25 July, 2007 | Leave a Comment
I have deleted this post – I am sick of so many borderline-illiterate morons cluttering up my blog with their ignorant comments. Take your Harry Potter and your culture of mediocrity and conformity and shove it up your ass. There are plenty of blogs out there for people who have no taste in books – this blog is not one of them. Go away and don’t come back.
Yours sincerely,
Anglofille
P.S. Thanks to those who left intelligent and insightful comments, but I have deleted this post and disabled the comments because each day I receive many hateful and ignorant comments (which are deleted) and I’m sick of it.
- Comments RSS
-
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)
-
Dorothy Says:
January 19th, 2009 at 7:47 pmI too think that JK Rowling’s views on the gender topic are really really sad. In an interview she said that one of the things she likes about being a woman, ist actually their ability to do “19 jobs before breakfast”. She’s just so blind as a woman. What a shame!
-
Dorothy Says:
January 19th, 2009 at 8:49 pmedit.: I should have put quotation marks on the word “ability” as well, actually – because it’s where the actual catastrophe of the quote lies (because, as she’s pointing out, she apparently thinks that this is actually a special ability of women).
-
Dorothy Says:
January 25th, 2009 at 12:02 amAnglofille, I notice that you’ve actually got at least SOMETHING in common with Jo Rowling: She, too, had a (however slight) preference for Hillary
!
Having read all of the 7 Potter-books 3 or 4 times each, I think I should finally do some writing about the (unconscious, I’m sure) sexism in them, but I just never find time, but I’m really planning on doing it, because I think it’s really important. Nevertheless I have to say that there are also some good women-related aspects in there, but they’re definitely not the majority when it comes to the portrayal of female characters in these books
I’ll try to do an essay in english and to put it somewhere on the internet when it’s done, so I’ll let you know… -
John Says:
January 31st, 2009 at 3:16 pmWhat a load of rubbish. Not because I believe it’s wrong, but because it’s not proven. Anglophile only offers up the slightest shed of evidence that her views are correct.
Sure Laura Croft is a big pair of tits and not a lot of brains attached, but is she really less human than James Bond? No. They’re both unrealistic, inhuman, serial killers, impossibly attractive (Do you think any of the bond actors have nearly as much luck with the ladies as their characters?) with unachievable skill sets, rich beyond the dreams of Saudi Arabia and almost completely immune to all harm. What part of any of that is human? Same for Indiana Jones or John Maclain; of the Die Hard series.
Quite frankly I get the impression that most women can barely restrain themselves from spitting on the ground and cursing her as a slut and whore when they see Laura Croft. Maybe I’m just a bloke, but… You wanted equality? You have it! She’s a female equivalent of James Bond! So she doesn’t act or think like you do. So what? I don’t start claiming that James bond is ‘not a real man’ because he does things I don’t like. If you’re just the least bit cynical (and I am) there’s something really unpleasant about that kind of reaction.
Then we have Bridget Jones’ Diary. It’s the stereotypical Chick Flick. And I’m afraid it’s just not as exciting as say, Star Wars. Even if it was Lucy Skywalker racing down the deathstar trench at the climax, it would still be more exciting. Because one has romantic weekends in the country, and the other has planets blowing up. Alien had a strong female lead. So did Terminator. Were they chick flicks? Ignored by everyone? Chick flicks get their dismissive reputation not because they have female leads, but because they tend to be rather dull and boring films with little action or special effects. And if I’m going to cough up my hard earned money, I want to see more than two normal people talk to each other.
That said I’ll agree the Potter books aren’t the best piece of writing I’ve ever come across. And super markets probably aren’t doing bookshops any favors. But the book trade has been a lumbering dinosaur for decades now. It’s long past time something made it evolve. As a personal view, in the long term the supermarkets will probably lead to a stronger and more diverse publishing industry, via ebooks or print-on-demand services, even if it causes some damage in the short term.
Yes hollywood and western society is sexist. But I remain unconvinced by your view that Henrietta Potter wouldn’t have worked. And again, not because I strongly believe you’re wrong, but because you provide no evidence or examples.
Show us a hollywood blockbuster that failed because it had a female lead. Show us a chicklit film that would have made more money with male characters.
-
Ben Lamey Says:
May 30th, 2009 at 8:54 pmYou have a point, John. There isn’t a lot of proof that our society couldn’t support a Henrietta Potter.
But, still…. why does it remain so unbalanced?
Off the top of my head, I can think of some examples of similar situations/themes with books turning into films, starring women (or girls):
The Golden Compass
Coraline
InkheartNone of these (in America) did very well. I, myself, only saw one of them and I LOVE this genre. (it happened to be Coraline and I thought it was great).
But, if these failed in box office earnings, it could just as easily been for other reasons (Compass was slaughtered by religion in America, Coraline was possibly too dark in adverts, and Inkheart was barely visible in theatres). So, maybe it had nothing to do with the fact that they were stories about girls.
After all, Hannah Montana does EXTREMELY well over here in the US… but of course she’s all glammed out and girlie. But, at least she’s not wearing a tiny t-shirt with gigantic tits…
…yet.
-
Jermaine Says:
July 16th, 2009 at 7:37 am“because, as she’s pointing out, she apparently thinks that this is actually a special ability of women”
No. She does not. She is saying that she HAS to do 19 jobs before breakfast. (possibly a slight exaggeration on her part, but it’s not said in all seriousness.) I don’t call a guy who says men have the ability to eat almost anything “blind as a man” just because he trusted that I wouldn’t take something literally. You shouldn’t either. If you become JK Rowlings best friend, and learn evrything about her, and say she’s blind as a woman? Then, I’ll take you seriously.
-
Ariana Says:
July 18th, 2009 at 4:06 amI am a huge fan of Harry Potter. Something I’ve noticed as I read anti-Potter threads such as this is that the author has rarely, if ever, read the series. Before you can judge books that took years to write, I believe you should know what you’re preaching about. So go sit down, read the thing, then come back and tell me if your opinion’s changed.
As well, the movies deviate greatly from the books, so seeing ’some of the movies’ and hearing about it from your friends does *not* count as knowing about Harry Potter. Please do your research before complaining.
-
Why is this thread still alive?
Anyway, my post was not a review of the books. I read a few pages and the writing was terrible. I don’t read terrible writing. Sorry. Life is too short and I love literature. My post focuses on the fact that Harry Potter is a male hero narrative. One does not need to read these books to know that the main character is a male.
-
Ariana Says:
July 18th, 2009 at 3:09 pmYou read a few pages. Of the first book, I assume? Have you ever heard of getting better as you go along? I didn’t really like much of the first few pages either, but after a few chapters I was hooked.
And you seem to think that all stories with a male hero are sexist. Yes, so the main character is a male. So what? Alot of my friends are male, they love the books, I have male relatives that love the books, my best friend’s entire family loves the books, and half the members on the Harry Potter fan site I visit are male. A *guy* started the most famous Harry Potter fan site on the internet.
So Harry Potter’s a male. It’s still a great story with morals and suspense that everyone can relate to.
-
Have you ever heard of [a book] getting better as you go along? Golly gee, nope I haven’t! You taught me somethin’ new! And here I am doing a PhD in English, but I guess I ain’t none too bright when it comes to books and learnin’.
Your male family members and friends like the book? That’s my point. If it were a female character, they wouldn’t even read it.
-
Edward Barnett Says:
August 17th, 2009 at 6:01 pmTypical feminist agenda. Harry Potter is a good story. It my not fit your narrow definition of what litarature is supposed to be, but it is great reading. Harry Potter is not feminist. It shows a world with the main character male, but he is almost gender neutral, as are all the other people. Harry is brave but lazy, Ron is clever but a weasel, Hermione is smart but boring. Everyone has a good and bad side. There is nothing about Harry that defines him as a male. If the gender were reversed for every character there would be very little that would need to be re-written. There are many great novels in history that are about women. Men do not like Lara Croft movies because she is a “Tomb Raiding Bimbo”, anymore than they like Rambo because he is a “First Blooding Himbo”. Men like action movies and if the lead is a woman that is great. “The Cosby Show” was about a black family living through the eyes of black people and it was very popular. Your post is just another exscuse to bash White Males and Capitalism!
-
Dorothy Says:
August 17th, 2009 at 8:33 pmJermaine: no, she explicitly stated it was a thing she LIKED about being a woman – their ability to do 19 jobs before breakfast. She was asked to write the text where she’s saying this specifically for a book about what the women being asked to write a text for this book LIKED about being a woman.
Edward: What is so boring about Hermione, in your view? The fact that she’s smart, maybe, obsessed with nothing but books?
-
Dorothy, people get so upset about my Harry Potter post. It’s funny. Millions of people around the world love Harry Potter, yet if a few people like me write negative things about him, it’s the end of the world. I don’t get it.
-
Dorothy Says:
August 18th, 2009 at 12:01 amI don’t get it either. If you go into a Harry Potter fandom and post critical things about the books and JK Rowling, you get persecuted in just about the same way people were once persecuted for not believing in god. You’re not allowed to even discuss the books, that already is viewed as blasphemia. You’re to accept the godgiven veracity of the books or die. It really feels like that, it really is gloomy. I consider these books to be alarmingly sexist. I first read them out of interest in this mass phenomenon they constitute, and then reread them a couple more times in order to analyse them from different angles, such as the feminist one for example. When you read them from that perspective, you’ll be forced to find them really appalling and you won’t be able to believe that it was actually a woman who wrote it all. What young girls are educated into by this books really is a nightmare.
-
Dorothy Says:
August 18th, 2009 at 12:47 am“by these books”, sorry.
The female protagonists and the messages their respective portrayals provide are a catastrophee.
There’s e.g. Lily Potter, Harry’s mother, whose sole function in the books is to die (and to die before they even begin). She’s solely “present” in the books as being dead (and this dead(!) woman is The Glorified Woman throughout the whole series). As having sacrificed herself for her child, an “act” which gets glorified in the books because it provides some extraordinary, divine magic which protects Harry all his life. So, a mother’s love as the most brilliant and most valued thing a woman can provide others with, valued above anything else she could probably do in the world.
People generally view this sacrifice as the height of what a woman can aspire to and achieve in her life. Just go to fandoms and see their commentary on it. It’s sick.
Then there’s saint Molly Weasley, a house-wife and mother of 7, who in the end finishes off the Evil Witch Bellatrix Lestrange, literally calling the latter a “bitch” before doing so.
Bellatrix was actually the professionally devoted, “insanely” ambitious (that’s how it’s portrayed and viewed) and praise-”obsessed” woman of the books, a highly skillfull fighter (only, she was on the bad side, what a coincidence – being a natural fighter is just not suitable for a woman, it seems, it’s bad! – there’s no female equivalent or match on the good side).
She’s portrayed as hysterical, children-hating, cause-obsessed, unnaturally hard-working, job-devoted, insanely career-drawn and glory-seeking, attention-seeking, might-wanting, who’s also married, not only childless but also outspokenly erotically in love with the Chief-bad-guy whom she’s trying to impress with her abilities, thus trying to get him on skill rather than looks. In short: she’s the epitome of everything a woman should not be, thus placed on the evil, sinfull side by the author, and contrasted in that final showdown(!) with the controlled stay at home mum (Bellatrix being highly uncontrollable as a witch), who seems undesiring when it comes to her own inexistent whishes, and exclusively(!) exists for others, which she gets glorified for by the books and fandom alike.
People seem to be afraid of Bellatrix’s high degree of autonomy and strength (she’s the only female in a dark patriarchal army, and she’s even second lieutenant after the leader himself), so they (including the author’s statements outside of her books), try to get her interpreted and dismissed as being nothing but a pathetic slave. lol.
Then there’s Dolores Umbridge, an evil witch as well: she’s torturing and explicitly hating children, abusing the might she’s given, is viewed as being illegitimate as temporary headmistress of the school (the office door refusing to admit her), as power hungry, maniac, insane, surpassed, incompetent as a teacher (teaching a subject normally tought by men in every other school year, who with one exception are all competent if not highly competent), disgusting in appearence (toad like, stout,…), racist, highly neurotic, etc…
and these are just a few examples…
-
you get persecuted in just about the same way people were once persecuted for not believing in god
Ha ha!!! SO true! And thanks for the detailed analysis here. The books are even more sexist than I thought. Ugh.
-
Lucette Says:
August 20th, 2009 at 10:27 pmWhat about the idea that only the cool popular pretty girl is worth dating?
-
Edward Barnett Says:
August 20th, 2009 at 11:12 pmIt is not about you not liking Harry Potter. My mother doenst like Harry Potter and I dont have a problem with that.
The issue is what you say about it. Harry Potter represents the normal 20th century male female relationship. Lots of women are mothers who act just like Mrs. Weasly. Half of the Houses were founded by Women. Again the story is almost gender neutral. If all the charecters were reversed there would be very little reason for rewrites. To try to promote anti-male agenda by attacking something that brings such joy to people is beyond contempt!
-
Anti-male agenda! Go jump in a lake! You are banned from commenting from now on. I can’t stand anymore of your inane comments.
-
Dorothy Says:
August 21st, 2009 at 12:06 amLucette: So true! Of course it’s Ginny Weasley and Cho Chang Harry is interested in as girlfriends and not someone of the likes of Luna Lovegood (whom I absolutely adore)!
Edward: if it doesn’t make any difference who’s male and female in the books and if everything’s so neutral, how come all the crucial characters to the plot are male (Harry Potter, Albus Dumbledore, Severus Snape, Neville Longbottom, and Voldemort) with Hermione Granger as the one, however mild, exception ?
JK Rowling could at least have allowed Minerva McGonagall to be part of this inner circle, this heart of the plot. But she was a mere unknowing executive of Dumbledore’s – a sole executive, an executive not even knowing what the thing for which she worked was all about. She simply knew nothing, was not deemed important enough to be given real, actual tasks by Dumbledore.
Snape knew a great deal and had loads of responsibility on his back and extremely important and infinitly difficult work to do for Dumbledore.
Harry of course knew a great deal, was even the “Chosen one”, the one to finish off the most dangerous person in the world.
Neville got a huge, elaborate action-hero scene to cheer about when killing one of the highly important Horcruxes (while Hermione’s Horcrux-destruction happens off-stage and is later on referred to as something Ron generously “let” her do so she’d kindly get an idea of what it’s like).
Besides, who do you mean by “people”? Do you not consider those who feel betrayed by these books as being “people”? And did you notice at all that your post is highly contradictory in itself ?
-
Dorothy Says:
August 21st, 2009 at 12:40 amthis whole page is SO worth reading, including the comments there – ha ha!! they’re so awesome and witty!!
http://community.livejournal.com/whileaway/125360.html -
Mike Says:
January 11th, 2010 at 10:31 pmAnglofille,
After reading your original post and many of the reviews that followed, I must describe my feelings. I was filled with such anger towards you, and not because the subject you are attacking is Harry Potter. You have not read the books!!! How can you possibly describe your intense dislike for a character, his gender, and an author’s writing style if you’ve never read more than a few pages? I have read some books to the point where I would almost physically vomit due to the inane drawl of the author’s supposed enlightened words… but I finished them.
Universal masculinity is a given, but I highly doubt the author created the male character in order to grasp more readers into her viscous clutches. lol.
I don’t hate you. I don’t even know you. What I do know is this… if I wrote a post on how the Twilight books are sexist, I would be literarily berated by hundreds of women.
If you can give me specific examples in the Harry Potter books of sexist points of view, I would be most grateful.
Your respectfully angered reader of this single thread,
Mike
Ps. I’ve read all of the books and have found that the main character (agreeably a man)fits a more feminine role in society, rather than a masculine one.
-
If only people got as angry over issues like sex trafficking as they do about this stupid, ridiculous Harry Potter, the world would be a better place.
-
Mike Says:
January 11th, 2010 at 11:05 pmI am oppossed to sex trafficking. lol. I am a huge supporter of equal rights for women, give speeches to friends about moral obligations to humanity, argue with those who would abuse religion (I am agnostic), and struggle with my own myopic views of the universe. That does not mean I cannot get riled up in a Harry Potter debate.
Do you have any published works? I would love to read some of your stories, whether they be fact or fiction.
I still do not agree with your original post.
-
Xianghua Says:
January 27th, 2010 at 2:28 amEven though I don’t mind male protagonists at all (a lot of my favorite fictional characters have been both male and female), but I notice most of the girls in Harry Potter are like Barbie dolls (wise Barbie doll, but they’re still Barbie dolls none the less).
I’d like to see more boy become damsels in distress and the girl having to save him. Yes, the girls do save Harry, but that was just ONCE. Most of the girls are little suzy homemakers that need to be rescued by their boyfriends constantly.
To most male friends I’ve talked too, they even find slutty, weak willed bimbo heroines annoying and undesirable.
That’s my $0.02 cents worth. I may be somewhat of a feminist, but I don’t despise the male gender like most feminists do.
-
Xianghua: There’s no need to apologize for your feminist views by adding this: I may be somewhat of a feminist, but I don’t despise the male gender like most feminists do.
First of all, “most” feminists do not despise men. In fact, many, many, many more MEN despise women – all you need to do is look through a newspaper and see all the women being raped, murdered, molested and abused by men. Don’t let men silence your feminist views by implying that if you’re a feminist, you hate them. Any man who says that is an asshole and not worth your time.
-
Tierney Says:
January 28th, 2010 at 10:17 pmBen and Dorothy have it right. Women are visible in HP, but they are not equals. Not one woman defies conventional gender stereotypes. The women with whom Harry interacts the most are overprotective, nagging, killjoy mother-types (Hermione, McGonagall, Mrs. Weasley); the men are easygoing, fun-loving, boys-will-be-boys father-types. Ginny is “cool” precisely because her sense of fun and her sense of humor matches Harry’s and the Weasley boys’. We are told that these women are smart or powerful or athletic, but they offer no greater resistance to our understanding of gender than to hold jobs that are usually coded male. The women’s victories are minor plot points, but the story is never their story.
-
libby Says:
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:42 amI do think that you do have to take into account what Anna has said. These books are essentially, once it boils down to it, a series written for children. JK Rowling is not going to be using the prosaic language of Fitzgerald or the themes of Flaubert to portray this fairytale.
I think that you are a book snob. Just because it is not necessarily a literary work doesn’t mean that it’s not worthwhile. It is my guilty pleasure. It’s a fun series with some good morals at its core, but mostly, because it is plot driven, it is an easy, yet satisfactory read with humour, and, in the later book depth and a certain beauty. Just because you read the first page of one doesn’t mean that the entire book is absolutely repugnant. When I was about 8 and the first book came out, I put it down because it bored me, of course until someone told me what happened beyond the first chapter and I found it to be a magical masterpiece, and that the chapter “The forest again” in book 7 may well be the most moving and beautiful thing that I have ever read.I do not think that Harry Potter is at all sexist. Sure, the female characters lack depth and are not the ideal, flawless characters that I’m sure every girl would want them to be, but that doesn’t mean that they are not worthwhile. Hermione has more depth, I would argue, than his best friend Ron, has more depth, I would argue than even Lord Voldemort, in which a large part of the series is devoted to finding out about just what makes Lord Voldemort, Lord Voldemort. Aside from Harry, and possibly good old Albus, none of the characters have any real depth. I would argue that you cannot soundly justify sexism by means of the female characters being underdeveloped, because aside from the main character, we do not really learn about the other characters. even Draco Malfoy, who is constantly at struggle between good and evil and trying to make his father proud, all we tend to see is the up-himself little bitch that he is on the surface. Let us not forget the excellent point that the Dark Lord possesses Harry, and essentially IS a part of Harry. One of the constant fears in the book is that Harry is essentially like the Dark Lord, and that he may turn into him. This would just be plain weird if it was Harriet.
I agree that it is easier for females to identify with males then it is for males to see the female perspective, but truly we see the world through a male’s perspective: could it be that we view the female characters the way we do because that is how Harry sees them? Molly Weasley is like a mother to Harry, Hermione is like the bookworm sister who he relies on, Ginny is a saucy minx, McGonagall is his house mother in his “home”, so this is how they are portrayed. Bellatrix LeStrange is the crazy bitch who killed his God-Father. Of course these women aren’t going to be going around weilding swords like Neville Longbottom, they are going to be fulfilling the roles that they naturally are in. Sure, this may seem a bit sexist, but I’m sure if it came down to it I would have run out of the castle before the last battle had begun – women just don’t want to stick around for the fight, and those who do are some of the best, strongest and most lovable characters in the story. Mollywobbles kicks arse.
Someone also mentioned Narnia, which is one of the greatest series, but also the most sexist. CS Lewis hated women, that’s why once Susan grew up she wasn’t allowed back into Narnia, and the White Bitch is a woman. Because of the whole original sin, women will lead you into temptation stuff.
This was all really long and pointless. sorry -
Peanut Says:
March 16th, 2010 at 11:43 pmOkay, you made the point that we shouldn’t only classify books because of the gender of the main character. This is exactly my own point. Just because J. K. Rowling didn’t use a female main character doesn’t mean the books are sexist, and I don’t think you should judge them as such. Second, I’ve read interviews with Rowling and while having a male main might not have brought her as much money, she thought of Harry as he was, male. If you aren’t a writer, you may not understand that characters come to us, needing a little work, but they have their own personalities and distinguishing traits. Rowling thought of Harry as “Boy wizard who doesn’t know about his past.” Changing him to Harriet Potter would change a lot about him, and the people around him. I think women can be heroes just as much as men can, but Harry’s thoughts, friendships, and romances would have been horrible differences if he had been a girl. Hermione doesn’t need to be the main character to kick ass, which she does, by the way. And Rowling has said what happens to her main characters. Hermione helps house-elves get rights, then works enforcing magical law. How is that sexist? Yes she’s a mother, but that doesn’t make her character sexist. On the contrary, it’s impressive that she can work so hard and still have time for her kids. Oh, and Ginny becomes an international Quidditch Player on an all-women team, then writes about sports for the Daily Prophet, a wizarding newspaper. Yeah, women playing sports is totally sexist *sarcasm*. Tonks gets married and has a baby out of love, not sexism. Rowling didn’t kill her because she wasn’t necessary; she doesn’t do that. An interview with Rowling says she wanted to end the books how they started: with a baby becoming orphaned through murder. You can’t say Rowling is sexist! She still works, and still plans on working, even though she’s richer than the queen of England. This proves that she’s not sexist, and doesn’t believe that a woman’s only role is to be a mother.
-
Maggie Says:
March 18th, 2010 at 6:44 pmWhat about Twilight, that horrible romance novel by Myer? Is a stalking boyfriend who watches his girlfriend sleep heathly? Is her boyfriend keeping her away from her friends healthy? Is dropping out of school because you are pregant heathy? Is any of this healthy for young readers, NO! I’m sorry but I’ve read Harry Potter many of times and do not see how it is sexist at all. Hermonie is the heromie and is very smart, she’s the smartest and not at all sexist. In the book the girls are just a capable as men. I don’t see what the problem is.
-
Peanut Says:
March 18th, 2010 at 9:08 pmMaggie, I agree completely! Tw*l*ght IS sexist (and horrible, I agree with that too) and Harry Potter isn’t sexist.
-
Dorothy Says:
March 18th, 2010 at 11:45 pmI can’t hear such ignorance and blindness anymore. Hermione is probably the most sexist character in the whole series, particularly in book 7 where she’s being utterly humiliated at thousands of occasions, particularly when Ron is involved *vomit*. And her intellectual skills are there to serve Harry so that he can save the day and be the hero – visible to, and known by, everybody.
And is either Ron or Harry that often referred to, or even e v e r referred to as “whimpering, whining, shrieking, gasping, wailing, squealing, crying, …” or as “hysterically” doing something, or as being so “terrified” or “panicking” when Harry is all cool?
Is “Moaning” Myrtle a boy ar a girl?
Is the mind-raped, psychologically controlled, and ultimately kidnapped and made unconscious naive little dependant Ginny who needs Harry to come and save her life a boy or a girl?
Are the most pathetically, weakly law-abiding, or even slavishly devoted characters, such as, respectively, Hermione, McGonagall, Umbridge, and Bellatrix male or female?
Are the cool, popular, rowdy, creative, autonomous, daring, optimistic, risk-taking, nerve-having mischief-makers, such as the Marauders James and Sirius, and Fred and George, male or female ?
Is the idealised, saint, selfless Lily male or female?
Is the arrangedly married woman who desires another man set on the evil or on the good side by JKR ?
Does any woman in Harry Potter not assume her husband’s name? And are there any women who don’t like children on the good side?
Should we applaud the fact that Ginny who becomes a professional sportswoman, gets her first child at 24, meaning the end of her career as a Quidditch-player that early on?
Is it a good advice for young girls that they should, like Ginny, wait years and years to be with one certain guy who doesn’t show any signs of interest for them for years?Is the weakest, most frightened contestant in the Triwizard Tournament a boy or a girl?
Are there any non-evil career-women (ie not just working women) ? (Rita Skeeter, Umbridge, Bellatrix,… all nice creatures indeed!) Are working moms portrayed as cool? Are there any working moms at all? There’s tiny side-character Mrs. Edgecombe who works at the ministry – and her psychologically highly unstable daughter Marietta who no less than betrays the DA.
Why is it that Bill’s looks explicitly don’t matter at all and his wife’s Fleur’s good ones are pointed out as being magnificent whenever she appears? And what about her taking a bath while her husband’s at work?
Hermione’s SPEW-ambitions are not portrayed as being something cool and heroic which readers are likely to want to imitate (unlike as with Fred and George or the Marauders, whose heroism is an appealing one), but as something rather annoying and nerdy which makes you rather unpopular.
We never see Tonks winning a duel. She does nothing that has any relevance to the plot. Her abilites are purely ornamental, for comic relief etc., they don’t help achieving anything important for the plot. In book 6 she’s all whiny and weak (because of love, like Ginny used to be, or Hermione is temporarily, or Cho is hugely) throughout the whole book. In book 7 she: – referrs to and puts much emphasis on her being married rather than on something else – takes Ron with her on the broom, but later on applauds only his achievements in the attack, with no mention of what s h e could have heroically done in the attack – is almost run out on by her husband just after having been impregnated by him, but she doesn’t make any fuss about this – gives birth to a son – is seen worrying about her husband’s safety in the final battle and running around searching him – gets killed, leaves her baby boy.
I don’t think Tonks is an “empowering” female character in any way possible.I could go on and on…
The level of sexism in these books is simply appalling. They are a tremendous keep-sake for all the people who fear the world to change. Everyone’s in their right places where they’re supposed to be in Harry Potter. JKR hugely lacks courage, and that’s that.
-
Chelsea Says:
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:08 pmI’m a girl, a feminist, a believer than women can do everything men can do.
I also love the Harry Potter series. I’m sitting here reading all your brilliant comments, taking in what you’re saying about Hermione being only “book smart and boring” and that there is no heroine in this story, on Harry’s level anyway, but that’s how JK wrote it.
I used to love writing growing up, and I’ve heard many people discuss what it’s like to write, and sometimes these words just come from you. You envision a story a certain way, and she first thought of this series with Harry, not Harrieta.
However she feels about women, whether she’s sexist herself (highly highly doubt that) I don’t know. What I do know is that for a lot of people, the story of the Boy Who Lived is beautiful, it helps them get through bad times, and just takes you out of your world for a little while, which after all is what we all look for in books.Now as far as Hermione is concerned, she has saved Ron and Harry from countless situations, using her quick thinking and strong knowledge of spells and enchantments Off the top of my head, let’s take book 7 for example. SHE thought of packing the necessities in her “special bag” before the wedding, just in case something were to happen and they needed a quick getaway. After the fiasco at the ministry and they were found out, she’s the one that took Ron and Harry’s hand to lead them from the ministry, to Grimmauld Place, then fortunately to the forest. After the other fiasco at the Lovegood’s home, SHE thought of hiding Ron under the invisibility cloak so that the Death Eaters would leave his family alone, but showed herself and Harry for a moment so the Death Eaters wouldn’t punish Luna’s father or Luna for lying, when he wasn’t. Oh and Hermione also thought of the magic coins so that Harry could communicate with the rest of the D.A.
If I’m not mistaken, Ron and Harry both praised Hermione for her quick thinking many a time.
Ron (Harry’s other “side-kick) wasn’t perfect by any means either! He’s not particularly athletic (not like Harry anyway), he’s not very book-smart; he’s funny. He’s the comic-relief.
He even left them in book 7! Regardless if it was the locket that made him uneasy, he left them, left when Hermione went crying after him. He said it when he came back, basically how ashamed he felt after all that. How Dumbledore knew he would leave, and as Harry pointed out, Albus knew Ron would want to come back too. :]At any rate, JK Rowling created characters with flaws, like real people would have. Not only in women, but men as well. Just because the protagonist of this story is male, doesn’t mean it’s a sexist series. Harry even admitted to having help most of the time. I believe in Order of the Phoenix, there was a chapter where Hermione, Susan Bones, Cho Chang and other characters are praising Harry for what he’s done. He said he nearly always had help, that without people coming at the right time, or being lucky, he wouldn’t have made it through. (Forgive me for the loose wording of it, I can’t remember what chapter it’s in to look it up). What I’m saying is gave credit to those who helped him.
Oh and P.S. about Ginny. Someone said how sexist it was that she never gave up on Harry liking her, even after all those years.
Well if you’re a girl, a lot of them do the exact same thing! Yes, we’ll move on if a guy doesn’t make a move, we’ll date other people and whatnot, but in the back of our heads, we don’t give up hope that maybe one day he’ll tell me he likes me. That doesn’t mean we’re desperate or waiting years for a guy, it just means there’s some connection we feel towards that one guy, and no matter what, you can’t let go. (Or at least it takes a while to).
All I’m saying.Please, feel free to disagree with anything I’ve said. I love a good argument.
-
Dorothy Says:
March 23rd, 2010 at 10:48 pmThank you, Chelsea, for pointing out exactly some of the things that make these books so incredibly sexist!
As for Hermione thinking of packing when the boys don’t, which is a very sickening form, in Hermione’s case, of “caring-sister”-sexism in itself, how about this line for example: “I’m nearly done, I’m just waiting for the rest of your pants to come out of the wash, Ron” (Hermione in chapter 7, p.98 british edition) ?! You don’t find it sexist that the boys can’t pack their own underwear, then, and that Hermione has to think of it for them? That JKR chose the one girl of the main characters for that role?
Or “There was a sharp rap on the door and Harry jumped as Hermione’s voice rang out. ‘Harry, do you want your toothbrush? I’ve got it here’” (chapter 9, p. 145)
There are numerous occasions like those, yet they never occur the other way round, it’s always Hermione who’s the house-wife-ish mothering care-giver, or who helps Harry becoming the hero with her extraordinary skills.It’s not the fact that the protagonist i s a b o y that makes the books sexist, but it’s the things that n e c e s s a r i l y c o m e w i t h the protagonist being a boy. Which makes the protagonist being a boy a sexist fact after all, whatever the actual story might be.
-
Hannah Says:
March 27th, 2010 at 5:26 pm“You don’t find it sexist that the boys can’t pack their own underwear”
Nope, find it honest. I have a lot of male friends, who are just normal men and I know for a fact that underwear is the bottom of their prioities, to the point where they have had to borrow mine because they ‘didn’t think about it’. And that was with forward planning!
-
Dorothy Says:
March 27th, 2010 at 6:14 pmSo you’re fine with this “normal men”-attitude the way it is, then, Hannah? You think girls should be encouraged by books just as HP to stay put in that role and thus relieve the boys of responsibility and care for themselves, and by that grant them more liberty and leisure than they themselves are granted ?
There seems to be a wide-spread confusion among HP-fans about what “sexism” means: just because something is “honest” with regards to reality doesn’t make it less sexist if it is. It is sort of the *point* of feminist critique to point out sexism in r e a l i t y. So I really don’t get this “but it’s like that in reality”-claim which is being put forth over and over again whenever there’s a dicussion of sexism with Potterfans. I can’t understand it.
-
Anonymous Says:
March 29th, 2010 at 2:33 am@Dorothy
The point is, if it really is showing sexism in reality, then you can’t really blame HP for doing itIf it’s true that the same amount of sexism is in reality, then wouldn’t it just mean that the world in Harry Potter is simply reflecting that?
-
Dorothy Says:
March 29th, 2010 at 1:30 pmSimply reflecting but at the same time not in any way a d r e s s i n g what you’re reflecting in your books is the same thing as saying “yes” to it. To relfect something without adressing what you reflect means having no problem with it, it means not being against it, it means being fine with it, and it means perpetuating it.
-
Jan Says:
March 29th, 2010 at 2:35 pmI agree with Dorothy here, although I wonder what the value of this is for fiction. How do we read novels like Lolita, or Crime and Punishment or even Madame Bovary? The question is really how far is it imperative for authors to cheerlead for social issues and try to change what they think is wrong with the world. If that is the role of the author, and if what matters is ideology or politics then I rest my case. Unless children books are an exception and Dorothy agrees that their function is to make children grow into better citizens.
-
Jan Says:
March 29th, 2010 at 2:40 pmOh, btw – I am not sure if it is as simple as your last post suggests. I am not sure if girls reading Harry Potter are going to think “yes, that’s what boys are, let’s accept it” or are they going to think “yes, she knows how unfair boys are, we know it as well, we can change it in our lives”. How else would you like the author to address the question? Have those boys be taught a moralistic lesson about packing?
-
Dorothy Says:
March 29th, 2010 at 4:20 pmNo, g i v i n g one of the boys the role of the packer, it’s as simple as that
Why would that be so incredibly surreal and inconceivable that one can’t put it into a book? (because that is often the argument of those saying that this or that role would be ridiculous to be given to a guy by the author, because it is so far away from reality).And yes, I think children’s books are an exception in that they have to be more explicit. I don’t think the books you listed don’t adress anything, of course they do adress matters, even heavily, at least the last two you mentioned. But children’s books need to adress differently, more overtly. Children for example wouldn’t get the message of, say, Valie Export’s art, whereas we do, even though nothing of her message is explicitly outspoken – but it is adressed, in a way comprehensible to adults.
By explicitly adressing I don’t mean that the children’s books should become explicit moralistic leaflets of behaviour instead of being literature. But they can still perfectly well be literature and adress things much more overtly than adult’s books do. They even h a v e to, because otherwise children will take a hypothetical “mere reflection” of reality for the author’s claims of how it s h o u l d be (which is true for Rowling, if you read her sickening interviews), as Potterfans are taking it if you go into online fandoms.
There’s a huge number of possibilities what Rowling could have done in this respect in her books, I’ll probably find time to point some of them out…
I don’t think you’ve ever come into touch much with Potterfans. They won’t tell you what your imaginative citations suggest
They’re completely blind followers of JKR, everything she says has a die-hard religious status for them. They will tell you things like “Well, I do the packing for my brothers all the time as well, because they keep forgetting it, so what” and so on. You should have seen all the fan comments to Rowling’s more than sickening “19 jobs before breakfast” citation, which were even more sickening than the citation itself. -
Dorothy Says:
March 29th, 2010 at 4:25 pmThis guy has some very good (and hilarious
) articles about Potter and about his personal experience with the “Potterfen” as he calls them (you have to search within his older articles): -
guest Says:
April 7th, 2010 at 7:24 pmGuess how many of the ten most mentioned characters in the HP books are female? One. Out of the first fifteen – two. And these two are put there to end up as the wives of the main two male characters. As you go down towards into the hundreds of characters the proportions tend towards half and half, but the main characters are almost male and any female characters are love interests. The books are about male bonding, male rivalries, men fighting other men and of course eventually getting the girl. sad.
