the Nature of Magic - Thin - Child Abuse - Multiculturalism -

[Julie (a.k.a. Viola)]

No: HPFGUIDX 20467

I've been lurking here for ages but never posted anything. ^_^ This 
is one of those discussions, though, that I just can't seem to stop 
thinking about, so here goes...

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Catlady <catlady at w...> wrote:
> When I first read the books, I noticed that she made the loathsome
> Dursleys fat (the words saying the Petunia was thin came in through 
the
> eyes but didn't stick in the brain), and soon thereafter there were 
some
> loathsome fat people among the Slytherins, and I was annoyed at the
> fat-is-evil symbolism. 

We all bring our own lives to the table with this stuff. And even 
though I've had my own issues with weight (I defy you to find a woman 
in modern American society who _hasn't_), this didn't stick out to me 
as an issue. However, that being said, there were other issues about 
appearance and gender that bugged me from the get-go.

> Also at the looksism of making all the Slytherins
> ugly. 

I'm not convinced all the Slytherins are ugly. Certainly we see them 
through Harry's eyes, which is going to color our impressions of 
them, but I hardly think Pansy's pug nose qualifies her as ugly. ^_^ 
In fact, I always pictured Pansy and Draco at least as being pretty 
attractive - sort of a mini-Lucius and Narcissa. Nasty personalities, 
though, can affect how those appearances are viewed. I've known 
people who (before having a conversation with them) I would have 
described as very attractive, but afterwards described as "pinched" 
or "fake" in much the same way Harry does.

> I've noticed about glasses-wearers in HP is that there seem to be a 
lot
> of them: why can't these magic folks fix their eyesight by spells? 

Maybe its a rare case of Muggle technology outpacing magic and soon 
all the wizards will be lining up for laser eye surgery. ^_^

> the first book. I noticed girls on the Quidditch team with happy
> feminist delight. 

The "Gryffindor Girls" were one of my favorite things about the 
books. I wish we got to see more of them - they're smart, witty and 
hold their own with the boys.

> I noticed with pleasure that the girl co-protagonist
> didn't have model-type looks (and was annoyed by apparent Mary-Sue-
ism
> when she turned into a beauty for the Yule Ball in GoF).

And I actually thought this was extremely well-done on Rowling's 
part. Hermione is allowed to grow a little, learn that she can be 
attractive if she so chooses and then the next day is back to her 
usual self. I think it's one of the healthier protrayals we've seen - 
she does it for herself not for anyone else, and refuses to allow her 
appearance to define her. As evidenced by the fact that she'd never 
go to all that trouble every day. Her priorities are, to my mind, in 
the right order. 

> 
> Robert wrote:
> 
> > Mrs Dursley's described as thin at the start of PS,
> > and by POA she's "bony".  If she's achieved this
> > without a diet, I hate her -
> 
> Maybe she has a wasting disease. (I share your feelings about her.)
> 

"Bony" doesn't say attractive to me. ^_^ The Dursley's are such 
cartoonish extremes that I worry a whole lot less about people taking 
attitudes about them seriously than I am about characters whose 
messages are subtler.

The appearance issues definitely cut both ways. When in the books 
have we met a very attractive person who was worthwhile? Lockheart is 
rubbish, Narcissa Malfoy is (we assume) snotty and horrible and Cho 
Chang is little more than a plot device, to name a few.

The one that bothered me the most, in canon, was Fleur. We see 
through her that she's pretty and _female_, and therefore good for 
nothing else - she comes in dead last in the Tournament. And, more 
than that, is portrayed as haughty and manipulative. At least Cedric -
 while called a "pretty boy" - gets to be honorable and efficient.

What I find even more disturbing than that, though, is the fan 
reaction to a character like Cho. Is the message we're sending to 
young women one that says you can't be attractive, smart and 
athletic? Or that girls who are "like that" are all mean, self-
centered flirts? I can't count the number of fanfics I've read where 
Cho is evil, vapid, snobby, capricious or all of the above.

The Weasley twins, on the other hand, are portrayed in the books as 
popular, handsome, athletic and outgoing and are practically 
worshipped by legions of fans. Where is the double standard coming 
from?

Not saying that one intrepretation or the other is correct, just that 
we all bring our real life concerns into the experience with us. ^_^