Dana Goldstein examines some of the complicated and problematic stereotypes and roles in the Potterverse in The American Prospect. I agree with most of her points, including the parallels to 20th-Century racist classifications — in particular, those of Nazi Germany — in the whole mudblood/halfblood/pureblood distinctions and rankings. Rowling claimed not to have seen the parallels until a visit to a Holocaust museum, but I have a hard time believing that.
Rowling walks the line between exposing stereotypes and relying on them to do some of her characterization for her, such as when she makes all the bad characters (or at least those you’re not supposed to identify with) lumpy, misshapen, hook-nosed, greasy-haired, sallow-skinned, toadlike and/or fat, and all the good characters noble, good-looking and thin. And the same things the “bad” characters do are perfectly fine when done by the “good” characters — how many times, for instance, was Dudley or Uncle Vernon dismissed as gluttonous for eating sweets, while in the very next chapter, Harry and Ron stuffed their faces on the Hogwart’s Express?
Another thing about the books that have alway irked me are the magical creatures, such as house-elves, whose treatment is abominable by our standards. Yet not one of the Muggle-born witches or wizards objects to their enslavement except for Hermione. It’s one thing for Ron, who was born into this world and has no reason to question the treatment of what amounts to a household appliance, to do nothing, but Hermione’s not the only Muggle-born. The Muggle-borns also go home for the summer and at breaks and presumably tell their parents stuff — so why aren’t more of them uncomfortable with the arrangement (heaven forfend one of the students whose ancestors were enslaved might have a problem)? And in particular, why is Harry, who was essentially an indentured servant himself, so dismissive of SPEW?
The whole article is worth reading, particularly the discussion of goblins and Voldemort’s obsession with bloodlines and her reminder that, as much as the Ministry’s actions resemble current events, those events hadn’t happened when the books were first plotted. A commenter at another forum mentioned that a lot of what the Ministry does is a reflection of what happened during the 1930s in Britain, when fear was rampant and people acting out of fear started taking on the characteristics of the very thing they feared.
But I want to highlight a passage dealing with witches, because it clears up something that has been bothering me for a while: why is it that the female adults, with all the magic available to them and vast powers, are relegated to doing household spells while the men go out and work?
The position of women in the narrative fits this vision of prescribed social roles and hierarchies. Harry’s heroes — his school headmaster, godfather, and various magical sporting figures — are all men. His dead mother, the Muggle-born Lily, is portrayed as the source of love and sacrifice in his life, while his late father, James, was daring, brash, and heroic. The books do strike some blows against gender stereotypes, portraying brave female warriors, a number of uncommonly cruel and violent female characters, and, of course, Harry’s best friend Hermione, a heroine because of her ability to turn academic acumen into practical magical solutions. But on the whole, Rowling’s wizarding society conforms to boringly conventional gender roles. Dads, like the loveable Mr. Weasley (father of red-headed sidekick Ron), go off to work while steadfast moms stay home cooking, cleaning, and rearing large families. Magical education doesn’t begin until the age of 11, so witches are also tasked with full-time parenting and educational responsibilities over young children, Rowling clarified for a curious reader at her website.
Great! The wizarding world, too, relies on unpaid female labor, and having children pretty much means the end of any kind of career ambitions. After all, the only married women in the books were defined in relation to their children — Lily, Narcissa and Molly (Fleur doesn’t count because she was a newlywed (though, gah, with the moony eyes), and the other’s a spoiler). Any other woman, particularly if she had a job, was single and childless. The takeaway is that you might have ambitions, but they’re only temporary. No matter how talented you are, and how powerful your magic, it’s still only a matter of time before you’ll have to give those up. There’s no having it all.
Rowling walks the line between exposing stereotypes and relying on them to do some of her characterization for her, such as when she makes all the bad characters (or at least those you’re not supposed to identify with) lumpy, misshapen, hook-nosed, greasy-haired, sallow-skinned, toadlike and/or fat, and all the good characters noble, good-looking and thin.
I mostly agree, but there are two exceptions to that rule. Except, damn it, I think it’s a spoiler to name them!
She always has at least one exception to the rule she establishes, which doesn’t really work against the rule as well as she thinks it does.
I think she spent so much time re-thinking the racism and xenophobia of C.S. Lewis that she didn’t spend enough time thinking about the sexist stereotypes that she was perpetuating.
But at least she said in her post-release internet chat that one of the female characters goes on to be a professional athlete … before she retires to have kids. Sigh.
(Have kids and be a journalist, at least. But still. Anyone think that Lisa Leslie is going to retire entirely just because she had a kid?)
(Fine, here’s the link, but no whining that OMG there are SPOILERS!!!11!!)
Heeee, I was going to link to the article that Mnemosyne already linked. But yeah, word on the last paragraph to this post: that was exactly my problem with the epilogue to the book. I think it’s sweet that Our Heroes are married and having kids, but I was irked that although Neville’s career got mentioned, nothing was said about Hermoine other than the fact that she was a mother. I never doubted for a minute that Hermoine would have a brilliant career in some field or another, but I wish that Rowling had thought to mention that in the epilogue itself, rather than in an internet chat several days later.
And I love Ginny’s story: professional athlete, then professional journalist. I’m not very bothered by the fact that she quit her athletic career, because that’s a common pattern that male athletes fall into as well. Spend several years as a professional athlete, then retire and become a journalist/broadcaster reporting your former sport.
If Muggle-borns are of lower status most of them may not be willing to further jeopardize their status by fighting for the rights and freedoms of a group percieved to be even lower than themselves.
Or maybe the kids, being kids (and like many adults), like having someone to wait on them hand and foot?
What about the fact that he is so desperate to meet James’ friends, find out more about James, and doesn’t really even seem to consider Lily as being such an important part of his heritage? Because she’s a muggle-born? Or because she’s his mother and, yet again, mothers pale into comparison with fathers - even when both are absent and one’s death to save him actually protected him for almost his entire life?
Pah.
Disclaimer: I still read and loved the books. Sorry.
I’ve been struggling with that one for a long time, Pumpkin, because I really think Lily got sold short, even if she was a potions genius and all the spoilery things from DH.
The only defenses I’ve been able to come up with are that a) James’ friends just happen to keep walking into Harry’s path, though it bothers me that they never talk about Lily even though to some extent they were her friends too - Sirius and Lupin were in Gryffindor with her, best friends with James while he was dating her, etc. and somewhat more understanably b) Lily is Petunia’s sister. He *hates* the Dursleys and that is probably reason enough for him not to want to know anything about the Evans’, since to him they would be the people that spawned Petunia and thereby Dudley.
That being said, I’m still pissed off at all the casual sexism of the books, and think that she sort of squandered the possibilities of how the basic assumptions of how society was built would change if brute physical strength had never, ever been an advantage. The books make it pretty clear that any magic pretty much trumps any physical force. What would a world be like in which the average male’s greater physical strength than the average female’s had basically never been a factor?
I admit that’s probably asking a little much out of kids books though
If I was the fanficcy sort, maybe I’d consider writing something about it…
Disclaimer: I also read and loved the books anyway
Or because she’s his mother and, yet again, mothers pale into comparison with fathers - even when both are absent and one’s death to save him actually protected him for almost his entire life?
To some extent, it’s a not-inaccurate depiction of how a boy that age would think — mom = boring, but dad = extra-super-cool action hero. Of course, a lot of that gets turned around starting as early as “Prisoner of Azkaban,” where we find out that James’ sneaking around almost got Snape killed. Lily does become slightly more prominent as the books go along, but I do think that JKR missed an opportunity to really have the two flip and have Harry end by regarding Lily as the hero she was, especially since (in retrospect) it was James’ insistence that Peter could be trusted that got them killed.
I think she did a good job of disillusioning Harry about his father (and all of the father-figures in his life, for that matter) but the mother and mother-figures never really came into prominence to compensate.
Oh yes, I thoroughly enjoyed him losing respect for all of his father figures - his father was a jerk, Sirius was worse, Lupin was a coward, Dumbledore , and I think she made some attempt at making Lily more important, especially when he sees the memories where people say personality wise, he might break rules like James but he’s more a personality-clone of Lily… so it did kind of end with the opposite of the whole “you’re just like James!” thing, and Lily’s eyes I think has more than the meaning of making people who loved Lily help him, I think it’s supposed to be the whole “eyes are the windows of the soul” thing and in spirit he was more like Lily than James…
all the good characters noble, good-looking and thin.
Aw, what about plump Mrs. Weasley or round-faced Neville? The Malfoys, on the other hand, are always described as being quite handsome were it not for the unpleasant expressions on their faces.
I didn’t mind the athlete=turned-mum-slash-journalist thing, since I get the sense Quidditch players don’t have a long career lifespan (like most athletes after all).
Also, from what I’ve observed, it is quite normal for a boy Harry’s age to focus more on the same-sex parent (especially when people keep telling him they look so much alike). If the books had been about a girl I suspec she would have focused more on the mother. And Harry didn’t seem especially focused on his father more than his mother before Prisoner of Azkaban (well, except for when he got the Cloak).
(I do agree with lots of things that have been said, by the way. But I also do love the books, a lot, way more than I should).
Also, Bellatrix was married (although no kids - at least none we know about), and people do write what they know. And Tonks worked until killed, even after she had Teddy, although that still supports the exception-proving-the-rule argument.
I also think a lot does seep into the subconscious that comes out in books and other artistic work that’s not actually recognized until we see it on the page.
But I will make many allowances b/c I too love the books more than I should (I don’t even have the Chronicles of Narnia all in hardcover) - noting also, however, that I’m warmed by the author’s example in that she, a single mom, did her job and ended up doing all right for herself and child.