Cracking good comments thread. Directed here by a Daily Dish post.
As the mother of two HP-obsessed children, I've done my share of thinking about the subtexts of the novels, and I appreciate Bustillos for articulating unpopular opinions forcibly.
No doubt, Rowling's universe is problematic for parents seeking to provide children an alternate way of imagining socioeconomic structures. The subservience of the house elves feels like a monumental fail no matter how I turn it. As an American still committed to tax-funded public education, the mythologizing of the British boarding school system could drive me nuts. The whiteness of the cast(e), the gender imbalance despite Hermione, Luna, Tonks, McGonagall, even the fairly outrageous stereotyping of Durmstrang and Beauxbatons students — problems, all. And the perpetuation of the chosen-hero motif, even with the Neville twist, is definitely worth thinking about.
But here's why I'm thrilled my two girls are HP experts: we have the best conversations. The house elves? We talked about the Civil War and the fact that the song "Lincoln Freed Me Today" exists. Whiteness? Contrasted walk-on parts of Parvarti and Padma with storytelling from the p.o.v. of contemporary Brit Gurinder Chadha (Bend It Like Beckham). The taboo-ing of Voldemort's name? Historical instances of fascism but also the creeping surveillance state — including my rule of having my children's Internet passwords to Club Penguin and to the elder's e-mail account. Dumbledore in all his white, male, elite perfection? They see fallibility, the danger of ambition, and — as @Areya Simmons so described — the importance of love.
About the last: my 7-year-old and I just finished reading Wrinkle in Time, and said 7-year-old saw the role of love in saving Charles Wallace and staving off the dark coming a mile away. I'm pretty sure she thinks L'Engle ripped off Rowling even though I've explained the chronology. Ditto George Lucas.
Maybe the beauty of fictional universes rich enough to entrance kids lies partly in their finite-ness. Kids can get them — and they're savvy enough to see their inconsistencies and their problems, too — and from a position of security begin to try to make sense of their less than ideal reality. The fictional world doesn't have to be Utopia; it just has to get us and our kids asking questions about what's right, what's important, and how we can ease the pain of someone like the young Petunia Evans in a fundamentally unfair world. But my liberal slip is rather showing.
About the Vander Ark lawsuit: it led us to get hold of Willy the Wizard and then talk about Shakespeare, how storytellers work, and whether it matters that Rowling is so wealthy & Vander Ark and Adrian Jacobs are/were not.
None of this disputes Bustillos's points, and I don't want to argue that all stories can be turned to the good with enough work. But I think it's worth noting that, theoretical objections notwithstanding, HP plays a great role in our home. And I bet not only ours.
On Harry Potter and the Incredibly Conservative Aristocratic Children's Club
Cracking good comments thread. Directed here by a Daily Dish post.
As the mother of two HP-obsessed children, I've done my share of thinking about the subtexts of the novels, and I appreciate Bustillos for articulating unpopular opinions forcibly.
No doubt, Rowling's universe is problematic for parents seeking to provide children an alternate way of imagining socioeconomic structures. The subservience of the house elves feels like a monumental fail no matter how I turn it. As an American still committed to tax-funded public education, the mythologizing of the British boarding school system could drive me nuts. The whiteness of the cast(e), the gender imbalance despite Hermione, Luna, Tonks, McGonagall, even the fairly outrageous stereotyping of Durmstrang and Beauxbatons students — problems, all. And the perpetuation of the chosen-hero motif, even with the Neville twist, is definitely worth thinking about.
But here's why I'm thrilled my two girls are HP experts: we have the best conversations. The house elves? We talked about the Civil War and the fact that the song "Lincoln Freed Me Today" exists. Whiteness? Contrasted walk-on parts of Parvarti and Padma with storytelling from the p.o.v. of contemporary Brit Gurinder Chadha (Bend It Like Beckham). The taboo-ing of Voldemort's name? Historical instances of fascism but also the creeping surveillance state — including my rule of having my children's Internet passwords to Club Penguin and to the elder's e-mail account. Dumbledore in all his white, male, elite perfection? They see fallibility, the danger of ambition, and — as @Areya Simmons so described — the importance of love.
About the last: my 7-year-old and I just finished reading Wrinkle in Time, and said 7-year-old saw the role of love in saving Charles Wallace and staving off the dark coming a mile away. I'm pretty sure she thinks L'Engle ripped off Rowling even though I've explained the chronology. Ditto George Lucas.
Maybe the beauty of fictional universes rich enough to entrance kids lies partly in their finite-ness. Kids can get them — and they're savvy enough to see their inconsistencies and their problems, too — and from a position of security begin to try to make sense of their less than ideal reality. The fictional world doesn't have to be Utopia; it just has to get us and our kids asking questions about what's right, what's important, and how we can ease the pain of someone like the young Petunia Evans in a fundamentally unfair world. But my liberal slip is rather showing.
About the Vander Ark lawsuit: it led us to get hold of Willy the Wizard and then talk about Shakespeare, how storytellers work, and whether it matters that Rowling is so wealthy & Vander Ark and Adrian Jacobs are/were not.
None of this disputes Bustillos's points, and I don't want to argue that all stories can be turned to the good with enough work. But I think it's worth noting that, theoretical objections notwithstanding, HP plays a great role in our home. And I bet not only ours.