Shorter Dana Goldstein: Because J.K. Rowling, in the course of writing a fantasy saga that takes as a central theme the evils of racism, chauvinism and sexism, and the importance of treating all sentient creatures with respect, did not also suggest that heredity and family lineage are completely meaningless, that women and men are completely identical in every respect, and that there are no ingrained cultural differences between different intelligent species, such as humans and goblins, she is a Tool of the Patriarchy.
« Spinning the Cocoon | Main | Links on a Friday Afternoon »
Harry Potter and the Progressive Scolds
27 Jul 2007 02:15 pm
Comments (13)
Since Ross is on a Progressive-bashing spree, I'd just like to point out that I also thought Goldstein's commentary was way off-base.
I agree with Matt Y that there's nothing inherently wrong with analyzing the political assumptions in works of pop culture. I would also agree that there are a set of conventions in fantasy literature that aren't terribly friendly to progressive ideals. But it's absurd to suggest that the Harry Potter series embraces those conventions uncritically.
True, the unsubtle anti-racist and anti-sexist message of the books fails to reach a Bitch Magazine level of shrillness. But it seems a bit odd that anyone could read the seventh book, in which Harry is repeatedly saved by a girl who is obviously smarter than he is, while fighting a fascist enemy obsessed with racial purity, and complain about the book's insufficiently progressive values.
To be fair, though, aesthetic Stalinism is a decidedly bipartisan pastime.
What Ron said. She may be exaggerating, but not nearly as badly as you imply. Perhaps you ought to aim for accuracy instead of good copy.
Shorter Ross Douthat: This straw man is making a really ridiculous and stupid argument. Watch as I effortlessly dismantle his views, which are shared by no one in particular.
Goldstein asserts that in the fantasy genre pretend humanoid species have too often been used as a cover for our reactionary assumptions about different types of real people.
What does that even mean? It's one thing to make an assertion about a fantasy author's reactionary assumptions about different types of real people, although I would expect some actual evidence to support it. But Goldstein talks about "our assumptions," which confuses things. Does "our" refer to the audience? Society in general? Then there's the passive voice "have too often been used as a cover" -- used by whom? The author? Why would the author try to cover up the audience's (or society's) ractionary assumptions? All in all, the statement is damn near unintellible.
I'm no progressive by any means, but I did see a kind of dissonance in her stuff. The house elves really are natural servants. Muggles really are genetically inferior. Her message seems to be two-fold: (1) don't let tradition or pride of ancestry divide the genetically-superior overclass and (2) superior creatures should be kind to inferior creatures and not interfere with their affairs as much as possible.
An egalitarian message this ain't.
And, as several commenters on the Prospect site and Matt's site have pointed out, Goldstein's account that the Griphook/Gringotts episode is meant to be "proof you can't trust goblins" makes no sense at all, because Harry was planning on double-crossing Griphook all along.
You know, I was just on a "Ross is a really thoughtful writer who I like to read despite my obvious political disagreements" kick, and then you had to go act like some Darthmouth Review schmuck. Really, sir, edit thine self. You can do better than anti-PC.
Hmm. What Freddie and Wrongshore said.
Hm, looks like I've been beaten to the punch, but my reaction to this post was: oh, come on. Dana Goldstein doesn't come anywhere close to saying what you're ascribing to her.
I don't particularly care that the cliches of the fantasy genre are anti-egalitarian, but I'd be hardpressed to deny that in most fantasy novels, species type is an easy shortcut for inherent character; that a fairly obvious hierarchy of virtue and intelligence can be read into the species types; and that bloodline is the ultimate determinant of nobility and valor. These are the hoariest of tropes of the genre.
We can argue about how much this actually matters. We can even argue about whether this accurately reflects reality (although I would hope that most would agree it does not). But to suggest that fantasy novels don't actually follow these conventions is a bit bizarre.
The is post reinforces my impression of blogging- the more you read them, the dumber everyone else seems and the smarter I become.
This isn't necessarily a good thing...
Ross exagerates for effect, but not by much. The best defense you can make for Goldstein is that she might not be smart enough to remember what happened in a series of children's books.
On the on hand, if Goldstein seriously believes that the fact that Mrs. Weasley is a homemaker is evidence that Rowling is inflicting crypto-patriarchal values on us, then Ross is dead on. As I've said, though, it seems more likely that she was unable to reach the level of comprehension of the books that most 14 year olds do.
My biggest gripe, though, is that after complaining that goblins, elves, et al are born into "stereotypes" because they are different from humans (!!), Goldstein then laments that that kind of thing would never happen in "sci fi." Has she read any? From the pedestrian (Star Trek:TNG) to the brilliant (Octavia Butler) the idea of aliens with different traits and cognitive patters from humans is a standard of sci fi.
xmvhibun lcqaygfmh vksrn kzpi jcyw npiwgtze ftwixl
| 
Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream
Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class
Well, her article is pretty annoying, but it's not as far-out as you're pretending.
You and Goldstein better not breed-- your kids would be predestined to be pedantic nerds, if Rowling's books and these two posts are accurate.
Posted by Ron Mexico | July 27, 2007 4:09 PM