THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum

[Nora Renka]

No: HPFGUIDX 112168

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, annegirl11 at j... wrote:

> I don't mean extra classes, I mean learning things as part of 
> classes and a more wholistic view of education. For example, rather 
> than only studying magical creatures in magical creature class, 
> they also may study art, because drawing is related to studying 
> magical creatures. We're only seeing the "magical" studies, and 
> it's not like we're reading their syllabi or perusing their 
> textbooks. In between all the other stuff going on in the books, 
> who knows what the kids are learning.

Studying art in the context of 'hey kids, draw this animal because 
we're studying it in class' and, say, studying the aesthetics and 
history and practice of drawing are profoundly different things.  
It's like saying 'Yeah, I have to read my textbooks for class--that 
covers what an English class would, right?'  Maybe I am personally 
over-invested, but I want to sing the glories of actually studying 
the humanities for their own sake, *as* art and literature and music 
and philosophy, looking at the kinds of questions that aren't going 
to really be something you can be tested on.  I'm sure that the kids 
do learn something about essay construction and all that from their 
assignments, but they aren't engaged in small-group discussion of 
something that could open up their worldviews, that's for sure.  (I 
suspect Dumbledore would *like* to do something like that, but he's 
already bucking the Ministry somewhat on basic curriculum--I shudder 
to think of how truly unstimulating a completely Ministry-run 
Hogwarts would be.  Oh, wait.  That would be Umbridge's DADA class.)

> I know there's no evidence of this. That's what makes it a theory 
> or a fanwank. I'm just saying it *could* work, that in the magical 
> world, educational topics are divided differently, and taught 
> differently. Maybe even better, so kids don't need to spend an 
> entire year learning algebra before they can apply it to 
> arithmancy. Maybe blending algebra and arithmancy makes learning 
> maths clearer, because it's more relevant.

I do think it's more thematic that there are some things the WW does 
very poorly, and I am not particularly concerned about the charges 
of 'cultural imperialism' that have been made at anyone who posts 
cutting critiques of the WW made from a modern perspective.  It is an 
interesting theory, but it doesn't address exactly what I was 
lamenting the loss of.

>> Hogwarts is a school where you go to learn magic.  The classes are 
>> overwhelmingly practical
> 
> That's what I'm saying: this is the perspective we get from Harry, 
> but maybe it's not the whole story. Maybe Harry (our narrator) just 
> doesn't feel like making note of boring muggle stuff like 
> literature, art, etc. We aren't with him every minute of the day, 
> week, or year.

Hermione doesn't make any mention of it either, which is interesting, 
because coming from Muggle education, she might know something more 
of it.  We know all of these other classes that Harry isn't in 
because of Hermione, we have professors and all that for most of them
 
>> Wizards don't generally do well at logic <snip> They have magic.  
> 
> That sounds like cultural bias to me: they don't learn things the 
> way we do, so their shortcomings must be because of differences 
> from our culture.

Actually, it's a fairly canonical comment that most wizards have 
absolutely no logic, at the end of SS/PS.  That's why the potion 
puzzle is so ingenious--it's going to trip up your average student, 
but not Muggle-raised Hermione.  Many a fanfic has Hermione solving a 
problem that the wizards who don't know how to think like her can't--
not trying to adduce any evidence from fanfic, of course, but it's an 
interesting idea.  (She's the one who works out how to catch and that 
she needs to catch Rita, as well.)  Hermione's logic is something 
that leads her to be critical of things in the WW that other people 
take complacently, and I think she's ultimately going to be partially 
vindicated on SPEW, as Dumbledore has a certain measure of agreement, 
and he was telling us an ontological truth at the end of OotP.

> We just don't know what's going on in the inner workings of the
> Wizard world -- or the inner workings of any adult wizard -- because
> Harry doesn't know.

Sure, we don't.  But we can look at the evidence of people's 
behavior, and that comment above.
 
> Do we have any evidence that those classical musicans weren't 
> wizards? (I honestly don't remember.)

We have no evidence either way, but, again, the separation of worlds 
takes place before almost all of the major genres and styles of what 
we now think of as 'classical' music developed.  No opera, no string 
quartets, absolutely no piano music, no symphonies, no Lieder...and 
I'd note that the cultural isolation of the WW seems pretty strong.  
Dumbledore is a real exception for taking Muggle society and culture 
seriously; he actually understands it, and is canonically the only 
wizard we've seen who really does.  Not to mention, again, that all 
of these genres of music are the result of urbanized culture, a 
phenomenon decidedly lacking in WW Britain.
 
> > Magic is the kind of thing 
> > that helps stifle artistic creation
> 
> Now you're just being an art-fundie. That's like saying the 
> computer is the death of artwork. Photoshop can make things like 
> shading, line, and perspective easier, but if you don't have the 
> talent, you're not going to produce a decent work of art on 
> Photoshop (trust me, I've tried, and I suck as much as I do on 
> paper). Similarly, I don't see why a wizard can't use magic in his 
> art. Imagine the kind of crazy artistic stunts Warhol (some kind of 
> floating, twisting mobias cube thing?), Calder (transmogrifying the 
> Eiffle tower into a self-supporting mobile?), or that guy who put 
> the umbrellas down the LA parkway (umbrellas 400 feet above the 
> parkway?) could pull with magic. 

Sure, people might be able to do that kind of big, flashy, ooh look 
at that it's so COOL art.  (I am not an art fundie, BTW.)  The 
argument is, perhaps, that in many cases, time-saving convenience 
abilities do lead to a kind of laziness.  Portrait painting, so far 
as we've seen, is strongly oriented towards the magical portraits 
that preserve a part of the essence of a person--when you can get 
that close to real life, why bother developing anything else?


> Hieronomyous Bosh was *totally* in touch with the dark arts, yo. 
> What a wacko.

Heh.  Saw one of my favorite Bosch paintings this summer.  But I 
think not. :)

> Basically, it comes down to this: we're only seeing things through 
> Harry's extremely limited, rather self-absorbed perspective; this 
> is a kid who still goggles at common items in the wizarding world 
> when he's spent 5 years there. Considering the level of detail JKR 
> has put into her books, and the copious notes she took while 
> constructing her world, we are safe to assume that there's *much* 
> more to the wizarding world than Hogwarts.

This is partially true.  I've grown to be very wary of the 'Harry's 
perspective' argument, because it's so often used as a 'I can 
postulate what I want even though there's no evidence or it's 
actually contradicted, but it's just being filtered through Harry'.  
Should JKR come out and give us more details and this all be 
contradicted, I will bow gracefully.

But to invoke the fuzzy pink bunny for a moment; isn't it interesting 
from a literary perspective that, even if it's 'actually' there, we 
don't get shown these art/music/drama classes?  Their omission, even 
if they do form an actual part of the Hogwarts background, is 
something that makes at least a few readers go 'guh?'--conspicious by 
their absence, we might say.  I hate to argue from a lack, because 
it's a good way to get smacked in the ass in the Potterverse, but 
this is one I'll run with until contraindicated.

> > We also know (per interview) that there are not wizarding 
> > universities
> 
> So? Maybe they have other traditions for higher learning.
> Apprenticeships, independent study, a general attitude that you 
> don't stop learning once you leave school. College isn't the be-all-
> end-all of gud lurning, and a lot of people would question its use 
> in modern society. If Wizards have a better way to orient 
> themselves to the adult, working world than spending 4 years hiding 
> from it in a glorified summer camp (yes, I'm a recent grad - cum 
> laude, dean's list - who can't find a job), power to them.

I'd feel your pain, except I'm in graduate school and therefore work 
hard all the time...

The problem is, if you really want to train people to do intellectual 
things at a high level, you need a lot of resources, no matter what 
the subject area is.  Books (which are expensive, especially when you 
want a large and comphrensive collection), experienced people who 
know their stuff, other students to generate ideas with and argue 
with, and a place to do it all.  I have my money on some sort of 
Apprentice system, but generally, if you're looking to develop 
anything original of a fairly high caliber, you need that community.

There's certainly a strongly limited freedom of the press in the 
WW; 'Daily Prophet' and the inherent pun there says it all.  Maybe 
Hermione isn't reading the WW equivalent of 'The Atlantic Monthly' 
yet, but it's significant (yet probably there mainly for plot 
reasons) that they end up going to a tabloid to get their story out.  
OotP and the WW government do not exactly paint a nice picture of a 
society engaged in free exchange of ideas and debate, though.

-Nora goes to do some re-re-research