[HPforGrownups] Re: Article

[rosie]

No: HPFGUIDX 41223

The bits with >s are mine, the bits in " "s are by Porphyria.


> "Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw are the lower orders, hard-working but stupid."
>
> (Although he is describing someone else's theory here)..Isn't Ravenclaw 
> for the
> clever, rather than the stupid?

"Presumably he was thinking of Hagrid's comment that Hufflepuff were 
rumored to be a bunch of duffers. So he's half right. However, the fact 
that there are virtually no developed Ravenclaw characters does contribute 
to the impression that they are less important to the story. Also, it's 
stressed over and over again in the first book that Gryffindor is the 
ideal house to be in. Even the bookish Hermione feels that Ravenclaw would 
be second best. Her reason why is never fully explained. So there does 
seem to be a value judgment leveled against Ravenclaw, even though it's 
members are supposed to be very smart."

There's still a bit of a difference between "very smart" and "stupid" though, isn't there?



> "Rather worringly, the only character from a single parent family appears 
> to be
> the evil Lord Voldemort, whose father rejected his mother when he 
> discovered
> she was a witch and who later died giving birth to Voldemort."
>
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I always thought a single-parent family was, by
> definition, one or more children being principally raised by one of their
> parents alone. Since Voldemort was abandoned by his father and lived in an
> orphanage...I'm not quite sure how exactly he was "from a single parent
> family"? He had a single parent, yes, but he was hardly from a single 
> parent
> *family*, was he?

"Here I agree the situation is much more complicated than Adams makes it 
sound. Hagrid is from a single-parent home. Apparently so are the Creevey 
brothers. They are clearly 'good' characters.

However, I think Adams point was that the Riddle parents split up -- the 
father abandoned the mother, and that led to his winding up in an 
orphanage. And I think Adams is looking at what we might call the wizard 
divorce rate: the Weasleys are a happy couple, the Grangers appear to be, 
presumably the Potters were. Even the Malfoys may be. The real issue of 
divorce is not addressed by the books, but the Riddle family is one of the 
most prominent broken homes we see, and Tom was a victim of the fact that 
his father abandoned them. Certainly he would have been much happier if 
his father stayed with the family, raised him, and spoke well of his witch 
mother."

He's still not from a single-parent family. There's a difference between being a virtual orphan and being raised by a single-parent family. If Adams wanted to make that point, he should have made so more clearly; the way it was written sounded as though JKR was, contrary to her role as an advocate for the rights of single parents, implying that single parenthood lead to evil overlords! I think we'd all agree that it is better for a child (in most circumstances) to be brought up by a parent or parents rather than by an institution - that hardly needs pointing out.


> "Although the climax of each book sees Harry thwarting an attempt by 
> Voldemort
> or his supporters to either kill him or resurrect Voldemort, by the 
> fourth book
> Voldemort has once again regained full strength (in fact, he is even 
> stronger)."
>
> Did I miss something....is he actually stronger than he was at the height 
> of
> his powers? (I'm not saying this bit's wrong, just querying it)

"I admit this is inaccurate AFAIK. LV is mortal now and he was immortal 
before. But I do think this quibble is beside the point of the class issue."

I was criticising the article as a whole, not just its relevance to the class issue.



> "The very oldest ones have castles and indentured servants, and foreign
> sounding names that gesture towards the post-Conquest Norman aristocrats,
>  such
> as Draco Malfoy, Harry's schoolboy rival."
>
> Draco lives in a castle? That's quite a step up from a "manor" isn't it?

"A manor is a landed estate, and his point is that the Malfoys represent 
the landed gentry in the Potterverse. I admit he's being hyperbolic to 
call is a castle (although I'd sure like to see the Malfoy Manor, I bet it'
s splashy). But the point that the Malfoys seem like aristocracy has been 
observed on this list before; I thought it was a pretty solid observation."

Well, yes, we know he's "rolling in gold" and lives in a manor and so on. I'm not disputing that they are aristocracy. I was disputing that there is any character we know about, however aristocratic, who lives in a castle other than Hogwarts.

"You must admit the Slytherin and other dark side supporters tend to have 
more exotic names: Malfoy, Lestrange, Rosier, Karkaroff, Dolohov, and of 
course Voldemort, however fake, has that Norman caché."

Indeed. I didn't say they didn't.

> "More significantly, all of the central evil characters in the books are 
> male,
> while all of the senior authority figures are male."
>
> Yes, because the deputy head isn't at all a "senior authority figure" 
> within
> the sphere of Hogwarts, is she?

"This is a whole 'nother thread, but I'd say, yes McGonagall is 
underdeveloped and never shown exercising her administrative authority. 
She is always in Dumbledore's shadow as Deputy Headmistress. She doesn't 
throw her weight around and start barking orders during the crisis in CoS 
when she is in charge; she just frets that the school is liable to close 
and muses about what "Dumbledore always said," whatever that was. She does 
have a position of power, but the books don't portray the position as 
anywhere near as important as that of Dumbledore, Fudge, etc."

She's a senior authority figure whether she's developed or not - she's better developed than Fudge. You'd expect a deputy to be in the shadow of the actual leader, wouldn't you? . IMO, she is one of the main authority figures with regards to the Trio, and one of the most visible, as she is their head of house. She is called in whenever they get into trouble and so on...she is responsible for punishing them, deciding if they are expelled, etc, etc.

> "(There are of course no wizard comprehensives, the only alternative 
> education
> being a comedy correspondence course called Kwikspell)."
>
> The idea of a comprehensive is a school where all children, regardless of
> ability, can go, that is free (so doesn't segregate by class). Well, we 
> know
> that there is a wide ability range (Neville vs Hermione)... and a wide 
> income
> range too (Ron vs Malfoy). Seems fairly comprehensive to me...

"What about Squibs? What about people with very weak magical powers? 
Neville was afraid he wouldn't be able to go to Hogwarts. Where would he 
have gone to school if he didn't get in? There have been spirited 
arguments on this list as to whether wizards like Stan Shunpike went to 
Hogwarts, failed out, or never got in. I think it's an open question as to 
what happens to 'lesser wizards.'"

I think it's pushing it to say that Hogwarts isn't comprehensive because it doesn't admit squibs. It's a WIZARD school, and the point being made was, I quote, that there are no "wizard comprehensives". I don't know where others went, but the point being made in the article was, as far as I can tell, that the WW was inherently elitist because the only kind of education they had was Hogwarts, which is much closer to the archtypical public school than it is to a comprehensive.  


> "Like Eton and its peculiar Wall Game, Hogwarts has its own bizarre sport 
> in
> Quidditch, with inexplicable rules (a sort of combination of polo, 
> cricket and
> rugby, on broomsticks)."
>
> But it's *not* Hogwarts' "own bizarre sport", it's one common to pretty 
> much
> the entire WW....that is not at all the same as some special Eton game, 
> it's
> the equivalent of having football/soccer matches!

"For this discussion question we are asked to consider whether the 
Wizarding World is an elite unto itself, in which case this observation is 
still good. Wizards have their own bizarre sport, which Muggles know 
nothing of. This contributes to the image of wizards as having an elite, 
rarified society that does not brook outsiders very easily."

I imagine that Muggles can't use broomsticks to fly, in the same way that they can't use wands to cast spells, so they can't really play Quidditch. I think (if you want to stick to the discussion question) that it's important to remember that the historical reason for wizards having to keep their existance a secret from Muggles is that the wizards were being PERSECUTED by the muggles. It wasn't that they thought they were better than the Muggles. Wizards that aren't muggle-born like Ron don't (as far as we know) know anything of  football/soccer (I think there is a quote supporting this somewhere, not sure), does this mean that the Muggle world is elitist?

> "Meals are served by servants in the Great Hall"
>
> No they aren't, otherwise everyone would know house elves worked at 
> Hogwarts.

"Yes they are. The house-elves make all the food in the kitchens and 
magically transport it (banish it I suppose) to the Dining Hall. Remember 
how the kitchens had the same four tables laid out just like the Dining 
Hall? I got the impression they set it all out in the same pattern and 
then magically moved it up one floor. Adams point that servants do the 
work at Hogwarts stands; that's exactly why Hermione got all upset about 
the use of elf labor at school."

They aren't actually served by servants though, they are served by magic. 

> "Instead, at the age of eleven -- a reference to the eleven-plus 
> examination to
> get entrance to grammar school -- messages arrive saying that Harry has 
> been
> admitted to Hogwarts school, sparing him the horror of attending a
> comprehensive, which are thereby classed alongside coathangers and used 
> socks
> as the sort of second-best that no one really wants."
>
> I think it was more to do with it being a school where people flushed 
> your head
> down the toilet rather than it being a comprehensive that Harry didn't
> like...and who would choose a "normal" school, after such bad experiences 
> in a
> "normal" primary school, when they had found out they were a wizard, and 
> had
> the chance to escape from the horrible Dursleys (and Dudley's grotty old
> uniform).

"Yes, but this type of argument asks you to analyze the books as written 
texts, not as a transcription of real life. Obviously any kid in his right 
mind would rather go to Hogwarts than to Stonewall, just as any kid in his 
right mind would rather live just about any where else but with the 
Dursleys. The question we are looking at here is why do the books portray 
the Muggle Dursleys and Muggle schools as being so horrible? <snip>"

Well, a lot of British muggle schools *are* pretty horrible! and it wouldn't be the same story if Harry loved the Dursleys and they were really nice to him, and he was looking forward to going to his fantastic new secondary school (and I don't mean Hogwarts), would it?

> "And it is the female students who are easily taken in by the most 
> palpably
> ridiculous teachers: Gilderoy Lockhart..."
>
> Yes, that's really strange, isn't it, suggesting that girls are more 
> likely to
> have "crushes" on a male teacher than boys?

"He said "taken in" You don't have to have a sexual crush on someone to be 
taken in by them. I don't recall any male characters going around the 
school saying "oh, that Lockhart really knows his stuff, he's seen 
everything." It is *also* only female students who are taken in by the 
palpably ridiculous Trelawney, and I don't believe we are meant to think 
that Lavender and Pavarti have sexual crushes on Trelawney either, they 
are just "taken in." I believe Adams point stands here too."

Yes, but Parvati and Lavender don't outline all Trelawney's classes in little hearts, like Hermione does. Fair point about being taken in, but I think with Lockhart, much more of it was about women crushing on him - witness Hermione, witness all the "witches of about Mrs Weasley's age". Dumbledore was obviously taken in enough to appoint him as DADA teacher, even if he really had no choice, and I recall Justin Finch-Fletchly thinking Lockhart was quite spiffing. Can anyone confirm this? (dont have my books)

"Any quibbles with Pico Iyer's article?"

Nope, not really as far as I remember. Interesting discussion though :)

Rosie





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]