Utopian vision vs realism in fiction

[caliburncy]

No: HPFGUIDX 33377

Hi all,

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" <tabouli at u...> wrote:
> Ahaa!  It's the realism vs role model issue again!  I've tried a
> few times to stir a rousing debate on whether fiction should
> reflect the world as it is or as it should be, but alas.

Apparently it was before my time or I somehow missed it, because 
surely had I seen such a thread, I would have commented on it.


> Should authors of fiction create a utopian world where things are
> closer to the way they think things "should" be, in the hope that
> this will help it eventually become true?  <snip> Or should they
> reflect the world as it is, "warts and all", and leave the role
> model and education stuff to educators and parents?

Hmm . . . I guess I'm inclined to say that I see no reason why this 
cannot be left up to the individual author.  I think it would be a 
great disservice to the literary form if publishers were to suddenly 
declare that, from here on out, they will only accept works that 
present a utopian worldview.  Or only works with a realistic 
worldview.  Or, for that matter, a dystopian worldview, which I 
notice you left out either intentionally or by accident, but which, I 
think, also has the ability to promote social change just like these 
other two.

What I find most interesting in the above quote, is that Tabouli 
implies (probably unintentionally) that by choosing the "warts and 
all" realistic portrayal, an author is choosing to not educate.  Of 
course, I disagree.  That which is portrayed is not thereby condoned, 
or else all the persons who lament the satanic bent of HP would be 
vindicated, simply by the presence of Voldemort.  Ah, you say, but 
Voldemort's views and actions are not condoned by the books; rather, 
they are quite clearly rejected.  Indeed.  I believe that what is 
ultimately important is not the type of portrayal itself, or even the 
individual elements of that portrayal, but whether those elements are 
apparently rejected or condoned by the work.  For example, in 
Tabouli's debate with her Honours supervisor about David 
Lodge's "Nice Work", what is the true matter at hand, in my opinion, 
is not the actual actions of the males involved, but whether said 
action is apparently rejected or condoned by the work.  A good author 
will rarely take an explicit stance, but even without the explicit 
stance, an implicit stance is, well, implied.  I have not seen this 
particular work in order to specifically comment upon it, sadly.  But 
that's not the point anyway.  The point is that that scene could have 
been written from an utopian, realistic, or dystopian viewpoint and 
still ultimately take the same stance on the issue.

So, regarding HP and the gender presentations therein, what is more 
important to me than the statistical representation of non-
stereotypical female characters, or the presence (or lack) of good 
female role models, or even the presentation of gender roles in 
general, is whether or not the negative effects of those gender roles 
are condoned or rejected.  (Personally I believe all the effects of 
gender roles are ultimately negative even though they may not seem to 
be in the immediate circumstance, but many people disagree, which is 
why I have specified the "negative" bit.)  In other words, the 
biggest question for me is not, "how many this or how much that?", 
but straight to the big enchilada of "Does HP endorse sexist views?"  
The answer, as best as I can tell, is no.

Perhaps part of the reason this is a concern is that, although HP 
does not seem to condone sexism, it never has an opportunity to 
overtly reject it either, because so far no instance of sexist 
treatment has occured in order to be commented upon, either pro or 
con.  This then makes the lack of "sufficient" good female role 
models seem more problematic to some, since the stance on gender 
roles is thereby made even more vague.  I concede this is a valid 
concern.

But while I would never undermine the importance of role models, I 
think the overall stance of the books is much more important, and 
therefore I think that while HP may not be *winning* any feminist 
battles, with its arguably too-vague stance, it is probably not 
*losing* any either.  I do not really think that, in the end, it is 
having any adverse effects on young girls.  But then I haven't done a 
study, so I wouldn't know, and I certainly admit this is within the 
realm of possibility.


> I've read at least one article which suggests that HP is popular
> with little boys precisely *because* the traditional gender roles
> in the books are much closer to their real-life experiences than
> feminist era children's fiction full of impossibly capable and
> assertive little girls.  Very interesting.

Well, having been a little boy myself, I can say that I don't believe 
this would have been the case for me, and hence I should extend that 
same benefit of the doubt to current little boys.  I, in fact, read 
some of those books with "impossibly capable and assertive little 
girls" and do not recall ever feeling intimidated by or uncomfortable 
with that.  I will admit that I am not the ideal test case, having 
been raised rather blind to gender roles compared to most people (I 
say this not as a self-compliment, but as what I believe to be a fact-
-believe me, it has been every bit as much a detriment as a virtue, 
though I wouldn't exchange it for the alternative), but really, if 
all boys were looking for in their books was a "return to tradition" 
in gender role presentations, then I see no reason why they needed to 
wait for HP to come out in order to experience this, seeing as how 
this can be found in a large enough percentage of the much older 
children's literature.

No, I am more inclined to believe that little boys read HP for 
precisely the same reasons that little girls do, and for the matter 
of that, many of the same reasons we ourselves do.  But it is an 
interesting theory, and reminds me very much of another theory along 
these lines, which is sadly off-topic, or I would delve into it here.

Please hit back with thoughts, questions, or vehement disagreements!  
I would love to go into this in a broader sense, as I notice I have 
thus far only had time to talk about utopian vs. realistic vs. 
dystopian portrayals in terms of gender roles, when of course these 
apply to much more, and much more broadly.  But I also, frankly, need 
sleep, and so any further ramblings from this corner will have to 
wait.  (I can taste the anticipation that permeates the air.)

<scoff>

-Luke