Muggles v wizards redux/Pretty Pansy (was: liking Snape)

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 183278

> > Magpie:
> > Almost every single interaction between Hermione and her parents
> > shows them not being respected as parents the way Wizards are.
> 
> Pippin:
> But it's not just wizards vs muggles. Seldom in canon do the haves 
of
> any description treat the have nots with complete respect, even when
> they believe with all their hearts that they should. And seldom in
> canon do the have nots, justly angry at this sort of thing, direct
> their anger (which is to say their energy for change) in a 
completely
> constructive way, even when they think they should. 

Magpei:
So? Those of us arguing for this description of events have said that 
it's reinforced by their society. Treating Muggles badly is one of 
the more acceptable versions. Hermione's relationship with her 
parents goes along with everybody else's view of Muggles and is never 
questioned by anybody. 

Pippin:
> 
> Canon shows that treating people as equals when they differ vastly 
in
> power and competence is not easy.

Magpie:
No, it isn't easy. Even when they're your parents, obviously. 
Nobody's trying to treat them as equals either. The goal of the good 
guys is to be good superiors, not treat them as equals. That's what 
Hermione thinks she's doing as far as I can see. Is it really that 
hard to, for instance, treat a disabled person as basically an equal? 
Why should it be? 

Pippin:
We do see some of that in the epilogue.  If Harry
> failed to return his nod, Draco didn't make an issue of it, and Ron
> didn't make an issue of Scorpius's name.

Magpie:
I don't see anything about it in the epilogue. Harry didn't return 
Draco's nod that I remember hearing about. And it took me a while to 
even realize why Ron not making an issue of Scorpius's name to his 
friends would be significant at all. I guess because of the snigger 
at Draco's name back when he was 11? I think it's clear exactly how 
much of a step forward everybody's taken with Draco. And Ron's the 
one who says "So that's little Scorpius" calling attention to the 
name as if they've already reacted to it in the past.

Pippin:
 But
> while the slapstick description cues us to laugh at the fat 
policeman,
> James and Sirius don't make fun of his appearance or his difficulty
> with the buttons -- definitely a change from the days when they 
teased
> Snape about his looks. The arrogance remains, but the gratuitous
> cruelty is gone.

Magpie:
For me, trying to find some point in stuff that isn't said just 
reinforces how much the books aren't making a point of this at all. 
It never occured to me to read James and Sirius being cheeky to the 
policeman and think of anything to do with Snape or what they weren't 
saying. When Harry calls Dudley stupid I don't assume he's stopped 
noticing he's also fat. Snape's equal to James and Sirius in many 
ways the policemen are not; his looks are a more obvious target.

Pippin: 
> *Of course* the set up is a mind game, one of many in canon.  We're
> cued to read the Muggles as a metaphor for dull and stupid people 
just
> as we're cued to read Snape as a villain and Dumbledore as the
> personification of wisdom and benevolence.  But we find, we have our
> consciousness raised,  that we have to ignore evidence and 
dehumanize
> the characters to do it. 

Magpie:
I agree we're cued to read certain people certain ways--though I 
don't think Muggles work as a metaphor for dull and stupid people. I 
don't believe it's a mindgame or particularly consciousness-raising 
in the way you seem to be describing.  Even the author's interviews 
don't agree-she reinforces the view of the good guys not this 
supposed mindgame where we all realize that the good guys are doing 
it wrong. I think the books more cleverly justify this kind of thing 
than raise consciousness against it. It seems like even raising this 
problem is considered a subversive reading by the majority. Sometimes 
a stupid reading.

Pippin:
> 
>  The larger  point is that using people as metaphors is
> dehumanizing, period. A metaphor is like a patronus -- it's a
> projection with no feelings of its own. It may carry a message, it 
may
> be used to frighten or inspire, but it's just a tool.

Magpie:
So you're suggesting that JKR's point is that her own use of people 
as metaphors is dehumanizing? 

Pippin:
What I see JKR asking me to do is leave the metaphors where
> they belong, in fiction, and respect real people as if their 
thoughts
> and feelings mattered as much as my own.

Magpie:
So the books are all supposed to be "do as I say, not as I do?" 
Because if that's what she was trying I think it failed. And she 
should probably say that's what she was doing instead of explaining 
how good the good guys are (and how the few times she does seem to be 
making that point about seeing people as metaphors or whatever she's 
showing it as a forgiveable side effect of having your heart in the 
right place). I see something completely different in the way she 
writes and what she says about her writing. I just can't prove she's 
not doing that because that's proving a negative. Which I could 
probably also say about the idea that her true intention is to show 
that the DEs are the good guys. And it also seems undercut by the 
claims of progress by the end of the series described above.

Catlady:
Pansy is a pretty girl, apparently fashionable, probably
rich, who is arrogant and a snob and a bully. 

Magpie:
Is she pretty? She's always described as hard-faced or pug-faced. 
She's a snob and a bully, but doesn't seem to really be prettier or 
more fashionable than our heroines. They beat her or at least match 
her in those areas.

-m