19th-century Mores (yay!)

[mary_j_59]

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

Here goes:
Author mary-j-59
Title J.K. Rowling and the mores of the 19th century
Genre essay, about 3,000 words. G-rated
Credits Thanks to Bohemianspirit, Raisin-gal, and Cardigrl, whose posts and the resulting discussions inspired me, Travis Prinzi for allowing me to quote, and my sister for her comments and encouragement. The essay follows the cut:

J.K.Rowling and the Mores of the 19th Century

Back when I thought the Harry Potter books might be classics in the making, I used to describe them as Dickensian. I had several features of the books in mind when using that term. For one thing, like Dickens, Rowling seems to borrow plot elements from many other sources. For another, she is fond of satire. Third, she tends to write her characters, initially, as caricatures who gradually develop some depth. Then, like Dickens, she attempts to comment critically on society. Although these books aren't quite the classics I was hoping and expecting they would be, I do think the adjective "Dickensian" could still be applied to them. This brief essay is an attempt to explain why Rowling's novels are especially reminiscent of 19th century British literature.

1. Shoemaker, stick to your last; weaver, stick to your loom.
It's puzzled many readers - especially Slytherin fans and those, like Jodel at the Red Hen website, attempting to find a coherent message in the books, that ambition is seen as the salient quality for Slytherin house - and therefore as bad. After all, we are told repeatedly in the text, Slytherin is the house that produces Dark Wizards, and also followers of Voldemort, a pureblood supremacist. As Jodel said, what has ambition got to do with pureblood prejudice? I, and many others, added: why is it bad to be ambitious? Doesn't it depend what you're ambitious for?

Yes, exactly. Ambition in general may or may not be wrong in the Potterverse - and pureblood prejudice would be quite likely in a conservative house like Hufflepuff - or, for that matter, Gryffindor - rather than in a set of movers, shakers and social climbers like the Slytherins. But that is the point. Slytherins are social climbers. And, in the classic 19th century British novel, social ambition is always a mark of potential evil. Even a humane reformer like Dickens was not terribly concerned with allowing people to better their stations in life. In Hard Times, the so-called self-made man Josiah Bounderby in fact has a loving mother - from a humble background - and it's a mark of his poor character that he denies her very existence for most of the novel, and then is humiliated by her in the end. In Great Expectations, young Pip, trying to make a place for himself as a wealthy man in London society, is embarrassed by his humble brother-in-law, Joe Gargery the blacksmith. We readers are meant to cringe at Pip's treatment of Joe, just as Pip (eventually) does himself. Pip, being a good young man, corrects his error and reconciles with Joe - especially after he discovers that his good fortune isn't the gift of an upper-class person, but rather his reward for kindness to a convicted thief. Bounderby, lacking Pip's basic decency, simply gets his comeuppance. In both cases, though, it's quite clear that ambition led these characters astray, damaging their moral character and making them cause pain to family members. In general, people born to a certain station in life should stay there. It's possible to improve one's lot to an extent - for example, the young pickpocket Charlie, who reforms, gets his own barrow and lives a happy life as a small businessman - but trying to leave one's social class altogether is the mark of a bad character.

There is, of course, a reason for that. To allow people to move from one social class to another would have required a pretty radical change in 19th-century British society. For if some can climb, others can fall. This brings me to cardigrl's fascinating comment on James Potter and the Gryffindors in the Potterverse. Yes, Voldemort is evil; yes, they are good and right to fight him - but part of what they are fighting to preserve is the status quo. And a little social climber like Severus Snape, who aspires far beyond his station, must be put down. It is not insignificant, I think, that James Potter and Sirius Black are both members of the social elite - independently wealthy purebloods, and, in Black's case, from a very old family. And they, of course, are the "good guys".

2. What's bred in the bone will come out in the flesh.
As I said above, James Potter and Sirius Black are members of the social elite in the Wizarding World. Severus Snape, in contrast, is a social climber, and that is part of what's the matter with him. We do not, however, meet his parents, so we can't tell what problems they might have bequeathed to him. But we do know Tom Riddle's, and also Harry Potter's, and the contrast is instructive. For the first few books, readers tend to idolize James and Lily Potter, rather as Harry does himself. If their images are rather tarnished by the end of Deathly Hallows, it remains true that there was apparently no coercion in their relationship, that they married for love, and that they died to defend their son from the evil man who wanted to kill him. Harry is constantly compared to both his parents, but especially to his father, throughout the books.

Tom Riddle, in contrast, is a child of deception and coercion. His mother uses a love potion on his father, who abandons her, leaving her alone and impoverished in London. Unlike James Potter, Tom Riddle, senior, neither wants nor protects his son. In interviews, Rowling has said that Tom Riddle, junior, is monstrous because his parents did not love or want him, even before his birth. That is a harsh message indeed, but there is more. Riddle actually resembles his parents, as Harry does his. Merope Gaunt, his mother, seems merely pitiable, but she is skilled and ruthless enough to brew a love potion to enchant her child's father. Tom Riddle, senior, is shown to be rather cruel and self-absorbed. Tom, junior, has all of his parents' failings, with a few more added. The idea that a child is always a copy of his parents can also be found quite frequently in 19th century British literature. One classic novel that clearly influenced Rowling is Wuthering Heights; Severus and Lily, and their relationship, bear some resemblance to that of Heathcliff and Cathy, the doomed lovers in that book. Heathcliff is an orphan and a foundling with a retentive memory and a vengeful nature, and he plans to use his own son as an instrument of vengeance on those who wronged him in the past. Here, he talks to the narrator, the servant woman Nelly, about his plans and his disappointment in the boy:

Don't you think Hindley would be proud of his son, if he could see him? almost as proud as I am of mine - - But there's this difference; one is gold put to the use of paving stones, and the other is tin polished to ape a service of silver. Mine has nothing valuable about it; yet I shall have the merit of making it go as far as such poor stuff can go. His had first-rate qualities, and they are lost - (Wuthering Heights, page 183)

There are several remarkable things about this speech, but the thing that struck me most strongly, even when I first read it as a child, is Heathcliff's self-loathing and his contempt for his own son. Hareton, the son of the landowner and the rightful heir, is gold. Heathcliff's son - and, by extension, Heathcliff himself -are tin. Here we see several 19th century mores at once: the idea that ambition is likely to lead to evil, and that the poor should not aspire to the higher social classes. But most of all, we see expressed the idea that a child inherits his moral character from his parents. Heathcliff's son, Linton, is pitiable, but also contemptible: he is a sadist, a physical coward, sickly, weak and lazy. Hareton, in contrast, is physically strong, has a good mind, and is grateful to those who have shown him any kindness. He is rather better than his parents, so that one might actually wonder where he got his good characteristics: His mother was a fool and his father a violent alcoholic who abused him, as well as Heathcliff. But he is, of course, of higher social status than Heathcliff, so it stands to reason - at least, in the world of 19th century literature - that he would have a better character than the child of a foundling.

The unfortunate Linton Heathcliff brings out yet another point we see in the history of Tom Riddle. Hareton is a wanted child, conceived by parents who loved each other and born early in their marriage. Linton's mother, Isabella, flees her husband in fear and anger, and keeps her son from his father whom she considers a brute. Heathcliff, for his part, has no interest in his son and does not inquire after him for ten years, only meeting the boy when he is nearly 12. The child who is loved and wanted has a good character; the child whose father rejects him is warped. Isn't this very similar to the stories of Harry Potter and Tom Riddle?

3. Ooh, those awful foreigners! (and the White Man's burden)
Heathcliff has another disadvantage, which his son presumably inherits. He is not a native Englishman*. Here is our first glimpse of him:

. . . over Miss Cathy's head, I had a peep at a dirty, ragged, black-haired child; big enough both to walk and talk -- indeed, its face looked older than Catherine's -- yet, when it was set on its feet, it only stared round, and repeated over and over again some gibberish that nobody could understand. (Wuthering Heights, page 37)

He is constantly referred to, throughout the novel, as a "gypsy" and an interloper, and his violent, vengeful and passionate nature seems both foreign and, in some ways, inferior to the "Christian", British temperament. This, too, is a common trope in 19th-century British literature. Emily Bronte's sister Charlotte, in her novel Villette, contrasts the amorality of the Catholic Belgian girls to the Protestant (and very British) rectitude of her heroine. Similarly, in Jane Eyre, Jane's courage, loyalty and highly ethical nature are contrasted to the insane and violent Bertha, Mr. Rochester's first wife - who, significantly, is of mixed race and exotic in appearance. And Mr. Rochester's ward, Jane's pupil Adele, is the child of a French courtesan and, though a sweet-natured little girl, is overly concerned with dress and appearance and seems to lack depth of character and feeling.

We see these same prejudices carried unexamined into the Harry Potter books. For one thing, Severus Snape's rather foreign appearance (very dark hair and eyes, oily, a sallow complexion and a long nose) are repeatedly emphasized. Of course, Snape is the head ot Slytherin house, and that house has a foreign taint; while all the other founders of Hogwarts have good Anglo Saxon names, Salazar Slytherin shares a Christian name with a Portuguese dictator. Naturally, Slytherin must be the “evil” house. Then there are the foreign students who participate in the tournament in GOF. Viktor Krum is a sports hero, to be sure, and he has the guts to go against his headmaster and take the Muggleborn Hermione to the Yule ball. He is a good foreigner. Nevertheless - even though he dates her - he cannot manage to pronounce Hermione's name correctly, and he plays no significant part in the battle against Voldemort. Fleur Delacour, the other foreign student we meet, comes across as stereotypically vain and self-absorbed when we first meet her. This impression is somewhat corrected in later books, especially HBP, but I'd suggest that is because she loves and marries an Englishman, and is therefore assimilated as an English housewife. More on this later.

But there are other stereotypes in the books far more offensive than these. The goblins are the most blatant example. They are physically small, dark of hair and eyes, clannish, and long-nosed; what's more, they control all the money. Worse yet, they have no compunction about "cheating" humans, and have, it seems, started several wars. This picture of the goblins combines several of the worst anti-Semitic stereotypes. As other commentators have pointed out, the giants and centaurs also fit a couple of typical 19th century stereotypes - those of "savage" or "natural" man. The centaurs are the noble savages; the giants are the brutes who must be tamed or controlled - or, if it is impossible to tame or control them, exterminated for the safety of civilized people. If that sounds harsh, it does fit the picture we are given in the book, where Grawp, Hagrid's brother, never learns to speak in words of more than two syllables and constantly mispronounces the few words he knows - as well as being mindlessly violent when we first encounter him. Some of his interactions with Hermione are reminiscent of King Kong with the human woman he loves - but King Kong himself is a projection of "savage" human characteristics.

All this is quite troubling in a series of books that overtly attempt to celebrate tolerance and diversity. Cardigrl and Bohemianspirit have gone into greater detail about the types of racism and prejudice found in Wizarding society itself; if you have not read their essays, I would encourage you to do so; I've linked to them below. But, to me, the most troubling, and perhaps the most classically 19th-century racial attitude that finds its way into the books is the extremely patronizing attitude towards Muggles. Wizards - even good, Muggle-loving wizards like Arthur Weasley; even Muggleborns like Hermione Granger - feel absolutely no compunction about manipulating, lying to, and brainwashing Muggles for their own good. Arthur routinely obliviates Muggles as part of his job, and Hermione alters her parents' memories and sends them to Australia to protect them from Voldemort - apparently without ever asking their opinions, although she is their child. And Arthur actually speaks of Muggles as if they were children. "Bless them, they'll go to any lengths to ignore magic, even if it's staring them in the face. . ." (COS, page 38). In an essay on his "Hog’s Head" website, Travis Prinzi defines this attitude as "dysconscious racism", and points to the casually racist comments of Molly and Ron Weasley as examples. To me, what Arthur says in the quote above is just as clearly racist. His attitude, and the general Wizarding attitude toward both Muggles and other magical races, reminds me of Kipling's poem, "The White Man's Burden", the full text of which can be found at the Fordham website here: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/Kipling.html.
Inferior races - like Muggles or house elves or goblins or giants - must be ruled for their own benefit, to protect them from themselves. If they object, they must be disciplined -- possibly by violence, or even by war. As the Fordham site explains, Kipling wrote this poem in response to the American invasion of the Philippines. His intent was clearly to praise the American action, not to criticize it. In the end, Rowling does not criticize the dysconscious racism of the Wizarding World, either. Her heroes are still showing, and acting on, this type of prejudice in the epilogue to the last book in the series. (And also in the recently-written prequel. Lying to Muggles and holding them up as figures of fun just doesn't seem to be a problem to Rowling.)

4.A Woman's Place is in the Home (and, motherhood is powerful)
There is one more very typical 19th-century trope that finds its way into Rowling's work. This is her picture of the ideal family, and the woman's place within it. In a way, these books can be read as an extended paean to motherhood, with Lily Potter and Molly Weasley as idealized mothers. Lily, of course, dies to save her child, and Molly becomes a second mother - and eventually, a mother-in-law- to Harry. Molly is quite intolerant of Muggles -- the first words we hear from her are a criticism of the number of Muggles at King's Cross, a Muggle railway station -- and frustrated by her husband's fascination with Muggle gadgets. She is a very energetic person, skilled at cookery and other household spells, and tends to be overwhelming in her affection for Harry, even while she ignores her own son, Ron. It's significant that her sons seem more fearful of her than they are of their father and that Arthur, too, seems to be somewhat in awe of her and her temper. She does not hesitate to discipline her children physically, and she home schools all seven of them before they begin Hogwarts. Because of this, some Christians have been persuaded that Rowling is showing Christian family values in her depiction of the Weasley clan.

But is she really? Or is she merely depicting a conservative, old-fashioned British family of high class but little wealth? With their constant concerns for money, (shown especially by Ron and Percy, but also by the twins and Molly herself), their genteel poverty (they never want for anything the children really need, though Ron's desires get neglected), their family relationship to the wealthy, pureblood Black family, and Arthur's eccentricity, they remind me strongly of the Bennett family in Pride and Prejudice. But, while Jane Austen clearly means us to see Mrs. Bennett and Mr. Bennett critically, Rowling truly seems to idolize the Weasleys, and especially Molly. Why else does her hero so long to join this family? And why else is Mrs. Weasley allowed to be a heroine of sorts, killing Bellatrix LeStrange in defense of her daughter Ginny?

This last point strikes me as particularly significant. The wife and mother of seven children gets to destroy the married woman who has refused motherhood. Similarly, Narcissa Malfoy finds the courage to first disobey and then lie to Voldemort in defense of her son. Even poor Merope Gaunt manages to get herself to an orphanage, get her child born, and name him, before she dies. In the Potterverse, mother love is always good and powerful, and nontraditional roles for women do not exist.

5.Summing Up: Harry Potter as Oliver Twist?
Merope Gaunt's story reminds me strongly of another 19th-century British novel, Oliver Twist. Indeed, the Harry Potter novels are like Oliver Twist in some key ways. Oliver's mother also dies giving birth to him, like Tom Riddle's mother Merope Gaunt. But this brings me full circle, to the heritability of character. Oliver, though raised in dire circumstances and never treated with affection, is naturally good. This would seem to be because his parents - both of whom were well-to-do -- were basically good people, In short, Oliver shares his mother's temperament. He has a half-brother, Monks, who attempts to destroy him throughout the book; Monks' goal is to take Oliver's inheritance for himself. And he is the son of a nasty mother. The virtuous orphan, in the end, comes in to his inheritance and lives happily ever after, while his enemies are punished.

This is exactly what we see in Harry Potter. Harry, though raised without love or even basic decent care from the age of 15 months, has an unbroken spirit - like Oliver. He is basically good - like Oliver. Like Oliver, he reacts with fury to hearing his dead parents spoken of slightingly, and his rage causes him to run away. Tom Riddle in contrast is like Monks - born evil, and wishing the innocent young boy nothing but harm.

In Oliver Twist, we also see something very like Rowling's view on womanhood and motherhood. Women are always seen in relationship, never by themselves. They are wives and mothers, maiden aunts, sisters, servants. The one woman who acts on her own and goes against her particular society - the prostitute, Nancy, who speaks out to help Oliver - is as a result beaten to death by her lover. It may be significant that Dickens himself often energetically acted out the scene of Nancy's murder in public readings.

And then, of course, there is Fagin the Jew. He is a fence, a corrupter of youth, a manipulator who incites Bill Sykes to Nancy's murder, a miser, and a cruel man who delights in the misfortunes of the thieves he's outlived. He is dirty and a physical coward, but he is also quick-witted, articulate and very cunning. Finally, with his stringy red hair, large nose, and bent posture, he is physically ugly. Here we have the evil foreigner in spades. In fact, some modern readers are so troubled by the anti-Semitic stereotypes in the depiction of Fagin that they object to children reading this book.

Summing up, we see in Oliver Twist that some people are born virtuous, and remain virtuous regardless of the pressures or troubles they face. These people are normally from families of some means, and loving parents. Other people are born evil, and do wrong even if given opportunities for a good life. These people are normally of degenerate stock. Women are the heart of the home, and are most fulfilled when supporting men or children. Foreigners are likely to be morally and physically inferior to English people. As I have noted before, every one of these ideas can also be found in the Harry Potter books.

But Dickens, Austen, Kipling and the Brontes were writing from within a particular society at a particular time, so it is very natural that they would express its mores in their stories. Rowling is a postmodern, 21st century author. From interviews and news accounts I have read, it would seem that she is politically rather liberal; she worked for Amnesty International, according to her recent speech at Harvard, and is opposed to the death penalty. So how could she have written a series of books full of such deterministic, even racist and sexist, opinions?

A few commentators, such as Daniel Hemmens, have surmised that Rowling is expressing her own misunderstanding of Calvinist doctrine in the novels. That is possible, but, even if it turns out to be correct, I don't believe it explains all the contradictions I've pointed to in Rowling's works. I and a few other people have mentioned that Rowling seems to be a very good observer; she can build up believable characters when she describes them from the outside, but she renders them unbelievable when explaining their motives. A case in point is Harry in OOTP. I found the boy very sympathetic in this book; he was in a constant rage, but that -- to me -- read as a clear sign of the depression he was finally starting to feel at all he had endured. He was 15 years old, and had witnessed a friend's murder and nearly been murdered himself; he was isolated and overwhelmed, Why wouldn't he be angry? But Rowling has said in interviews that his rage in this book is not his own, but rather the work of the horcrux within him. She writes a believable boy, but then ascribes unbelievable motives to him. And this, I think, is a result of being a good observer of appearance and actions, but failing -- perhaps -- to look again at the characters she has set down and think about how they come across on the page. For she has said that she does not reread nor rewrite her books.

It is possible that she has done something similar with the 19th century literature she clearly loves, and was as clearly influenced by. As Jodel has said on the Red Hen website, we should bear in mind that Rowling is still a young writer; this series as a whole is her first published story. It is natural for a young writer to imitate stories she or he admires, right down to borrowing situations and characters, as she seems to have borrowed aspects of Heathcliff when writing Severus Snape, or Oliver Twist when writing Harry.

But she does not rewrite, and therefore does not actually see what the situations and characters she has set down imply. In her collected letters, The Habit of Being, the great American writer Flannery O'Connor has this to say on rewriting: "I am a great hand at rewriting myself. It takes a long time to make a thing like this (a short story) work. Looks simple but is not." (The Habit of Being, p 84) Later on, she explains that she finds rewriting necessary because she discovers what she has to say on a subject by writing a story - but then has to look again at the story to see what she has said. O'Connor found rewriting to be the most essential part of writing; she felt a young writer could not rewrite often enough. For, as the above quote implies, only by rereading and rewriting - by looking hard and critically at what you have done -- can you discover if it is what you truly meant to do.

Because Rowling does not rewrite, she could incorporate racist, 19th- century attitudes into a work in which racism is supposed to be the greatest evil. Because she does not rewrite, she could write contradictory scenes involving coercion and torture -- which she initially condemns, but then excuses when her heroes engage in these activities. Because she does not rewrite, she could set up a world in which slavery is justified and some races are truly inferior to others. In the end, I think, many of the problems I have with the morality she presents in her books may have nothing at all to do with any message she intended to convey, and everything to do with her ambition and relative inexperience as a writer.


Mary Johnson, June, 2008.
* Note: Some years back, I read a fascinating essay asserting that Heathcliff was actually native Irish. I am afraid I haven't since been able to track it down, but it made a great deal of sense to me; the essayist pointed out that, in the 19th century, the native Catholic Irish were referred to as "white niggers." There is also an Irish folk song, "I am stretched on your grave", which seems to tell the Heathcliff and Cathy story point for point. Given Severus Snape's appearance, social class, apparent geographic origin (a mill town in the north of England), sense of humor, and his mother's name, some Irish descent seems likely for him as well.

Informal list of sources: (Copyrights and editions to be given where works are cited:)
Books cited or referred to:

Austen, Jane Pride and Prejudice

Bronte, Charlotte. Jane Eyre
Villette

Bronte, Emily Wuthering Heights

Dickens, Charles Great Expectations
Hard Times
Oliver Twist

O.Connor, Flannery The Habit of Being

Rowling, J.K. The Harry Potter series, especially
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Websites:
The Full text of Kipling's poem, "The White Man's Burden", can be found at the Fordham University website here:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/Kipling.html

Travis Prinzi's summary of his podcast on racism in the Harry Potter novels is here:
http://thehogshead.org/2007/02/19/hogs-head-pubcast-17-racism-in-harry-potter-part-one/

cardiglrs essay on racism in Harry Potter is here:
http://asylums.insanejournal.com/snapedom/120973.html

Bohemianspirit's is here:
http://asylums.insanejournal.com/snapedom/121324.html

I cannot remember exactly which of Jodel's essays I am citing from memory - Jodel, if you can remember, perhaps you could correct me? in any case, her website is:
http://www.redhen-publications.com/Potterverse.html

Finally, Daniel Hemmens writes for the e-zine Ferretbrain, where you can find his article, "Harry Potter and the Doctrine of the Calvinists" at this link:
http://www.ferretbrain.com/articles/article-161.html

Comments

[travisprinzi.livejournal.com]

Yet she repeatedly tramples on the free will of those she considers "lesser" than herself, such as her parents.

And how, exactly, does Hermione see her parents as "lesser" than herself?

If you're looking for perfect or entirely consistent characters, you'll find them in books, but not in good books. Good characters are contradictions, just like real humans.

It is only when Hermione starts doing things like cheating to get Ron an unearned position on a sports team by attacking another student, remember, that Rowling stated in an interview that it was good to have Hermione "loosen up."

See above comment. To read some fatal character flaw into Hermione because she does stuff that other teens do is, I think, an unfortunate reading.

Do you have any textual authority for that statement?

Her character from Goblet on. It did appear she dropped her social justice concerns in Goblet, but the intelligence of her conversation with Griphook says the opposite to me.

I think there's little in the text to support any reading of the wizarding world's future because she doesn't write anything about it; we have to make deductions based on what we know, and I think given what we have, we can assume there will be future advocacy on the part of the trio for equal rights for all magical brethren.

[travisprinzi.livejournal.com]

By wiping their memories and moving them half-way across the world, thereby destroying their home and practice, not to mention their social environment and support, Hermione denied them their basic rights guaranteed to them by, inter alia, the European Convention on Human Rights. It's pretty clear, however, that Hermione thinks that she is a human being entitled to basic rights.

This is simultaneously begging the question. It's also ignoring the reasons Hermione did what she did. I didn't think it was the right thing to do either. I thought it was way over the top, and a very odd choice on Rowling's part. But it was for their protection, after all.

It appears you know different teens than I do, because to the ones I know, nothing is lower than cheating your way onto a team. That's nothing but despicable. And frankly, I do think it was just one indication that Hermione really does have a fatal character flaw. In fact, one of my basketball-playing nieces liked Hermione right up until that point, at which time she said Hermione was "disgusting" and that Hermione could never be a heroine "if they couldn't play fair." It was somewhat annoying to me that she did not find nearly as terrible Hermione's helping the boys cheat in their schoolwork, but that's a different issue.

But now we're just talking about who ranks what moral matters as more serious than others. I cheated in high school, and I helped others cheat. I know very few who didn't, actually. It was just expected that everyone did that in chemistry.

In other words, we've left textual evidence and entered "which sins are the worst," and that's basically a dead end for the conversation.

See? I say I'm stepping away, and then jump right back in.

OK, I'm really stepping away now.

[travisprinzi.livejournal.com]

So she would like to claim. Not exactly a libertarian respect for free will there. White Man's Burden is often the excuse for what is in essence selfish behavior. As are excuses for cheating which, in the end, damages the cheaters.

So, then - I guess we both get to have it "both ways." Either "textual evidence" matters, or we both get to question and speculate about Hermione's intentions and character. I agree with the principle, but this is hardly a "White Man's Burden" issue. The magical community is, after all, the oppressed group in the Muggle/WW relationship.

That libertarian free will matters in JKR's overall political vision does not necessitate that all her characters act perfectly according to that ideal at all times.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Yes. Well said.

[travisprinzi.livejournal.com]

But we're talking about her parents. I feel like I want to write that as a response to almost everything you wrote, but let me try to detail it out a bit.

You're Hermione, and you know, you know your parents are in danger from a threat that (a) you don't have the power to withstand, (b) they don't have the power to withstand, and (c) they can't fully comprehend, not belonging to the WW. You have a very small window of time; Voldemort is after Harry, and he'll use every means possible. Most people in the WW have still have no idea who your parents are, and the time is short to keep them hidden from LV. You could cast a bunch of spells over their house and hope Voldemort doesn't figure it out and get in. You can tell them to run and hide and hope Voldemort won't find them and won't torture all their friends and other family to discover their whereabouts. Or you could make it like they never existed; make them disappear completely without a trace.

I still think this was a weird plot choice on Rowling's part, but I'm honestly stunned that you would suggest that given the opportunity to protect one's parents, one should use "less drastic measures." Less? I'd use the most drastic measures imaginable to be sure they made it.

Again, odd choice for Rowling, but hardly enough to build a racist!Hermione case on.

the motive you assume is not only inherently racist, but also often used as an excuse for selfish actions.

I agree with the statement in general; it's a sort of simple definition of a metanarrative, really. But again, parents. This is not Hermione's overarching position about Muggles; it's her extreme action to keep her own parents safe. Who's rational when it comes to protecting family from real danger, anyway?

Unless you can point me to anywhere in the books that indicate Granger chose to spend time with her family when she had the option of being with her magical buddies?

First year, Christmas. And it's not like there were a ton of opportunities in the course of the series to make that choice. But this doesn't really work as a good indicator of "racism" on Hermione's part, anyway. What teen prefers their parents over their friends? I preferred my friends, even though I had great parents whom I loved. To read some sort of Wizarding superiority complex into Hermione here is a stretch.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Yes, Travis. We are talking about her *parents*, and the problem would be solved if there were even the slightest indication in the text that Hermione had explained the situation and come to an agreement with them about what should be done. Instead, as far as we can see, she treats them like animals - not even children, but animals - performing drastic actions on them "for their own good" without their consent. In the Muggle World, which I far prefer to the Wizarding one, informed consent is an absolute legal requirement for such a drastic action, and I'd say it's a moral requirement as well. It is a moral standard Hermione does not meet, based on the evidence we have.

Of course, it is possible that Rowling has not really considered what Hermione's act here, and Ron's in the epilogue, actually imply. That was one of the points of my paper - I was trying to give the author the benefit of the doubt. But she has been very consistent in showing Muggles as inferior to Wizards, so I'm not sure you can give her that leeway, really.

[travisprinzi.livejournal.com]

Mary, let me say again, just in case I haven't been clear enough - I really appreciate this conversation. It's sharpening my thinking.

But she has been very consistent in showing Muggles as inferior to Wizards, so I'm not sure you can give her that leeway, really.

There are several important things to say about this. First, the overall perception of Muggles in the WW has to be set in its context, as does the entire Muggle/WW relationship: Wizards are the oppressed, subjugated group in the relationship, not Muggles. The WW's hiddenness, including memory charms, etc., all have to do with the simple fact that if Muggles discovered the WW, they'd obliterate it. That adds a lot of complexity to the discussion.

Given that, then, it should be no surprise that there is an overall widespread disdain for Muggles in the WW. The question we have to ask is whether Rowling herself intends us to see all Muggles as fools, or whether she's describing a prejudice in the WW, and I think it's most definitely the latter. Arthur Weasley (who has his own issues, of course) has the Muggle Protection Act, which is a gutsy move; what other witches and wizards, besides Dumbledore, would think it a good idea to protect the people who are responsible for the WW's having to hide and pretend not to exist in the first place? And this act is certainly portrayed as a good thing, despite widespread WW opposition.

Further, we learned in DH that there were, in the past, towns where Wizards and Muggles got along peaceably.

Finally, it's not a story about Muggles; it's a story about the hidden WW.

So I think there is ample space to give Rowling the benefit of the doubt on Hermione's very odd choice to give her parents new identities. I think your point about not rewriting would serve as a sufficient explanation there. She probably should have re-thought and re-written that part.

[ohioriverutopia.wordpress.com (from livejournal.com)]

The excuse proffered that it is for their own good does nothing more than emphasize the contempt, as demonstrated by the character's actions, for the idea that non-wizards/witches could have free will or the capacity to recognize their own self interest.

Actually, given the circumstances, Hermione's parents aren't in an especially good position to "recognize their own self interest" in this situation. Keep in mind that the major problems with social division in these books is entrenched in the institutions themselves.

1) Much of Wizarding Law privileges wizarding households of pureblood descent, or at least those households with greater wizarding heritage. The point behind the wand laws referenced in earlier comments is that the law isn't designed solely to keep wizarding children from doing magic with wands. At one point in the series we're made to realize, I think in conversation with Dumbledore, that the wand law can't really be enforced upon a household of established wizarding heritage. The Ministry can only track when magic has been used, not necessarily who has used it. Thus a muggleborn student using magic outside of Hogwarts is easily discovered by process of deduction.

2) Wizarding Law prohibits Muggles from knowing details of the WW, ostensibly to protect the WW from Muggle persecution -- although it's quite clear that the power dynamic between Wizards and Muggles has shifted as the WW has faded into Muggle obscurity. Fudge and Scrimgeour's interactions with the Muggle Prime Minister are evidence of this. Thus, Hermione's parents are placed in a rather liminal space in the books for reasons that are neither their fault nor Hermione's. They are victims of a larger historical narrative unconcerned with the minor details of individual characters. They are, in fact, left in a spot where knowing all they need to know to make a full decision leaves them rather vulnerable. Imagine if they'd muttered Voldemort's name while the taboo was in place.

This doesn't fully exonerate Hermione of Cardgirl's charge. In the most abstract sense of human rights, Hermione does violate freewill. But, I think we're stuck with two, potentially incommensurable, questions. Does Hermione violate her parents' freewill? Yes, without question. Do her actions at least help protect them? Yes.

If anything, Hermione's choices here indicate something about the nature of social change found in all manner of novels dealing with the issue. Whether radical and revolutionary, or gradual methodical, the nature of such social change is always messy and incomplete -- one must account for too many factors for it to be a clean and easy transition. As long as we're pushing 19th century comparisons, Heart of Darkness comes to mind as a case. That novel is nothing if not a study in different manners of shifting from the European colonial norm to an understanding of the plight of the colonized, and Marlowe's transformation is without question more complicated and sometimes more inconsistent than Hermione's.

All this is underpinned by the lack of analysis of one thing that's surprised me a bit here: Dumbledore. He's important for two reasons: 1) He's the locus wherein this very same kind of question plays out in multiple ways (Snape, Grindelwald, Harry, Trelawney, etc.); 2) If any character is ever a full throated mouthpiece for Rowling on these subjects, then it is Dumbledore.

The distinction between "Right" and "Easy" helps us alleviate some of this tension. One central theme of the books is that such a distinction isn't always simple to define. After all, from the end of GoF onward, negotiating the distance between the two is the central conflict in Harry's life and education (and that of the others, for that matter). That this is a moral matter is pivotal because it harkens back to Hermione's actions vis-a-vis her parents. I agree, from a fixed moral foundation, Hermione's actions are troubling.

But in judging her as either saint or sinner, aren't we giving way to the false moral dichotomy the whole series critiques? Aren't we to believe that it is a false construct to simply divide the world "into good people and Death Eaters"?

~Dave the Longwinded

[travisprinzi.livejournal.com]

But in judging her as either saint or sinner, aren't we giving way to the false moral dichotomy the whole series critiques? Aren't we to believe that it is a false construct to simply divide the world "into good people and Death Eaters"?

Bingo.

[ginevra-nyx.livejournal.com]

After all, from the end of GoF onward, negotiating the distance between the two is the central conflict in Harry's life and education (and that of the others, for that matter).

It is? Honestly, to me that's just a line Dumbledore throws out that's never really dramatized at all. Except to have the characters imo very often choose easy over right and never look back on it or face any consequences for it that makes them learn from it. If Harry or his friends do it, and it's important, it's probably right or at least not so wrong we should hold it against them.

The problems with what Hermione does, for instance, never seem to occur to anybody in the book at all. If there was anything "hard" about what she did it's that it's presented as a personal sacrifice--poor Hermione that her parents might not remember her if she died because she robbed them of their identities. Their pov isn't important except that they're being protected...though they never actually need protecting in the story and the Dursleys are protected just as well while being given a choice and keeping their memories.

We don't only have to choose saint or sinner for Hermione. She has plenty of good impulses. But it's also in her character to like to solve problems and take care of things on her own while giving others the least amount of information possible. (Within canon she's long overruled her parents' authority over herself--in contrast to the way the Weasleys deal with their parents.) It's also a running joke in canon the way Wizards hex Muggles to do things they don't want to do or take away their memories while smiling at them affectionately for being so silly as to need this sort of thing. It's hard to not assume I'm supposed to laugh at the absurdity of the Grangers' thinking they're some couple who wants to move to Australia the same way I am at the nameless Muggles struck with a desire to go somewhere far away when faced with a Wizard magic barrier.

I don't think the series critiques this. It might be one of those things that some (not all) readers have a problem with on their own.

[woman-ironing.livejournal.com]

Ohioriverutopia: But in judging her as either saint or sinner, aren't we giving way to the false moral dichotomy the whole series critiques? Aren't we to believe that it is a false construct to simply divide the world "into good people and Death Eaters"?

ginevranyx:I don't think the series critiques this.

ginevranyx, I hope you don't mind my suggesting, but it would be interesting as well as helpful to the discussion if you could say what you consider the series says about good and evil.

[ginevra-nyx.livejournal.com]

I think the series's position on evil is strong but instinctual: it knows evil when it sees it. Eventually patterns appear. Only many readers also see other patterns different from the ones the ones the author's.

Harry, Ron and Hermione and their friends are good and fight evil as personified by Voldemort and other people who strongly oppose them. LV's brand of bigotry (saying "Mudblood" and other Nazi parallels, etc.) is evil. You need courage to fight evil--cowardice is possibly the root of most if not all evil in this universe, so giving in too much to cowardice is dangerous. Certain kinds of love are good. It feels like the author is emotionally sure of good/evil when she's writing and that comes through in scenes, but there's no deep, coherent philosophy about it worked out--sometimes it's conflicted.

[woman-ironing.livejournal.com]

Thanks! I'm going to try to get it into one sentence - I hope it's okay. Your view then, is that HP presents an instinctual view of good and evil that is strong and sure of itself but, because it hasn't been sufficiently considered, is contradictory.

I hope I’m not too far off the mark if I say that the view of travisprinzi and ohioriverutopia is that HP accepts the concept of good and evil and goes on to demonstrate - with a lot of force -its limitations, and that the contradictions it contains are essential to its purpose.

To hold this second view of HP there are a few things one has to come terms with: its mischievous comedy, the old-fashioned character Rowling has given to the wizarding world, and the conventions that go with fairy tales and school stories.

I really do think it’s these things - usually in some devilish combination - that are behind most of the difficulties readers have with HP, and that lead it to be considered ill thought-out and contradictory.

I think that the comedy of HP is a particular problem, because it can be cruel, flippant, entirely inappropriate in a variety of ways, not at all funny, and undermines the serious purpose of thestory - all of which is its particular charm, though charm hardly seems the right word to use!

Also, HP sets up the opposition between good and evil so firmly at the beginning of the story - with an innocent child and an evil monster - that it’s hard to accept that it’s actually bent on breaking it down.

[horridporrid.livejournal.com]

Also, HP sets up the opposition between good and evil so firmly at the beginning of the story - with an innocent child and an evil monster - that it’s hard to accept that it’s actually bent on breaking it down.

Is it bent on breaking it down, though? Meaning (I think) to show that sometimes it's hard to define what is evil and what is good. The way I interpret the series, "good" is supposed to be easily identified and followed, or as ginevra_nyx defined it, "instinctual".

Which is why shaky moral moments, like Hermione wiping her parents' memory, or Harry throwing a torture curse in anger, don't get explored. They happen, they're not questioned or revisited, and the feeling I get anyway, is the story thinks only stuffy old stick in the muds would even see the behavior as questionable. (Not that any such creatures raise their hands: the questionable behavior remains unquestioned.)

I'd have an easier time thinking these moments were purposefully set up to be questionable moral moments if someone within the story did any questioning. But, IIRC, no one does.

[woman-ironing.livejournal.com]

I'd have an easier time thinking these moments were purposefully set up to be questionable moral moments if someone within the story did any questioning. But, IIRC, no one does.
Because that's your job!

It's Harry Potter, not Barney the Dinosaur :)

[horridporrid.livejournal.com]

Because that's your job!

Right, and I'm doing it. :) I mean, I think Hermione is an incredibly dangerous person who should never, never, never be put in a position of power over people. I think Harry is a bully. And I think the series as a whole promotes a sort of unthinking hatred of anyone "not like us". But... is this how JKR wanted me to leave the series? Is this the interpretation she was hoping for?

Because while I'm doing my job of poking at the questionable moral moments, the Trio is not. Which means, they don't learn from their mistakes. Heck, they don't even identify their mistakes, and no one around them points them out as such. So while I grow as a person, they do not. Which, in a weird way, does link the Potter series with Barney. I don't think his character changes much either. ;)

[ginevra-nyx.livejournal.com]

That is more the way it comes across to me. I'm wary of assuming that anything that troubles some readers (not all of them) becomes wanting Barney the Dinosaur. I don't think the books are scared of taking a Barney-like stand on right and wrong when they feel it. Many people find the story very moral (I think the author once described them that way), a straightforward triumph of good over evil with jokes that come right out of those morals.

[ohioriverutopia.wordpress.com (from livejournal.com)]

It is? Honestly, to me that's just a line Dumbledore throws out that's never really dramatized at all. Except to have the characters imo very often choose easy over right and never look back on it or face any consequences for it that makes them learn from it.

Then, what of Sirius's death? It seems to me, especially in Order of the Phoenix, that Harry learns this lesson in a pretty drastic way. I'm not suggesting they all get their comeuppance for every moral transgression. But again, I think one of the series' major points is that this kind of moral legalism is far too reductive.

~Dave the Longwinded

[ginevra-nyx.livejournal.com]

I don't see Sirius's death having to do with Harry choosing what is easy over what is right. (I take "right" in Dumbledore's speech to mean morally right and not just the most clever, since otherwise it's not about morality.) Harry got tricked by Voldemort and made a terrible mistake, but he didn't do anything ethically wrong or easy. His intentions were good, there was no easy choice. I wouldn't describe his mistake as doing what was easy instead of doing what was right in either sense of the word. In this case the easier choice of letting the adults take care of it would have been smarter.

[raisin-gal.livejournal.com]

Harry got tricked by Voldemort and made a terrible mistake, but he didn't do anything ethically wrong or easy.

Right. There is no other way to read that story structure.

Not unless liking Sirius as much as he did was the ethically wrong choice that he was supposed to fight against, no matter how hard it was to stop that feeling...

cheating

[(Anonymous)]

'I cheated in high school, and helped others cheat...'

That is (one of) the problems with cheating: It's contagious.

I'm not sure, from the books, that Harry would understand the concept of 'treat people as means not ends.' Cheating goes against that concept (categorical imperative).

Re: cheating

[(Anonymous)]

Also the other problem of cheating is....the one who don't cheat, and try their best to work and learn, and see someone else cheat and get rewarded without owning it from their own work. It can be a big blow in self-esteem and trust of society rules.

From Another