25 July, 2007 | Leave a Comment
I’ve been getting a lot of flack lately for my anti-Harry Potter stance. The other day on the phone, someone (who may or may not be a blood relative) called me evil. Gee, y’all sure do get defensive over Harry Potter. Millions of people love these books but if a handful of people like me say anything, we’re attacked!
Well, here I go again. This evening I was in a bookshop and I saw the new HP book and picked it up. I read the first page. WOW did it suck. I mean, the writing is bad. Atrocious. I was pretty surprised. I know it’s genre fiction, but I didn’t think the writing was that poor. A big fat cliché in the first sentence? Eeek. However, in the interest of full disclosure, I have been reading Virginia Woolf’s novel To the Lighthouse, so my literary brain suffered quite a shock. It was like feasting on lobster one moment, then dining on three-day old garbage from the dumpster the next.
I am a book snob, I admit it. I’ll watch trashy movies and TV shows and listen to Duran Duran, but books are sacred to me. And furthermore, what would you say if someone like me was in favor of Harry Potter? That would be no fun. I like to wind people up, true. And not everyone thirsts to suck on the teat of mass-produced crap culture with the rest of society
I think I need to explain why I don’t like Harry Potter, besides just the fact that the writing is dreadful and I have no interest in hobbits or fairies or wizards or leprechauns or trolls. I have good reasons, you know, and what follows is rather lengthy. You have been warned.
Despite what others might say, I don’t think this phenomenon is good for the book trade. We’re all just supposed to be thrilled that people are reading. Well, are they reading or are they just reading Harry Potter? There’s a difference. Our literary culture is dying — newspapers are closing their review sections, independent bookstores are closing up shop. I don’t see this Harry Potter mania spilling over into the rest of the book industry. Far from it. I think Harry Potter has probably hurt the publishing industry, aside from those who own stock in Scholastic and Bloomsbury. Half of the 2.7 million copies of HP sold in the UK were sold in supermarkets. That, my friends, hurts the book industry. Bookstores — even the chains — cannot afford to sell the book for the same price as the supermarkets, which can shill it for the price of a six-pack of Coke and a bag of Doritos.
But the main reason this Harry Potter phenomenon irks me is because it has sexist undertones.
JK Rowling has said that she started writing the Harry Potter books for her daughter. Hmmmm, it’s interesting, then, that she made the character of Harry Potter a boy. I believe that JK Rowling knew (perhaps only subconsciously) that if she had written Harry Potter as a girl, the books couldn’t catch on with a wide audience. And that’s the truth. If Harry were a gal, Rowling wouldn’t be the richest woman in Britain, that’s for sure. You may be rolling your eyes, but this is not some far-flung theory. On the contrary, yours truly has a master’s degree in narrative theory from one of the top-ranked English departments in the UK. So I know a thing or two about how narratives work.
The Harry Potter stories fit the archetype of the hero’s journey, as do the Star Wars films, etc. This is a very patriarchal form of storytelling, since the hero’s journey is not something that has traditionally been open to women throughout history. JK Rowling could have written this story with a female heroine, but then I don’t think breaking gender stereotypes is on her agenda. Reinforcing them? Yes. [Oh, I know -- the character of Hermione is the smart one, blah blah blah. Well, the books aren't called Hermione Potter. She ain't the star of the show.]
If Rowling had written Harry as a girl, she may have found a female readership, but boys and men would not be reading the books in mass numbers. And that’s because, in general, boys and men do not like to read books (or see movies) with female heroines. A gross generalization? No. [I should qualify this by stating that if the female "heroine" is a one-dimensional fantasy like Lara Croft, Tomb Raiding Bimbo, then she will attract a male audience. In other words, the female heroine needs to be a dehumanized sex object.]
The reasons for this are complex, but I’ll do my best to explain. In a patriarchal world, the male point of view is the norm, the female point of view is “other.” What do you call films about female characters? Chick flicks. What do you call films about male characters? Films. What do you call novels about women? Women’s novels. What do you call novels about male characters? Novels. And so on. This sort of categorization goes beyond gender to include race and ethnicity (”a black writer,” “a Jewish writer”) and sexual orientation (”a gay novel”).
Women are used to seeing the world from the male perspective — after all, that is the default perspective, the norm. If we think of world history as a narrative, it is a male narrative. Women have largely been excluded from the narrative of history — almost completely written out of it. The name says it all: His story. As such, women are used to seeing the world through men’s eyes. What choice do we have? But this is not true of men. Men are not accustomed to seeing the world through female eyes.
For many people, when they read a book (particularly a hero type book like Harry Potter), they need to identify with the protagonist. While women are able to identify with male characters (since we are used to identifying with the male point of view), men have a very difficult time identifying with the female point of view. Femaleness is outside of their experience. In my academic studies, I’ve heard men say time and again that novels about motherhood, childbirth and domestic life do not interest them at all, as if these issues have no impact on their lives whatsoever. Novels about war or anything else “masculine” are considered universal in theme. The stories of women — half the human race — are a niche, apparently.
It’s like a white person reading a novel about black characters. The white perspective is the dominant one in Western culture, thus anything written from a non-white perspective seems “different” and foreign to white readers. Black readers, on the other hand, pretty much have no choice but to read about white people a great deal of the time. The same dynamic is at play when thinking about male/female, regardless of race.
Anyone who works in publishing will tell you that boys will resist reading books about female characters, whereas girls will read books about male characters. Any little boy who enjoys curling up with books about girls would be made fun of by his friends and his parents would worry that he’s gay. But a girl can read stories about boys and no one would think anything of it. This dynamic stretches into adulthood.
This is not to say that men don’t read books about women. Of course many men do. I’m sure there are men and boys out there who love books with female characters. But I’m talking about mass numbers of readers. I’m talking about the majority of readers. As someone who is pursuing a PhD in literature, I can tell you that this categorization of writing by and about women exists at all levels in academia. The academic literary community is deeply patriarchal, as is the publishing industry, despite the fact that most readers of literature and literary fiction these days are women.
There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that if Harry Potter were a female character, the books would not be a worldwide phenomenon. Many girls and women would read the books and enlightened male readers would as well, but in order to be a mega huge phenomenon, you’d need mass numbers of male readers. Vast numbers of boys and men would not be interested in reading about the adventures of Harrietta Potter. It just wouldn’t happen. Regardless, Rowling could have done something daring with her hero narrative, rather than just reinforcing the same old clichés of storytelling. Every time I see women and girls clamoring for the Harry Potter books, I think about this missed opportunity. These books clearly strike a chord with readers. Despite my views, JK Rowling has a way of reaching her readers. If she had decided to write a female version of Harry Potter for her young daughter to look up to and live through, just imagine how this may have altered contemporary storytelling as we know it.
Tags: Harry Potter
- Comments RSS | TrackBack URI
-
If the supermarkets are undercutting bookstores, is that really the *author’s* fault? The book trade has been dying for years, for a whole multitude of reasons - it’s just a symptom of the times. But I don’t think telling people not to read HP books (or any other commercial bestseller) is the answer.
And I’m sure there are a whole swathe of books dedicated to heroines - but they don’t sell, either because boys don’t want to read them (for deeply rooted sociological reasons which authors are powerless to change) or because they’re crap.
JK Rowling had no idea the books were going to be blockbusters (no author does - and as a children’s book success is even less predictable), so I think criticising her for not using a female as the lead character with the benefit of hindsight 10 years hence, is a bit harsh.
I’d also argue that not setting out to deliberately a break stereotype is not the same thing as deliberately reinforcing them. Had she set out to break the stereotype, it’s impossible to predict if the second book would have even been written. In which case, this discussion wouldn’t even have any context.
Just my 2p
-
Jen: The supermarkets cutting their price isn’t the author’s fault, but it undermines that tiresome argument that Harry Potter is great for the book trade.
And I’m sure there are a whole swathe of books dedicated to heroines - but they don’t sell That’s my point. I think they do sell, but to girls. They aren’t seen as universal. Only stories about boys are seen as universal. These sorts of biases must be addressed by parents of boys and schools. This is *learned* behavior.
I’m sure it seems unfair of me to criticize Rowling for not choosing a female heroine, though perhaps she deliberately chose a boy for the reasons I mentioned. I think that’s entirely possible. But as a fiction writer myself, I think that most writers choose narrators of the same race and sex as themselves. This isn’t necessary, but it’s the norm. The fact that she made Harry a boy has always interested me. An author’s relationship to her narrator — the lens through which she tells her story — is very personal and can often be seen as political, especially for those of us who aren’t white men. That a female writer would tell this story with a male hero disappoints me.
-
Robert L. Kitchen Says:
July 26th, 2007 at 5:51 amI read Steven King. I think a lot of men do. Why does he write about so many females?
-
My point isn’t that men don’t write about female characters. Of course they do — you can’t write about this world and not write about women. King writes about women, but this doesn’t mean that the female characters are the center of a classic hero narrative like Harry Potter is, they are not the type of narrator the reader seeks to identify with and live through. Annie Wilkes and Carrie and Dolores Claiborne may be fun to read about it, but you don’t want to see the world through their eyes. Rather, King’s characters (both male and female) are terrorized or they terrorize others. It’s not really about character, it’s more about thrills and chills.
But you do raise an interesting issue. Perhaps men are more willing to read about women if the author is a man.
-
Only stories about boys are seen as universal. These sorts of biases must be addressed by parents of boys and schools. This is *learned* behavior.
oh absolutely. but i don’t think it’s in the power of authors to change, or even influence this. you can’t make people pick up a book and read it, and if you have no audience then you have no influence.
i understand your disappointment - but i guess in spite of the sex of the lead character, the actual themes are quite universal - there’s nothing inherently gender specific about the good vs. evil showdown, *except* that it has historically been a guy in the lead role.
in fact, thinking about it, harry’s sex is really almost completely incidental to the storyline (even the coming of age stuff). but you’d have to take my word on that
(i actually think there are quite a few similarities between the HP stories and those young adult novels aimed at pre-teen girls, which is part of what’s made them so successful.)
all of this is just to say that i think while the lens of the author is important, i think the lens of the reader is much more so. i think how people are taught to gender stereotype or (hopefully) not, has more impact on how they read these stories than the author’s choice of sex. and i guess i just think that whilst the protagonist *is* a boy, that doesn’t automatically make it a boy’s story. and reading it through my own feminist lens, i don’t think that it is.
but then again i’m totally biased
-
I can appreciate if you don’t like the prose. It ain’t your thing. Fine. I’ll give you that.
I think you are beyond off base however with your gender thesis. There are a number of stong female characters in the books- in addition to Hermione there is McGonnagal, Harry’s Mother, the deliciously evil Umbridge, Ginny, Mrs Weasley. . . I could go on.
I don’t need the protagonist of a book to be male in order to hook in. The world of Harry Potter is not a patriarchal world and I think it is rather stange that you would venture to make this arguement without reading the series.
I understand you don’t enjoy the books- but this really isn’t a valid arguement and can’t be backed up by the text.
And I also love To The Lighthouse. Harry Potter lovers aren’t complete nit-wits.
-
My focus is primarily the sexist nature of the hero’s journey narrative — an archetype that the Harry Potter stories fit into. I think it’s too bad a female author has done so much to further this sexist form of storytelling.
No, I haven’t read the books. I couldn’t bear it. But I know what they are about and I’ve seen some of the films.
There is plenty of feminist and other criticism out there about the sexism in the Harry Potter stories, which are filled with gender stereotypes and reflect a very patriarchal world. Here are some online sources (there are more serious articles in academic journals, not available online):
Salon
Guardian
Women Writers
the f-word blogWikipedia also does a good job of outlining some of the criticism. This is all just a sample of what people who have studied the books think. Also, here is Harold Bloom’s famous op-ed on Harry Potter. Bloom himself is quite sexist, but his review focuses on other aspects of the books.
-
P.S. - I don’t think people who read Harry Potter are stupid. Well, many of them are. But of course there are lots of Harry Potter readers who have excellent literary taste. For some reason that I do not understand, when it comes to Harry Potter, they have temporarily gone mad.
-
Gadfleye Says:
July 26th, 2007 at 7:38 pmHarry Potter, male archetype…It’s not the size of the magic wand, it’s how one uses it.
-
Anita Says:
July 27th, 2007 at 1:27 amThere are still some people who don’t know what Harry Potter is. Yesterday my mother asked me, “Who’s this Potter man?”
-
Lillie Says:
July 27th, 2007 at 8:43 pmA few years ago my friend’s Mom was watching the first film…I walked in and asked what she was watching..
Her reply: “Harry Porter”..
LOL
-
Who’s Harry Potter???
-
Thomas Foolery Says:
July 30th, 2007 at 1:50 am‘History’ is not a compound word based on “his story”. This is one of those common-wisdom items that is just plain wrong. ‘History’ comes from the Greek word which is transliterated as ‘istoria’.
-
I never said that was the etymology of the word “history.” It’s just a nice ironic twist…
-
Ben Lamey Says:
July 31st, 2007 at 4:25 amTo begin, I can say that I have been a devoted fan of the HP series and have read each book with fervor and general enjoyment.
And I would also like to say that I am still a big fan of Rowling and her imagination (putting the prose aside - the woman can tell a story).
However, it was the during the reading of the 4th book that I began arriving at the opinion that most of the female characters fall slightly short of excellence in character dimension. Taking Hermione out of the equation (I’ll get to her in a moment), most of the “strong” females in the books are either antogonists or shallowly sketched.
….side note….I think I was slighly forced into this opinion by the sadly sexist depiction of the “champion” Fleur - who could have(and probably should have) been brilliant, but was mediocre at almost every task and finished her swim in the lake with a nice long cry. I could feel all the female athletes in the world groaning.
(I should warn readers who have not finished most of the books that there could be “spoilers” in the following… because I just realized that I’m on a roll)
I’m not saying that there are not strong females in the books. McGonagall, Mrs Weasley, Tonks, and Ginny Weasley (among others) show possibilities, but are never truly allowed to flourish outright. Or really I should say, they are never aloud to overshadow the male characters in the plot and are very rarely given backstories. Ginny Weasley gets off to a good start, in book five, but then fizzles out as her age doesn’t always allow her to participate in the serious matters at hand.
The strong females on the “bad” side of the fence seem to have more strenth (though, probably even less dimension), but are always shoved into second position by a male character (Bellatrix is extremely subservient to Voldemort, Umbridge is subservient to the very heavily male stocked “Ministry of Magic” and ends her Hogwars escapade by being carried off by centaurs (who all happen to be male…hm, how is it that they procreate?)
And, of course, after I started dissecting things, I started to become more aware of some areas I am “uncomfortable” with regarding sex stereotypes.
Quidditch. There are females who play quidditch, on the school teams as well as on the pro-teams. But, why is it that the sport still seems so male dominated when throughout history we have generally associated (through mythology and such) females with the whole “flying on broomsticks” stuff….have you ever seen a traditional graphic at Halloween or any other time of the year with a wizard riding a broomstick. Maybe so, but I still think there could have been a female player who was as celebrated as Victor Krum.
Also, I was extremely disappointed that when ministry changes were made, that a female was not put into place as minister….especially when it was not that long ago that England had a female prime minister.
Finally, we come to Hermione. As multi-dimensional as Hermione becomes throughout the books, I still always feel that she seems to slide into sexist stereotypes. Why couldn’t she ask Ron to the dance if she wanted to go with him? Why can’t she play wizards chess (chess is played by ALOT of smart people the last time I checked and it would be a game she knows how to play from the muggle world - maybe dentists don’t know how to play).
I could list off a number of other characters that I thought should have had a chance to flourish more in thier roles (Cho Chang), but I don’t want to sound like I’m ripping things apart….
I love the books. At the end of every book I close it already missing my “friends” at Hogwarts (maybe this makes me a freak, but I’m ok with that). I would just have to agree that I feel there was an incredible opportunity wasted to let young girls realize that we DO think they can be leaders, we DO think they can be athletes, and we do NOT think that they have to always stand in second place to a man (even if they are a baddie). But, it’s an even greater shame that young boys could not see this as well, but instead could (subconciously, even) walk away from the books with an idea of where women should be placed; standing stong and tall…..right behind the man.
-
Wow, thanks for this analysis! I’m glad someone finally agrees with my point of view. These books do represent such a missed opportunity in so many ways. It’s a shame.
-
Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials are far superior, and the main character Lyra is a plucky, resourceful female around which the whole trilogy is based. In most cases the narrative is precipitated by her actions, and she is very much the master of her own destiny. The writing is far superior to Rowling’s in every way (she cannot construct a sentence without using annoying adverbs). Pullman’s books are also weighted in intellectual, philosophical ideas. And his fantastical world is a recogniseable parallel universe, not Middle Earth/Hogwarts. Did I also mention I used to live on the same street as him?
-
Dasan Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 7:53 pmAh, but I still love the Harry Potter books. I agree that the writing just sucks. The reason I like reading it is because the characters are funny and it happens to be a relatively good story (writing not included.) And really, who would base their morals off a Harry Potter book?
-
Anna Says:
August 15th, 2007 at 4:32 amTo add to this discussion, I think it’s incredibly important to note that Harry Potter books, whether they are read by adults or not, were written by Rowling FOR CHILDREN. And yes, the prose is awful, but it’s even worse in “Pat the Bunny”.
-
Ben Lamey Says:
August 16th, 2007 at 8:02 pmThe fact that the books are (or at least WERE) for children is what bothers me most about the slight sexism. I think, that the more that kids are exposed to generic stereotypes, the more they will just come to accept them as “the way it is”.
Maybe, it’s just a book and we should just think of it as good storytelling (as I believe it is). But, I think it is naive to underestimate the power of the written word, when it is read by millions and millions.
-
samuy Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 1:38 amI agree with you. But just look at the writer herself, who has recently said in a poorly transcribed interview: “Yes, he [Harry] does have certain messiah traits. I chose that on purpose. He is that one man in a million.. and I say “a man” because with women it’s different. [He is someone] who is able to stand up against the power, and who turns down powers control. That makes him the wisest of all.”
With women it is different…?Surely…surely feminism wasn’t at all about standing “up against the power”…?
I don’t dislike the books, I’ve read them all and thought 4/7 were pretty good entertainment, but the last book, particularly badly written and dull, got me especially annoyed when the hero repeated for the 1000th time what it meant to be a “man.” [as in "come on, be a man about it! sense]. Let’s just hope that now this craze goes away forever. -
Thank you for sharing this quote! You’re right that the interview seems to be poorly translated, but I checked online and read more of the interview myself. Interesting that she seems to take such a sexist view of her own books. Just confirms my original thesis!
-
prince Says:
January 26th, 2008 at 5:03 pmokay i sincerly think you are yaking things very seriously .I have never seen sexism, i admit thet Rowling emphasize over males but there is strong female characters like Hermione, Ginny, McGonagall, MRS Weasley and i don’t think or male characters are strong enough, without Hermione Harry would have never stopped voldemort to get the stone ,without her Harry wouldn’t have stopped Riddle to open the chamber,without her time turner they wouldn’t have saved Sirius,without her spellwork they would have been lost in the ministry, and without her magical knowlege there wasn’t been a posibility to destroy horcuxes therefoer destroy Voldemort. All of those deeds are due to Hemione, SO I DON’T THINK THE BOOOK IS SEXIST.
-
prince Says:
January 26th, 2008 at 5:05 pmAnd i frgot Hermione is my favorite character in the bookS.
-
Nicole the second Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 7:26 pmI think that those people who argue that there ARE strong female characters in the book have not done a close enough reading of the text and are merely interpreting any female presence as a demonstration that there is no sexism in the book. Yes there are dominant female characters in the book, but only in the sense that they are mentioned frequently and are an integral part of the plot (Hermione). Understanding what is sexist about the books requires you to move beyond counting how many male and female characters there are. If you look at how the females are described, look at the power dynamics between characters, look at how the Magic and Muggle world are structured, it clearly is sexist. Harry Potter is no feminist utopia (or dystopia for that matter). Perhaps people fail to see the sexism / prescribed and limiting gender roles because they are used to them in the ‘real’ world. Also, situate the Harry Potter books as part of the grand scheme of things: they’re part of a body of literature, which is part of a body of culture which is patriarchal.
-
Nicole the second Says:
January 28th, 2008 at 7:30 pmP.S, it’s nice to be able to sift through the utter nonesense that is the modern-day-chavs’ blogs and find interesting and useful blogs which promote thought and discussion - aswell as being entertaining. As a rule I hate blogs and profile sites, but I’m bookmarking this page.
Peace out dude, see you at the corner of the street in ten, aiiight. -
Nina Says:
February 27th, 2008 at 9:49 pmJ.K. isn’t the best writer in the world and she certainly is not my favorite author but I know of many “best-seller” works that are much much worse. Tolkien with his “Lord of the Rings and Silmarillion” novels are good examples. Not only are they blatantly sexist (ratio of men to women is like 200:1, no women at councils, non-functioning queens, no female fighters) but it’s racist (white people=good side, black people=bad side). Seriously Arwen got stuck to the appendix and all of Aragorn’s children (daughters) were nameless except for his one golden child, the son. Galadriel has a freakish “power, control” moment, Eowyn give up her passion of defending her country for the subdued and “lady-like” art of healing. Arwen is the typical doting wife/mate, giving up her freedom for her beloved Aragorn. Guess what both of these “mister”-pieces have in common? English people wrote them. Stubborn folks they seem to be.
-
Nicole the second Says:
March 9th, 2008 at 1:00 amOi. I’m an English person! … and i have to agree with you (Nina).
A major reason why we seem so stuck in the mud though is because we combine our general love of tradition, heritage (think of the mindless support of the monarchy) with our art - particularly literature. Often it seems that people value the ‘classics’ and see all contemporary literature as trash just because it is contemporary. The older people in English society are the ones that run the establishments, incluing academic and literary establishments, and unless we stop giving ourselves airs and graces based on the past (how wonderful was Britain when it was conquering the world and enslaving people hey!), we are’nt going to be able to embrace new ideas. You should try getting the older generations to take heed of anything ‘new’. I hate nostalgia! -
Ben Lamey Says:
June 1st, 2008 at 5:32 amI think it’s probably a bad idea to generalize all the citizens of a country when we are talking about trying not to generalize people because of their sex…
A lot of forward thinking individuals (in regards to sexism as well as other areas, of course) have emerged from England.
But, I do agree - Lord of the Rings is pretty sexist. The only thing that I can think of as any sort of excuse is that it seems to be set in the English medieval time period (or at least mirror ours on regular earth… as opposed to “middle earth”). So, the gender roles were pretty specific in England then, thus the whole “female hobbits get in there and get ta cookin’” attitude
In the world of older children’s fantasy lit - at least the White Witch kicked some serious arse in Narnia (also not my favorite set of books) even if she lost out in the end - but that’s because she was a baddie, not just because she had a uterus (at least I assume she had one…yikes)
