Stereotyping

[jwcpgh]

No: HPFGUIDX 84819

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, B Arrowsmith 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> 
> I'm feeling a bit  sour.
> Not my usual sunny disposition, spreading sweetness and light 
> everywhere.
> No  song  on my lips, no pat for the neighbour's moggies.
> Instead it's a snarl  and a size nine.
> 
> When I'm in this sort of mood, friends try and distract me with a 
pint or two, but of course that's not possible by internet. Pity. 
And what has brought me to this pass? I'll  tell you.
> 
> Stereotyping.
> 
> By the posters.

Laura:

I feel a certain responsibility for having brought about Kneasy's 
unusually dyspeptic state of mind, so I'd like to add a few thoughts 
and reactions to his post.  I can only hope that this will help 
restore him to his usual sweet and endearing optimism.  I hope he 
considers this as a poor substitute for a couple of pints.  
<snip> 

Kneasy:
> The antics in the Potterverse of various characters and groups 
have raised much comment from posters whenever they see a divergence 
from their own patterns of acceptable behaviour. That's to be 
lauded - in such circumstances comparisons are expected and welcome, 
it's all part of the fun and games of analysis (or even post facto 
rationalisation) inherent in a discussion group like ours.
> No problem so far.
> 
> I start to get itchy when when posters start to flat-out tell JKR 
that she is wrong in what she writes and I become positively  
restive when, as in a post made recently, there is a comment to the 
effect that she's not quite as bad as was thought, but she must do  
better. Even with a *g* tacked onto the end of the paragraph this 
reads as verging on the pretentious and patronising.
> 
> Posters, it seems, hate stereotyping - except when it's their own.
> Some are determined not to be happy unless JKR writes words that 
match their personal prejudices.

Laura:

You (and Steve and others who agreed with you on this) are quite 
right, of course.  No author of fiction is required to present all 
sides of her story or include characters from a checklist 
representing all possible human variations.  It's her story to tell 
as she wishes and it's our choice to read it or not.  

Wrong-headed as this kind of critique is, I see it as a sort of left-
handed compliment.  (Don't even go there-I'm left-handed myself!)  
These books have a remarkable ability to touch people very deeply, 
so deeply that they-okay, we-feel a part of the world the books 
portray.  And the shortcomings of that world are painful to us.  In 
that sense, JKR may have succeeded *too* well. (!) The very realness 
of the WW and its intersections with the RW make us think of what 
goes in in our own little worlds and it's often not a pretty 
picture.  If the picture that JKR paints makes us uncomfortable, 
upset, even angry, then JKR has done her job.  We as readers have to 
let her do it, and recognize where the line between fiction and 
reality is drawn.  Let's face it, if the WW were perfect and 
flawless, there wouldn't be any books, would there?  

Kneasy:
> Outbreaks of outrage occur every few weeks.  All it takes is for 
> some-one to decry Elvish degradation or sexism or gender typing or 
> racism and the pot starts  boiling again.<snip> But  strangely, 
other books don't get the same treatment. When comparisons are made 
to other fantasies, fictions or even what some may consider 
philosophical or religious source books the same standards don't 
seem to be applied.

Laura:

There is, in fact, critique being written that does that very 
thing.  At Nimbus, any number of the presentations made overt 
comparisons between HP and LOTR, Ursula LeGuin, Pullman and other 
fantasy/scifi series.  We don't get too in depth with that on this 
list because of the habit we all have of sliding into OT discussion, 
but I'm sure that many listees would love to get into detailed 
literary comparison.  

I don't read fantasy/scifi, but I can draw a comparison to Holmes 
critique.  The topics have ranged from women in the canon to Doyle's 
attitude about imperialism to Holmes and Watson's sex lives and 
everything in between.  Just about every word has been dissected, 
analyzed with the most microscopic attention to details that Doyle 
probably just tossed off without much thought.  The difference is 
that the Holmesian world is long past.  Although some critique went 
on during Doyle's lifetime, the great bulk of it has been done since 
the canon was closed.  So there are 2 significant differences 
between Holmes and HP analysis:  HP canon is still incomplete and 
the events of the books are contemporaneous with our lives.  Those 
facts lead to several results:  we are probably all drawing 
conclusions that will turn out to be erroneous (except you, of 
course, Kneasy!), we don't yet know what JKR ultimately has in mind 
in terms of overall meaning for the books (or if she has any at 
all), and we experience HP a whole lot more personally than most 
Sherlockians could ever experience the world of Victorian England.  
Neither ACD nor JKR are historians or sociologists-they're fiction 
writers, and the worlds they portray, realistic as they may seem, 
are still the creations of their authors.

Kneasy: 
<snip>> 
> Minority groups (religious or racial) form only a small part of 
English society.

Laura:
I'm staying far away from this one except to agree with Pippin that 
Anthony Goldstein made me smile too, and I hope JKR is planning to 
create a nice Jewish girl for him. *g*

Kneasy:
<snip> 
 Even a superficial analysis of the text militates against Elvish 
slavery. 

Laura:
I'll accept that there's something very strongly magical about the 
house elves and that their condition is probably not exactly one of 
slavery.  But I do wonder why they'd put up with the kind of 
mistreatment the Malfoys and the Crouches doled out if they have the 
option to leave.  I hope this will become clearer in the remaining 2 
books.

Kneasy:
<snip> 
> Lately sexual stereotyping has been centre stage.  Oh, dear. Am I 
> mistaken or  has freedom of choice been banned by some posters? 
Molly in particular has taken the brunt of the criticism. She is at 
fault because she is not  this, that or  the other. Mothers must not 
present a motherly image it seems, or at least only do so in the 
gaps in their busy, professional schedule. All women must conform to 
a certain fashionable profile or be damned. Rubbish. Of  course, 
Petunia does not get the same amount of flak for the same behaviour  
because she is not  intended to be a sympathetic character, so it's 
all right, in fact it's positively  praiseworthy that she embodies 
a 'negative image'.  Molly  is a well drawn portrait of a common 
British phenomenon - the traditional mum. They can still be found in 
large numbers, but some posters fume at the thought of their very 
existence in this fictional realm, let alone the factual world. 
Perhaps they feel threatened by her; maybe they are not so secure in 
their choices after all. Methinks they doth protest too much. Some 
nagging doubts, are there?

Laura:
The Molly controversy is a rather interesting one to me because I 
see it as something of an indicator of where we are in the feminist 
revolution.  Many women (and some men) have learned to be sensitive 
to portrayals of women and girls in fiction.  We know how profoundly 
the stories we read can affect the world in which we live, and we 
know that the literary past has often shortchanged, patronized or 
ignored female characters.  So we are hyper-alert.  

The mistake I think some of us might be making is to assume that one 
book, or one series, can determine societal attitudes on any issue.  
The fact that JKR chose to present her story from the viewpoint of 
an adolescent boy leads to a certain perspective in the books that 
somewhat limits the opportunities for female characters.  But JKR 
didn't create sexism and even if she were 100% even-handed in the 
gendering of her characters (ugh-sorry about that literary-snob 
phrasing) she couldn't make it go away.  It's the entire literature 
of a culture that fosters stereotypes, not just one author's work.  
My impression is that literature for children and adolescents 
nowadays is full of strong, fully fleshed out female characters. 

I also think that girl readers of HP can identify with many of 
Harry's qualities and reactions.  Feelings aren't male or female-
anyone can feel unloved, misunderstood, unsure of one's identity, 
anxious in a new situation-and that's just book one!  

My problem with Molly wasn't that she's an at-home mom or that she's 
loving and protective.  It's that she was cruel to someone who 
didn't deserve it at all (most uncharateristically of her) and who 
could have benefitted from some love and understanding himself.  I 
think she made a difficult situation worse, and she had every reason 
to know better, having had the benefit of over 20 years of happy 
family life and knowing how rare that is, in the WW or anywhere 
else. Petunia doesn't get the same amount of flak for her 
overindulgence of Dudley because we don't think, judging from what 
JKR shows us, that she could do any better.  In terms of her 
mothering technique, she's a lost cause.  And let's face it, Dudley 
would have been better off if Petunia *had* gone to work and left 
the child-rearing to someone else.  In this respect, JKR is utterly 
realistic-an at-home mom doesn't necessarily lead to emotionally 
well-balanced kids, and a mom with a paying job doesn't necessarily 
lead to love-deprived kids.  

Kneasy, I do think that you're overstating the case to a degree.  I 
don't think anyone is suggesting that women be forced into the 
workplace whether they want to be there or not.  I don't think that 
listees believe that at-home mothers are inferior in some way to 
working (outside the home, that is) mothers.  And feminism is a bit 
more than fashion-it's a global liberation movement that may be the 
most profound source of societal change since the Industrial 
Revolution.  But you have, perhaps inadvertently, put your finger on 
the core of the problem.  

Based on the experiences I've had, the women I know and what I've 
read, I believe that women are indeed insecure in their choices.  
There's good reason for that-in our society, women are wrong no 
matter what they do.  If you have kids and stay home, you're not 
living up to your potential, turning into a vegetable, not being a 
good role model for your kids, etc. etc.  If you have kids and go to 
work, you are putting your selfish interests above your kids, trying 
to be too much like a man, not being a good role model for your 
kids, etc. etc.  So yeah, I think women are constantly re-evaluating 
their choices and fearing that they made bad ones.  We have yet to 
affirm as a culture that *both* working outside the home and staying 
home are good, valid, valuable choices.  Some of the recent 
discussions here on the list have been these anxieties spilling 
over, I think.  

<snip>
Hoping that Kneasy enjoys a speedy return to emotional equilibrium-

Laura, at home mom who's still waiting for the bonbons ;-)