So. Harry Potter. I know you may not all be huge fans of the books, but I doubt many of you would disagree with the fact that (for better or worse) they have truly made their mark on both the literary world and the world of children's fiction within the past few years. With countless millions (I can't find the exact figure for some reason, if anyone knows it, please help me out!) of copies of the books being sold world-wide, Harry Potter has been undoubtedly far-reaching and successful, and the fandom craze it has created for the fictional wizarding world is testament to how influential these books have been on kids' lives. The thousands of children queuing up to buy the books on their release days in full wizarding garb is perhaps a key example of that. And maybe this is all for the better too, as Rowling explores important themes of love, loss, strength and friendship in her books, without ever patronising her young readership.
But many books explore these themes, so perhaps Rowling isn't that original in that respect, although her portrayal of them would be justifiably described as such. My argument, however, is that the Harry Potter series is one of the only series of its kind and success that strikes a blow for gender equality. And I mean gender equality, not necessarily just feminism. Men and women could both come off the better from their treatment in her books.
One of the ways she does this is by creating real, solid characters, in a believable 360 degree world. Her writing extends far further than the page it's written on, and as a reader, you rarely feel that there are parts of the world that she's forgotten to colour in. By refusing to revert to stereotypes of gender or otherwise in her writing, rather choosing to favour in-depth characterisation, Rowling makes it easy for you to believe as a reader that there is nothing 'inherent' about male or female traits. Men and women, when they are born, are inherently nothing other than human. All the rest comes afterwards.
Our hero is male. One might have thought that to really make a statement about gender equality, the lead character would need to be female, or otherwise perhaps characterised negatively? But we've already said that Rowling isn't consciously writing feminist fiction, and there are ways other than the obvious to make a point. For instance, despite the fact that the main character is male (or perhaps because of this), some of the strongest characters in the books are female – for example, Hermione, Professor McGonagall and Ginny, to name but a few – and their specific characterisation challenges stereotypes about women that have come to be accepted as truth. Hermione, for instance, is portrayed as competent, logical, brave, strong, perceptive and incredibly intelligent, and her role in the story is such that as a reader, you feel that there is no way Harry would be able to survive without her. She embodies a range of traits that are seen as male-oriented (such as extreme logic) and female-oriented (emotionally perceptive). By choosing to throw all these qualities in together, Rowling creates a REAL character – one who is undeniably female, but is never constrained by her sex. There is no sense of her striving to be more masculine in order to be of use, and equally, her looks (which women are taught from a young age to be one of their most valuable assets, or conversely, their biggest curse – more on that another time) rarely come into the equation. They are referred to occasionally, but never in conjunction with her value as a person, and certainly never as a measure of it. She is a character based solely on her merit as a human being, not as a girl.
This may all sound a little heavy, but think about the images young girls are bombarded with consistently by the Hollywood media, for example. Pretty girl is pretty, gets boyfriend. Ugly girl is ugly, has no boyfriend or social life, but then miraculously GETS pretty, so gets boyfriend. Her life is complete. Something to aspire to girls! Girl is career-focused, but never realised that all that she REALLY wanted was a boyfriend. Her life is complete. Ugly girl is intelligent – her saving grace! Thank god, THAT might get her a boyfriend. Pretty, intelligent, career-focused girl – labelled a bitch, because apparently women actually can't have it all. Any diversion from this barrage of stereotypes, in my book, counts as a blessing.
Similarly, Ginny is portrayed as a fiery red-head; kind, impetuous, as brave as all of her brothers, and just as competent. These qualities are only reinforced as positive in the eyes of the reader when she ends up with Harry towards the end of the series (oh so inevitable) – the hero of the books chooses a strong woman, who can fight as well as he can, yet again, never tries to assume a masculine persona. He's not threatened by confident women. Good for him. And good for Rowling.
Professor McGonagall, meanwhile, remains a strong, constant presence throughout the books; fearless, kind and incredibly intelligent. And apparently pretty old. She definitely serves as a reminder that a woman's uses are by no means attached to her youthful beauty. Her looks are never really referred to, but her age is, and yet the impression you're given is not of an aging woman past her prime, but of a woman whose intelligence and knowledge has only deepened with age.
What's more, Rowling doesn't highlight these characters the way one might if you were trying to show how gender-equal you are being. There is no sense of 'LOOK! She's a girl AND she can fight! Who'd have thought?!' She normalises their traits and their contexts, and portrays these things as standard, which of course, in real life, they are, even if they aren't recognised as such. In some ways, there's more of a sense of reality in this elaborately created fantasy world than there is in many 'real-life' novels. How ironic. In terms of gender balance, I mean, I'm not just slightly delusional.
For young girls to read this and realise, even subconsciously, that there are no differences between the sexes in terms of competence, and that their gender does not have to shackle them to being any particular way, no matter what society is telling them, is incredibly important. And in the same way, for boys to read this and to see the exact same thing is equally as important. I may be naïve, but while we lament the phenomenons that spring up around us from these sorts of books, I personally will be hoping that children (and even maybe adults...?) will be taking more away from these books than simply learning a few words of Latin and memorising the hand-movements for Wingardium Leviosa.
I never did that, by the way. Just to clarify.
Part 2 coming soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment