself acknowledges making mistakes in regards to pairing Harry with Snape for occlumency lessons and not taking into account the impact their history will have on their ability to work together on it, and errors in judgment etc But to take it to the level that it sounds like it is being taken in some of the theories talked about, sounds like the deconstructionism is being taken too far, to the level where one has to deconstruct/discount the character responses to DD by other genuinely downtrodden and genuinely good characters (and ones who seem pretty discerning at that, I mean Lupin was able to approach Snape with thankfulness for the WB potion even though Snape exposed him in the end, and if all our “good Snape” theories are right, it would seem that Lupin at the Burrow is more right than he is at the end of HBP)

Dumbledore refuses the MoM position because he refuses to be part of the problem, and the corruption throughout the Wizarding World is far to extensive to simply assume the power of Minister for Magic won’t tempt one to compromise. No, better for Dumbledore to advise, and when necessary, criticize the Ministry from the outside, all the while raising up a new generation of wizards and witches, hopefully teaching as many of them as possible to abandon the old prejudices that result in oppressive metanarratives.

Reconstructed with Love

When the Ministry that is fighting Voldemort is bound by the same idealogical problems as Voldemort himself, what is a wizard to do? Like Harry, become “Dumbledore’s man through and through.” Stop scoffing, as Voldemort did, at the idea that love is the most powerful form of magic, and embrace the idea. The destruction of the fountain was a poweful symbol of the deconstruction of the Wizarding World’s oppressive metanarrative; it is to be reconstructed with love. It is no coincidence that Dumbledore insists “love” is “the power the Dark Lord knows not.”

Related Posts

• No Related Post

The disappearance of Ollivander is bigger news than the small amount of attention in gets in Half-Blood Prince. We hear about his being gone very briefly in Chapter 6 of Half-Blood Prince in concert with the disappearance of Florean Fortescue, who was “dragged off, by the look of his place.” (See thisessay for an interesting and plausible theory on that). It is unknown “whether he left voluntarily or was kidnapped,” but there was “no sign of a struggle,” and all his wands and everything in his shop is gone.

Wands have played integral roles in the plot line, even beyond the plain fact that they’re the basic instrument of magical activity. The most significant event, of course, is the priori incantatem effect at the end of Goblet of Fire. Voldemort’s having a wand that would be crippled in the battle against his prophecied vanquisher is not a reasonable option for the Dark Lord. So Ollivander has disappeared, and speculations have arisen as to how and why. But I don’t think the issue has been discussed enough. Let’s visit the current theories, and then I’ll propose my own.

Ollivander Kidnapped

Since it is believed that Fortescue was “dragged off” by Death Eaters (HBP-6), and his and Ollivander’s disappearances are mentioned together, it is assumed by many that the wandmaker was kidnapped as well. We’re even left with this impression quite plainly by Mrs. Weasley:

“Mum, d’you honestly think You-Know-Who’s going to be hiding behind a bookshelf in Flourish and Blotts?” sniggered Ron.

“Fortescue and Ollivander went on holiday, did they?” said Mrs. Weasley, firing up at once. “If you think security’s a laughing matter you can stay behind and I’ll get your things myself—” (HBP-6)

Why would Voldemort want to kidnap Ollivander? Most theories suggest that Voldemort needs a new wand – one that will work properly against Harry’s – and he’s forcing Ollivander to make him one. This is probably the most popular of theories.

But we have to wonder a few things. Would Ollivander make him one? And why would all his supplies be missing? And why no struggle? Perhaps Voldemort stole all the wands too, and he plans to try each one till another “chooses” him. Or perhaps he simply intends to “disarm” the good guys, i.e., take away their primary wand supplier.

There are too many unanswered questions about this theory, in my opinion. Rowling’s description of his disappearance leaves a lot of room for speculation. More than that, I think there are better options. I think Rowling’s leaving us with Mrs. Weasley’s impression that Ollivander was kidnapped was a misdirection. A voluntary departure by Ollivander seems more likely. But whence did he depart?

Ollivander is “An Evil Lord”

In the “voluntary departure” category, there are a few possibilities. Of course, he may have just gotten scared and hid, perhaps having become aware of Harry’s status as the chosen one and the inevitability of Voldemort’s wanting a new wand. But of those who posit a voluntary departure theory, Evil!Ollivander is much more popular. His name is an anagram for “An Evil Lord.” Perhaps the old man is revealing his true colors, and he has taken himself and all his weapons for the Dark Lord’s use. Some suggest that Ollivander’s statement about the Dark Lord doing “great things…terrible, but great” is evidence of his respect for Voldemort.

Yet we have to wonder why Ollivander wouldn’t have joined the Dark Lord during VoldWar I. And as far as anagrams go, we’ve only seen the one, as far as I know, and it was deliberate change on Tom Riddle’s part, not a hidden clue placed in the text by Rowling.

Ollivander is Being Hidden

My theory fits into the “voluntary departure” category, but I don’t think he went to Voldemort. I also don’t think the Order is hiding him, though that’s been suggested and I suppose is possible. It just seems that someone in the Order would know about it if that were the case.

I think Dumbledore was hiding him. Why? Let’s back up a bit.

What do we know about Ollivander? We know he makes wands in a business that is highly respected and has been around since 382 B.C. The Mr. Ollivander we know is not, obviously, the original owner of the shop, despite some strange speculations from fandom (no, Ollivander is not Flamel…that would be too old); most likely he belongs to a very, very old wizarding family (though it should be noted that that’s a long time to keep the same surname; there isn’t anyone with the names of the founders still running around, for example).

We also know that he’s in personal communication with Dumbledore, particularly on the point of Harry’s wand (GF-36). But why would Dumbledore hide him? To answer that, we need to start with an unexpected detour.

House Elves in Goblet of Fire

There’s a lot about wands in Goblet of Fire. Ollivander makes his only other “on-stage” appearance in the series for the “weighing of the wands” prior to the Triwizard Tournament (GF-18). It’s also in this book that Dumbledore reveals his personal communication with Ollivander about the Fawkes-core wands. And the most significant wand-related even so far – priori incantatem occurs in the book’s climax.

Goblet is also the book where S.P.E.W. is born, and Hermione begins her crusade to liberate the house-elves. There’s much to be said about this subject, of course, and it has provided a good amount of material for Harry-hating among some progressive/liberal types. After all, Hermione seems to be terribly mistaken in her political attempts to free the house-elves. And just what is Rowling playing at, writing “willing slaves” into her story?

But this is surely not all Rowling has to stay about the subject. She’s been quite clear in interviews that though Hermione is mistaken in her over-zealous attempts at liberation, the house-elves story is about slavery:

The house elves is really for slavery, isn’t it, the house elves are slaves, so that is an issue that I think we probably all feel strongly about enough in this room already. [Read entire interview]

Rowling’s obviously not condoning slavery, or trying to tell us there really are such things as people who want to be enslaved. Instead, Rowling is teaching us about psychological slavery; the house-elves have been enslaved for so long, their status has firmly taken root in their minds as unchangeable and even what’s right for them. Poor Hermione doesn’t appreciate the difficulty of the situation. Speaking of Hermione and S.P.E.W., Rowling says:

Yeah, that was fairly autobiographical. My sister and I both, we were that kind of teenager. (Dripping with drama) We were that kind of, ‘I’m the only one who really feels these injustices. No one else understands the way I feel.’ I think a lot of teenagers go through that….Hermione, with the best of intentions, becomes quite self-righteous. My heart is entirely with her as she goes through this. She develops her political conscience. My heart is completely with her. But my brain tells me, which is a growing-up thing, that in fact she blunders towards the very people she’s trying to help. She offends them…She thinks it’s so easy. It’s part of what I was saying before about the growing process, of realizing you don’t have quite as much power as you think you might have and having to accept that. Then you learn that it’s hard work to change things and that it doesn’t happen overnight. Hermione thinks she’s going to lead them to glorious rebellion in one afternoon and then finds out the reality is very different, but that was fun to write. [read entire interview]

Rowling, of course, is under no obligation to finish the house-elf story, but I have a hard time believing she’s going to end it with a misguided crusade that failed to do them any good. How will she do it? Who is the calm, reasonable voice for the liberation of house-elves, in contrast to Hermione’s self-righteous, condescending zeal?

Dumbledore’s Politics
I picked up on David Colbert’s linking of the Order of the Phoenix and a political group called The Fabian Society, and before pressing on, I’m going to need to clear that up, because it’s been misunderstood.

What I am not saying is that the Order is a political group. Obviously, the Order was formed to fight Voldemort, not to effect gradual socialist change over a long period of time. As such, it is not detrimental to the point I’m trying to make to document how successful or unsuccessful the Fabians have been, as if that proves anything one way or the other. Like it or not, the link between the Order and the Fabians is there.

So what am I saying? I’m saying that we can learn about (a) Rowling’s political preferences, and (b) something of Dumbledore’s character by observing the link. We’ve learned above from Rowling that Hermione’s all-or-nothing crusade was actually insensitive and misguided, even if the ideals were correct. Here is where a Fabian approach – slow, gradual change over time rather than a sudden revolution – comes in. The Order is Dumbledore’s Order, and Rowling deliberately links them to the Fabians. Hence, we can expect a similar political outlook from Albus (who is obviously a political figure, even if he distrusts Ministry politics in general).

Fast-forward with me then to the end of Order of the Phoenix. It is no coincidence that both Albus’ greatest conflict with politicians and a pretty good look at his political views appear in the book named after the organization he founded. Remember, the idea that someone as great as Albus Dumbledore would employ house-elves was simply scandalous to Hermione. But we learn from Albus at the book’s end that he quite obviously shares Hermione’s position on the house-elves’ enslavement. Recall the fountain in the Ministry which depicted house-elves, centaurs, and giants all look with admiration upon the wizard. This is blatant prejudice, as Dumbledore makes manifest:

The fountain we destroyed tonight told a lie. We wizards have mistreated and abused our fellows for too long, and we are now reaping our reward.

The real shocker about this statement is that it’s in the midst of explaining to Harry that Kreacher, whose primary fault it was that Sirius had died, was made the way he was because of the prejudice of wizards. It’s almost as if Dumbledore thinks this point so important to get across to Harry that he’s willing to risk a little more anger and destruction out of young Harry, who is already seething with rage.

It’s obvious enough that house-elf existence at Hogwarts is far better than in many other cases. Dobby is clearly better off, and Dumbledore is not opposed to giving wages to house-elves who want them. Think about this now: Dumbledore hasn’t given the house-elves at Hogwarts pay because, as of yet, they don’t want it. He’s not insulting them. But he has provided for them a positive atmosphere where they are treated well and given any freedom that they themselves want. Slow, gradual change. House-elves at Hogwarts under Dumbledore represents a transitional period for house-elf status.

Again, Dumbledore agrees with the heart of Hermione’s concern, just not the method of change. It’s time that we revisit Hermione’s concerns, and then try to put it all together.

The Goals of S.P.E.W.
Here are the stated goals of S.P.E.W.:

Our short-term aims…are to secure house-elves fair wages and
working conditions. Our long-term aims include changing the law about non-wand use, and trying to get an elf into the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures, because they’re shockingly underrepresented. (GF-14)

Fair wages, good working conditions, political representation, and … wands. Wands! I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the same book that focuses so heavily on house-elf slavery also focuses so heavily on wands, and makes the point that the wizarding prejudice against house-elves is actually institutionalized, by forbidding them wands. We should probably conclude from this that, with wands in hand, house-elves would be powerful enough to be a threat to wizards.

And a threat to wizards is exactly what we need, isn’t it? Let’s take up a quick assessment of Voldemort’s army: (1) Voldemort himself, (2) Death Eaters, (3) Dementors (a vast and growing army), (4) innumberable Inferi, (5) werewolves, and (6) giants. Yikes. Compare that to (1) Harry, (2) the bungling MoM, (3) the leaderless Order, and (4) a bunch of kids from Hogwarts, and it’s not much of a fight, is it? Something is going to have to give as full-scale war breaks out, which it will, now Dumbledore’s out of the picture.

So my theory is basically this: Ollivander’s been hidden by Dumbledore, maybe protected by a Fidelius charm (with Snape as the secret-keeper?), and he’s got wands for an army of house-elves, ready to fight for their freedom.

But they don’t want…
I know, I know. I’ve already established that a revolutionary change in house-elves’ status is not something the house-elves themselves are ready for. So why would they voluntarily fight? The key to this lies with Dobby.* Despite the fact that Dobby is held in ill-repute for wanting freedom and wages, he makes a point universal to house-elf experience in Chamber of Secrets: the house-elves were treated horribly during the first reign of Voldemort, and Harry is something of a hero to their kind. Let’s hear Dobby’s explanation:

Ah, if Harry Potter only knew…what he means to us, to the lowly, the enslaved, we dregs of the magical world! Dobby remembers how it was when He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named was at the height of his powers, sir! We house-elves were treated like vermin, sir! … life has improved for my kind since you triumphed over He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. Harry Potter survived, and the Dark Lord’s power was broken, and it was a new dawn, sir, and Harry Potter shone like a beacon of hope for those of us who thought the Dark days would never end, sir….(CS-10)

In short, then, Harry Potter may just be the person to inspire the house-elves to desire their freedom, especially if the alternative option is to return to the Dark days under Voldemort’s reign. Dobby’s words, combined with Dumbledore’s urgency to teach Harry about the evils of prejudice against other magical brethren suggests that Harry will be something of a great uniter in Book 7, and house-elves certainly have the motivation to follow his lead.

But house-elves must obey their wizarding families, correct? How many families will agree to give up their house-elves to VoldWar II, or even command them to go into battle? Probably not many.

There are, however, at least a hundred house-elves at Hogwarts, and the school may not even be open in Book 7. I’m willing to bet a good number of them were refugees from Death Eater households who fled to sanctuary with Dumbledore after Voldemort was destroyed and the DEs were rounded up after VoldWar I.

Consider this: Everything so far has foreshadowed an attempted Voldemort takeover of Hogwarts. In Books 1, 2, and 5, Dumbledore was tricked or forced entirely out of the castle. In Book 6, he was AK’d right out of the picture, and Death Eaters were loose in the school. “The only one he ever feared” is gone, and we learned from Book 6 that Hogwarts is the only place Voldemort ever truly had affection for. It’s where he wants to be. Expect an attempted Voldemort takeover of Hogwarts in Book 7.

Harry feels the same way about Hogwarts, and he’s not going to give it up without a fight. I don’t think the house-elves of Hogwarts would be too keen on having to submit to Voldemort himself, especially if many of them recall their days as slaves of Death Eaters. Look for a force of house-elves, finally armed with wands provided by Ollivander himself, in Book 7.

Where is Ollivander Hiding?
And who’s hiding him? Important questions, and I’m afraid we can’t be sure. So far, I’ve been trying to think thematically. At this point, we leave that realm, and I can only make some wild guesses. I’ll throw a few out, but don’t hold me to them.

Allow me to suggest two possibilities for his location: Godric’s Hollow or Hogwarts. The first is an attractive option for two reasons: (1) it’s a nice parallel to the Potters if there’s a Fidelius charm involved, and (2) Harry’s going there. The second is attractive for the simple reason that if Dumbledore’s plan was wands for house-elves, wouldn’t it work out nicely for Ollivander to be on-site with a hundred of them?

A fun possibility might be that he’s still in Diagon Alley, hiding at Fred and George’s place – there could be a lot of humor with the “fake wands” when the greatest wandmaker in the world is living with you. But that’s a long shot, I suppose. I’d suggest 12 Grimmauld, but as I said earlier, I’m not sure the Order knows he’s hiding.

Who’s hiding him? If there’s a Fidelius charm involved, I suggest Snape as the secret-keeper. He’s going to be all over the Book 7 plot, and it’d be a nice touch of irony (and perhaps a touch of redemption from his guilt about the Potter’s death) to be living with Wormtail and keeping a location secret from Voldemort. Because no matter what your theory, Voldemort would like to get his hands on Ollivander, or at least his supplies. Sure, there are other wandmakers, but Voldemort will settle for nothing but the best for himself. If there’s no Fidelius involved, just about anyone capable of keeping Voldemort from him will do. Whoever’s hiding him must have instructions from Dumbledore about when to reveal him and to whom – probably after Dumbledore’s death, and to Harry (this is why Snape is an attractive option, since he would have been in on the knowledge of Dumbledore’s impending death).

Wrapping it Up
As with all theories, this could be close or way off the mark, but I think it ties together some important questions: How will Rowling settle the house-elf story in a way that points them toward freedom that they want for themselves? Where is Ollivander? How in heaven’s name will Harry be able to contain Voldemort’s vast army? A hiding Ollivander, arming house-elves with wands, is a nice tie-up of all those loose ends, and perhaps a few more that I’m missing. Of course, the details could be different. Perhaps Ollivander is kidnapped, and he’ll be rescued before providing wands for the elves. But I think the theory fits well thematically, and it represents the overcoming of prejudice against house-elves. The Ministry would be forced to abandoned that prejudicial law if wand-armed house-elves helped with the defeat of Voldemort.

*It’s interesting to consider that the three magical brethren against whom the Wizarding World is fearful and prejudiced each has a representative loyal to the Good Guys in VoldWar II. Dobby is to the house-elves as Firenze is to the centaurs and Grawp to the giants. We’ll likely see Harry uniting at least some representatives from each of the groups. Correction: This is what I get for trying to finish an essay in the dark while my newborn is sleeping…the Giants are not “magical brethren.” The Goblins are the third group. Even so, the point at least stands that, of those groups oppressed by the Ministry, Rowling likes to teach us to side with at least one of their kind, one who might be able to persuade wizards to abandon their prejudices, and the outcasts to join in the war against Voldemort.

Related Posts

• No Related Post

We continue now with the questions I have to answer for class.

Question: One of the continual themes in the books is how appearances can be deceiving – how does Prisoner of Azkaban address that theme and does it provide an easy answer?

The book certainly does not provide an “easy answer” for the question of deceiving appearances. There are several ways in which it demonstrates how complicated the matter might be. Three come to mind in particular – Professor Trelawney, Sirius Black, and the Crookshanks/Scabbers debacle.

Trelawney, the Divination professor, is clearly a quack and a fraud. Hermione spots it right away, and her constant predictions of Harry’s death, along with her exceedingly odd mannerisms tell us over and over
again that she’s just plain weird, and her predictions are not to be trusted. Yet even so, this strange woman is capable of uttering a prophecy that comes true at the end of the book. (426) Even a quack can get it right once in a while, and no one is to be dismissed, just because of their odd appearance and manner.

Sirius Black is described in quite chilling ways. He is clearly being set up as the second most powerful dark wizard, able to do incredible damage with a single spell. He’s the only one to ever escape Azkaban. He is clearly very cunning, able to sneak into Hogwarts unnoticed (chapter eight). And even worse for Harry in particular, it seems quite clear that everyone is convinced he betrayed his parents to Voldemort. (206) In a surprise twist that Rowling is so good at, Sirius is Harry’s godfather and cares for him deeply. Sirisu’ appearance was quite deceiving.

When first we meet Crookshanks, he’s a cranky old cat whom no one except Hermione likes, and he attacks Scabbers, Ron’s pathetic and apparently sick rat. (60-61) Throughout the book, the feud continues, Scabbers
apparently the poor, weak victim, and Crookshanks the oppressive offender. Of course, the rat turns out to be Peter Pettigrew, the “servant of Lord Voldemort.” (chapter 20) And even Crookshanks turns out to be not an evil cat, but “friends with that dog,” Sirius. (336)

Clearly, these situations do not provide “easy” answers to the question. All three turned out to be exactly the opposite to their appearance. Rowling’s lesson seems to be clear: Don’t discount anyone based on
appearances.

[Lupin is obviously another example, but I write about him in answer to another question. Stay tuned.]

Related Posts

• No Related Post