Robes and LOTF

[GulPlum]

No: HPFGUIDX 45828

At 01:37 25/10/02 +0000, Steve wrote:

<snip>

Bboy_mn introduces examples from the 1963 film of "Lord of the Flies", the 
relevance of which is not immediately apparent to me...

>Note the first photo of boys in 'academic' over-robes including weird
>hats, and white collars. Observe the open front on the robe of the
>lead boy. You can see his school tie and white shirt.

They're not "academic over-robes". They're choristers' capes. Many British 
Public Schools have established choirs which perform at religious services 
for the school (and sometimes beyond). We also have "Cathedral Schools", 
which train and supply choirboys for cathedral services, besides supplying 
a full curriculum.

Different schools have slightly different approaches to dressing their 
choirs, although in most cases, the choirs dress in scaled-down clerical 
garb. See here for a famous example:
http://histclo.hispeed.com/act/choir/nat/eng/choirengwea.html

Some choirs include capes. See here (the same site) for more:
http://histclo.hispeed.com/act/choir/gar/choir-cape.html

Bear in mind that Lord of the Flies (both the book and the 60s film; let's 
not mention the 90s adaptation, which transplanted the action and made the 
boys pupils of an American military academy) is one huge allegory, and is 
full of metaphors and symbolism.

The choristers in their capes perform various symbolic duties. The other 
boys are wearing disparate uniforms (i.e. they're from different schools) 
and don't know each other, whilst the choir is the only organised group 
with an established leader; some of the other boys quickly dispense with 
their uniforms - and indeed clothes! -  (i.e. past/normal lives), whilst 
the choir keeps their capes for some time.  The choir fulfills (by 
definition) a religious function, and thus should be, for want of a better 
word, "angelic" - they're proved to be anything but.

When they remove their capes, the choristers are revealed to be wearing 
short trousers and shirts, which I expect to be the case at Hogwarts. 
Incidentally, they are *not* wearing jumpers (sorry, sweaters) :-) which 
are an integral part of a British school uniform.

BTW, does this description of Jack sound vaguely familiar?
"Inside the floating cape, he was tall, thin and bony, and his his hair was 
red beneath the black cap. This face was crumpled and freckled, and ugly 
without silliness. Out of his face stared two blue eyes [...] turning, or 
ready to turn, to anger."

:-)

>although I don't know the exact date that the movie is taking place. That 
>is, the date in movie time.

The book (and film) don't specify a time or place (other than an island in 
the Pacific). We're given to understand that there's a huge war going on, 
and an atom bomb has just been dropped. The implication is that the boys 
have been evacuated from an unknown location to be delivered to safety. We 
don't witness the plane crash - all the information comes from the boys' 
conversations; the story starts with Ralph finding a beach and looking at 
the wreckage sinking in the sea.

>So while I have no trouble with the staff, especially Dumbledore,
>wearing old style clothing. I still can't see the kids in completely
>Dumbledore/Merlin style free flowing dress-like primary clothing
>robes. But I guess we are all allowed to have our own vision as we read.

One straight question: how do you square the distinction between "robes" 
and "cloaks" in the books, and the few descriptions of "robe" as something 
which goes over the head and reaches the ankles (or lower), with the 
movies' version of the uniform? :-)

As per my other post, regardless of whether JKR was writing the first book 
with kids or adults in mind, everyone in Britain knows that the first item 
on a list of school requirements specifies the uniform. The fact that she 
includes "3 black robes" is to be taken to replace "3 white shirts, 3 pairs 
black trousers", etc.

>Well, we have 'robes', but not much direct detail as far as the
>students. I have to assume, and I know assumptions aren't canon, that
>if the robes were too odd or extreme, you would have heard someone
>comment on it. Dean Thomas is a modern black muggle boy; hard to
>believe he's not going to comment about having to wear a dress
>everyday. Same with Harry, he grew up completely in the muggle world.
>As much as he wants to be a wizard, I can't believe his mind wouldn't
>have expressed some discomfort at wearing such odd clothing.

For one thing, they have a preconceived image of what a wizard would wear - 
as does JKR (Merlin, etc) and thus they wouldn't find it out of place to be 
required to wear something similar. Secondly, getting fitted for their 
robes would be the time to express any kind of unease about wearing 
"dresses". Thirdly, none of the Muggle kids express any surprise at any of 
the outlandish things they see (whether it's Platfom 9 3/4, the ghosts, the 
squid in the lake or anything else).


>The Sketches-
>Someone else mention the sketches in the groups 'Harry Potter and Me'
>photo album, but as far as I can tell, only adults are shown in robes.

In the Weasley sketch, Percy is wearing a robe; the twins and Ron are not. 
If Percy is *not* wearing a robe, what *is* he wearing? :-) (the "P" badge 
and the specs leave little doubt as to who he is...).

>Note the Mirror of Erised-
>The man standing to the right rear of Harry's mother is dressed in a
>suit and tie. The older man standing behind Harry's father appears to
>be wearing a suit and tie. Very hard to tell though. It looks like his
>jacket only goes to just below the butt, and it looks like you can see
>the knot in his tie. Overal, this particular person is inconclusive.
>Harry's father appears to either be wearing an unusual shirt or a very
>light colored light weight over-robe.

I assume the man standing behind Lily to be her Muggle dad and therefore it 
would be strange for him to be wearing anything else. It's impossible to 
draw any conclusions about what James or the man behind him are wearing. My 
own view is that this ambiguity is deliberate on JKR's part, as I am of the 
opinion that James and Lily were living Muggle lives at the time of the 
attack, and perhaps ever since Harry's birth.

<snip>

>a 'robe' by definition is an over or outer garment which implies some 
>undergarment beyond (in my opinion) underwear.

I don't dispute that as a likely implication in the slightest. I do dispute 
it as a *necessary* implication, though. After all, "robe" came to English 
from the French for "dress"; whilst I would *expect* a male to wear 
something other than underwear underneath something designated a "robe", I 
wouldn't be surprised if he did not. For example, I know several real-world 
priests who don't wear anything else underneath their cassocks in summer.

>The examples of over-robes in the historic costume sites made them
>look very much like a coat (in terms of use). I also fall back on my
>comment about JKR's efficient writing style. No need to mention
>details unless they move the plot along.

You saw the need throughout your post to refer to "over-robes" , which from 
where I'm sitting indicates that you *do* see a problem with "robes" being 
anything other than what Percy is wearing in JKR's sketch. :-)

>Ah... sorry Amerimuggle here. Could you explain a 'choristers' robe'.
>Sorry for showing my ingnorance. Thanks.

See above. :-)

--
GulPlum AKA RIchard, who's increasingly suspecting that Steve is continuing 
this conversation purely as an intellectual exercise. :-)