Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences)

[cindysphynx]

No: HPFGUIDX 40608

I think I can keep this reply on topic.  We'll see.  We'll see.  ;-)

******************

Rosie said:

> I know I'm not very good at expressing things, but I thought of an 
>analogy to what I was saying earlier, that it was (to my mind) 
>insulting to just describe someone as black and assume that we now 
>have a mental picture of them, etc.
> 
> Imagine a book set in a totally black community (in the past, or 
>something) - Situation 1. Now imagine that for some strange reason 
>there is a white person who appears in the community (shipwrecked 
>on their island, whatever). It would be worth pointing out that 
>this person was white, as otherwise we would assume all the 
>characters to be black from the setting, and this character's 
>whiteness would be the most striking thing about them in the 
>community.


For the record, I couldn't find your previous remarks, Rosie.  So I 
hope I don't misconstrue anything you're saying in your 
clarification.  I'll try not to.

OK.  I'll go with you on your first point, above.  

Rosie:
 
> If the book was about a community that was a mixture of different 
>races (situation 2), it would not be that important to point out 
>that a character was white (unless it was central to the plot), 
>because we would assume there to be people from many different 
>races anyway. Telling us someone is white doesn't really add much 
>to the story in this case.

Mmmm, you're losing me there.  I think I *have* seen descriptions of 
race like this in interracial settings.  Authors seem to do this 
quite a lot, actually.  I've seen it in literature involving war, 
prisons, schools.  The author will sometimes toss in a description 
of race, even if it is not done quite as pointedly as it was with 
Dean Thomas, that is, openly stating the character's race.  So I'm 
not sure I'm with you on this point, but let's continue.

Rosie:
 
> Describing a character just as "black" only really makes sense in 
>Situation 1 - where we should assume from the setting that all the 
>other characters are white. In Britain, this is not the case (well, 
>not in most communities), and it clearly isn't at Hogwarts. Doing 
>this makes Hogwarts seem *more* monocultural because it implies 
>that we are in Situation 1.
 

Here, I disagree.  I'll let you in on a little secret, Rosie. ;-) I 
have been to London, and so I know that London is very diverse.  I 
haven't spent any appreciable time in other parts of the UK.  And I 
would have bet actual *money* that there is almost no racial 
diversity at all in Scotland or other parts of the UK that are less 
urban than London.  That is one reason, I suspect, why Lee Jordan's 
dreadlocks didn't register with me as a conclusive indication that 
he was black.  

In addition, I would have been quite sure that you wouldn't find 
*any* black people at a British boarding school.  After all, my 
experience with British boarding schools is that these are the 
places where you will find members of the Royal Family.  ;-)

So, no.  I disagree that stating Dean Thomas' race in the U.S. 
version of the book implies that Hogwarts is more monocultural than 
JKR intended it to be.  In the U.K., maybe.  In the U.S., no.  

Rosie:

> The Potterverse is obviously Situation 2 - a mix of different 
>races, colours, origins, even kinds of diversity we don't have in 
>the Muggle world (hags, giants, werewolves). 

> It therefore doesn't add anything to the story if we just learn 
>that a character is black, does it? The only way that information 
>alone adds anything is if we are meant to assume from this that the 
>character must fit certain stereotypes of black people; from my 
>point of view, this is *not* desirable! 

What does it add if we just learn that a character is black?  I'd 
say the answer *has* to be the same thing we learn by just knowing 
that the character is white.  In *both* cases, we learn an 
objective, observable fact about the character that might or might 
not turn out to be significant.  If the character is white and that 
turns out to be insignificant, no problem.  If the character is 
black and that turns out to be insignificant, still no problem.  I 
really think the same standard should apply.

Now, I think that the race of both Angelina and Dean *is* worth 
mentioning in the HP books.  We learn that Angelina is black.  What 
does that add to the backstory?  A few things, IMHO.  We learn that 
Hogwarts is multi-racial (see my remarks above).  We learn that a 
black person can be a star Quiddich player without having her race 
be an issue.  We learn that interracial dating is acceptable at 
Hogwarts because no one bats an eye.  We can assume interracial 
dating is OK in the Weasley household, as Fred never worries that 
his parents will be upset by his dating Angelina.  

So I can read as much into Angelina's description as black as 
someone else might read into the Weasley's red hair.

What to make of Dean?  Eh, who knows?  So far, he has done nothing.  
But the fact that he is black and is in Harry's *dorm* means there 
isn't any formal or informal racial segregation at Hogwarts -- black 
Hogwarts students exist and everyone is *fine* with that.  So again, 
his race does tell me a little something about Hogwarts.  Maybe it 
is something you already know because you are more familiar with the 
UK than I am.  

I'm afraid I also have to disagree that the mere fact that a 
character is described as black conjures up racial stereotypes.  I 
certainly doesn't for me.  The description of Dean Thomas conjures 
up a visual image for me of skin color.  The expectations I would 
have going forward would be that certain inconsistent physical 
descriptions wouldn't be used for Dean.  If he is described as black 
and is then described as beet red, this would cause me to suspect a 
pretty big FLINT.  ;-)  But no, I wouldn't have any expectations 
about his behavior.

Rosie:

> Take Harry. His floppy hair is important (like his dad; he's 
>always getting told off by the Dursleys; the hair-regrowing 
>incident), his green eyes (like his mum), his skinny frame (Aunt 
>Marge's comments about him being runty, having bad parents; 
>contrast with Dudley; comical effect of him having to wear Dudley's 
>huge old clothes), his scar, etc, etc, etc.

I think my view of the purpose of character description is much less 
utilitarian than yours appears to be.  I thought the main purpose of 
character description is to give the reader a visual image so that 
the character comes alive.  Let's assume PS/SS was not part of a 
series but instead was always intended to be just a single book.  
Does that mean Hermione's oversized teeth shouldn't be mentioned 
because they aren't enlarged in the first book?  That her bushy hair 
shouldn't be mentioned because she doesn't slick it back until the 
fourth book?  These descriptive features strike me as something that 
can help flesh out the character; I see no reason to expect that 
each one will be the foundation for a plot development.

> Even Malfoy. His cold grey eyes (just like his dad's), don't they 
>just scream "evil"? 

This is interesting.  "Cold" screams "evil."  "Grey" just 
screams "grey," to me, anyway.  

Rosie:

> It wasn't obvious to *me* as a UK reader that he was black, but I 
>didn't really think of him as being any colour in particular, just 
>being Dean, and I reckon most kids probably wouldn't have inferred 
>that either from the details we're given about him. Thus, it seems 
>strange to me that it was inserted just to clarify for Americans 
>who would not understand UK-specific clues, but I am happy to 
>accept this.

Fair enough.  As I said before, you seem to understand that boarding 
schools in the UK are diverse, which is something I didn't know.  
But if most Brits would assume Hogwarts was racially diverse, and if 
readers in the U.S. might *not* make that assumption, then doesn't 
this cry out for some sort of change to advise U.S. readers of what 
their UK counterparts already know?  

I think one thing that has really *bothered* me about the discussion 
of this subject is the subtext that a decision to portray diversity 
to the U.S. market is most likely motivated by "political 
correctness," with political correctness spoken of pejoratively.  
Some people seem quite inflexible in their belief that (1) the 
change of Dean Thomas' race was done without the permission of or 
over the objection of the author, or (2) that it was done to appease 
those irritating and annoying people in the U.S. who have *ruined* 
popular culture by pressing for diversity in literature and media.  
And I maintain that the reason some people may be clinging to those 
beliefs in the absence of any real knowledge about why the change 
was made is because the change involves *race.*

Rosie:

> If it turns out later that it was really crucially important to 
>the plot or to his character to insert for Americans that Dean 
>Thomas was black, and/or the omission of this from the UK version 
>was just a mistake that will be corrected in later editions, I will 
>eat my hat, I promise.

Well, OK.  ;-)  I would say, however, that Dean's race may have 
already served part of its purpose.  For a U.S. reader like me, it 
is the *only* definitive indication in the first book that Hogwarts 
has black students -– something you had sufficient information to 
assume and something I didn't.  It tells me something about 
Hogwarts, so it has served its purpose.  I don't require or expect 
that Dean's race become crucially important in future books -- any 
more than I require that Hermione's race become important.
 
I wrote:

> > Your friend should understand that referring to racial diversity 
> > as "tokenism" will cause people like me to bristle every time, 
> > because it really does trivialize our concerns.  
> 
Naama wrote:

> Tokenism is *not* a way to refer "racial diversity", IMO. It's the 
> forced, artificial, self-righteous, hypocritical way of portraying 
> racial diversity. It reminds me of the Numerus Clausus type of 
> thinking - setting aside a set number of slots for the minority. I 
> see it as dehumanizing. 

Mmmm, I think we're saying the same thing.  Maybe.  Tokenism (in the 
U.S.) is a perjorative word used to suggest that minorities are 
being hired or cast just to fulfill some quota.  I objected to its 
usage in this debate for that reason, so I take it that we agree.  I 
think.

Naama:

> But it seems that a lot of what happens in American media (from my 
> faraway observation post) *is* tokenism. That's my sense of it, at 
> any rate. I'd love to see a true depiction of the racial diversity 
>of 
> the American nation - I just don't feel that I get it. What I do 
>get 
> are TV series which - if I believed them - would persuade me that 
>80% 
> of all American judges and 60% of all American doctors are black. 

I think it would be a mistake to assume that watching American TV or 
movies will give you a realistic picture about much of anything in 
the U.S.  If you observed American media, you would conclude 
that "prostitute" is the career of choice for a very large 
percentage of American women.  You'd also think that the U.S. 
somehow gets by without *any* accountants, copy machine operators or 
real estate appraisers.  ;-)

Also, I don't think you'd find all *that* many black judges and 
doctors on American TV, BTW.  In fact, there have been protests in 
the U.S. that black actors (especially on TV) aren't getting very 
many roles at all.  You also should bear in mind that some of the TV 
shows I suspect you are watching are set in major metropolitan 
areas.  It wouldn't be all *that* unusual to see a few black doctors 
in the emergency room or judges in the courtroom in real life in the 
metro area where I live, so you probably shouldn't draw all that 
many conclusions about U.S. culture from what you see in the media. 

Finally, if you are seeing a disproportionate number (that is, a 
greater percentage than you might find in real life in the U.S. as a 
whole) of black actors playing judges and doctors, you do have to 
consider that these character actors have been cast *because they 
were the best actors for the parts.*  It happens, it happens.  It 
might be seen as a bit insulting automatically to conclude that 
these actors are being cast as "tokens."

Whoa!  I know this part of my post is swerving dangerously off-
topic.  If anyone wishes to follow up, let's go play on OT-Chatter.

Naama:
 
> I suggest that those who fight for racial diversity to be 
>portrayed on the screen, start directing their efforts in 
>rectifying the inequalities that actually exist in *reality.* 

Well, the screen *is* reality.  Black actors have to eat too, you 
know.

Naama:

> There shouldn't. Of course. But the question isn't about "should" 
>but about "is." Did the author include the description because it 
>is part of her intrinsic vision and in the flow of the writing 
>process, or was it constrained upon her externally? No matter how 
>right it is  that it *shouldn't* be different, it still undermines 
>the integrity of the work if it *is* different (in the author's 
>mind), and a change is made according to that "shouldn't."

Ah, but we don't know the answer to that question.  So why don't we 
all just shrug off the Dean Thomas change and move on?  

<shrug>

But if we want to speculate, the most compelling clue we have is 
that JKR has the *power* and *influence* to object to this change 
and she hasn't.  That ought to be the beginning and end of the 
question of whether the change reflects her vision of Hogwarts.  It 
obviously does.

Cindy