Politics, Molly's Qualities, and Sex and Swearing in HP, was: Re: Stereotyping

[nibleswik]

No: HPFGUIDX 84749

Janet Anderson:
> The thing is, the Harry Potter series is a deservedly well-loved
>and popular work, and lots of people -- it seems to me -- would 
>like to see JKR use that popularity to push some agenda or other 
>which they think is important. <snip> If she chooses either to put 
> forward an agenda which differs from the reader's, or (as she has 
> done in my opinion) to ignore politics altogether except insofar 
>as it is used to tell a good story, that is also her right.

Me:
I agree with everything you said, except for that JKR's ignored 
politics altogether. First, I'd like to ask just what you mean 
by "except insofar as it is used to tell a good story", as that 
seems to me rather nebulous and subject to interpretation. As a 
politics fiend, whether in fiction or the real world, I don't think 
there's a limit to how much politics can be used to tell a good 
story. I don't think it's necessary, either, but nine times out of 
ten, political overtones increase my enjoyment of a story. The tenth 
time, the book tends to be written by Ann Coulter, but that's the 
topic for a different post on a different list.

I may have been seeing politics where there was just storytelling, 
but to me (and many of my friends, and, I'm sure, many on this 
list), the Grand Inquisitorial Decrees just reeked of the Patriot 
Act. There are many other examples which struck me, but the fifth 
book seemed more overtly political than the previous ones, and you 
know what? I LOVED that. I was positively maniacal in my giggles as 
the MoM appeared to act more and more like the Bush administration. 
Now, a large part of this (who knows? maybe all of it) may have been 
that I was allowing my political views to get the better of me and 
falling into the common trap of, "See? This brilliant author agrees 
with me!" I didn't think I was doing so, but it's definitely 
possible. In any case, though, what makes you think HP is 
apolitical? I'm very interested.

Janet Anderson:
> The theory that because Molly does not have a salaried job she is 
> not a "strong character" reminds me of something that was pointed 
> out in the early and strident days of feminism -- that the people 
> who denigrate women who keep houses and raise children are 
insulting their own mothers and grandmothers. <snip> Where do you 
think the Weasley children inherited all those brains (several 
> Head Boys) and picked up the ethics that they display?  At least 
half of 
> these qualities had to come from Molly.

Me:
Why at least half? It seems to me that one could belong to one of 
two schools of thought: the "Arthur and Molly affect their children 
equally", in which case it would be exactly half, school, or the "We 
don't know if one affected the kids more than the other" school. If 
you belong to the first, half of those qualities would have come 
from Molly. If you belong to the second, more than half might have 
come from Molly, but less than half might have as well. Perhaps I'm 
reading too much into your statement, but it comes across (to me) 
as, "Mothers, or at least this mother, affect their kids as much as 
or more than fathers." I wouldn't agree, if that is what you're 
saying.

Furthermore, children's qualities aren't necessarily inherited -- in 
the case of the Weasleys, I'd probably agree with you, but in 
general, I think it's too much of a blanket statement. Sirius is a 
perfect example, as his character seems to be comprised almost 
entirely of deliberate efforts to be contrary to his parents' 
racist, archaic, and generally dreadful views. I can't come up with 
any other examples, probably because we see so few parent/children 
relationships. There's the Weasleys, the Malfoys, and to some 
extent, the Blacks, but that's about it, isn't it? I mean, Harry's 
quite unlike James in that he's much less arrogant and mean, but he 
also never knew his father, so I wonder how relevant that is.

Janet Anderson:
<snip> And can someone please explain to me why some people think 
there should be 
> more on-screen sex in these books?  <snip> 

Me:
I agree that sex in the books would add little, if anything. I'm 
occasionally irked by the almost complete absence of swearing, 
though, as it seems unrealistic to me. I know one (one!) teenager 
who swears as infrequently and mildly as the Harry Potter kids. 
Maybe this is different in England? I don't think it is, though. And 
maybe it would be different among a very devout set, or something. 
My one teenage non-swearing friend is very religious; then again, 
I've many more religious teenage friends who swear more than me. In 
any case, the HPers aren't religious, AFAIK. So my complaint is 
fueled by my desire for realistic dialogue. I get over it, though, 
because the dialogue's so wonderful aside from that, and simply tell 
myself that they all come from non-swearing households.

While on the topic of swearing, I'm amazed at how well JKR's planned 
the progression of swear words used and the frequency with which 
they're used, through the books. She's in a tight spot, I'd imagine, 
not being able to have the characters swear a lot and seems to have 
remedied it by having them progress from no swearing in the first 
book to moderately frequent "damns" and "hells" and such in the 
fifth.

Cheekyweebisom