Rowling Reconsidered: Part 1
J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling 10h ago
All I've done so far this week is change three characters' genders and I still don't know whether their current genitalia are permanent.
This is a post I've been meaning to write for a little while and J.K. Rowling's tweet today is too good of a lead-in to miss. I'm using my Lockhart icon not to indicate that I'm using this post to toot my own horn (I mean, no more than every post has that ultimate purpose) but to reflect that it will include more than the usual recommended daily allowance of self-quoting from my past posts.
Ten years ago, I was interested in the formation of the critical assessment of J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series, which was beginning to emerge with the publication of the next-to-last book and in anticipation of the final book. I was curious about how (if at all) the discussions, jokes, memes, rants, and enthusiasms posted on the internet by us, the "original fans" of the series, would contribute to the future critical consensus. My opinion--possibly outrageously Lockhartian--was that we, the fandom, would have some effect. Here's how I put it in an essay I posted in the Scribbulus section of the Leaky Cauldron website:
while the critical consensus is bound to change and evolve over time, we--the original Harry Potter readers--are providing the starting point. We are bending the twig from which the tree of critical response will grow.
And in a discussion on my LJ with a fellow fan of more Slytherfen-ish sympathies, I said the following:
go_back_chief: I also think there are some weaknesses now, that will no doubt improve when she's written more; it's something you can notice from book to book sometimes, but we should remember that this is the only story she's written so far, even though it's six books.
angua9: I feel that I will be in a much better position to judge Rowling's strengths and weaknesses as a writer when (if) I have the opportunity to read other works by her. It isn't clear to me now which things are HP (or Harry, even), which things are due to the intended audience, and which things are Rowling. It seems to me that I can see improvements in her writing abilities so far (especially in the early ones), but there's not much she can do at this point to change or improve her initial vision.
And, of course, judging an unfinished work is always tricky.
Well, the work is no longer unfinished. And I have since read four other books written by J.K. Rowling, five if you count The Tales of Beedle the Bard. In addition, we know a fair amount about an upcoming movie (Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them) scripted by her and an upcoming two-part stage play (The Cursed Child) created with her approval and collaboration.
So how about it then? What do we think now of the topics we were hotly debating in 2006 and 2007? Are her books unfeminist, fat-phobic, full of plot-holes and bad messages, "Calvinistic" in morality, unsatisfying in romance, and supportive of slavery? Or, more specifically, does our NEW information provide any resolution to our OLD debates?
Obviously, this discussion will involve some degree of spoilers for The Casual Vacancy and the Cormoran Strike books, but I will try not to say anything too revealing. I definitely won't reveal the identity of the murderer in the three mystery novels.
Now, I Consider Myself to Be a Feminist
My section heading is a direct quote from Rowling. Here is the context:
Very early on in writing the series, I remember a female journalist saying to me that Mrs Weasley, ‘Well, you know, she’s just a mother.’ And I was absolutely incensed by that comment. Now, I consider myself to be a feminist, and I’d always wanted to show that just because a woman has made a choice, a free choice to say, ‘Well, I’m going to raise my family and that’s going to be my choice. I may go back to a career, I may have a career part time, but that’s my choice.’ Doesn’t mean that that’s all she can do. And as we proved there in that little battle, Molly Weasley comes out and proves herself the equal of any warrior on that battlefield.
Here is an earlier quote from her on the same subject (possibly with the self-same journalist referred to above):
McCormick: This is a question from Bridget from Toronto, and she's 12. Bridget's wondering, "Why did you create a magical society where men and women play such traditional roles? It seems most of the women Wizards pitter and patter around the house while the men do all the dark work."
Rowling: [laughs] That's not entirely true, because if you look at Professor McGonagall, she's a very, very powerful witch, and she's in a position of power. And in fact, if you look at the Hogwarts' staff - I had this discussion with someone the other day - it is exactly 50/50. Although it is true that you do have a headmaster as opposed to a headmistress, but that has not always been the case. As you will find out, there have been equal numbers of headmistresses.
Do Witches patter around the house? No. Mrs. Weasley stays at home, but if you think it's easy raising seven children, including Fred and George Weasley, then I pity... [laughs] Women who've had seven children will not see that as a soft option.
But no, I don't think that's true. I've said this before. I sometimes feel frustrated in that I'm just over halfway through the series. It's like being interrupted halfway through a sentence and someone saying, "I know what you're going to say." No, you don't. When I've finished, then we can have this discussion, because at the end of book seven, then I can talk about everything in a full and frank way. But right at the moment we're only halfway through.
So we can clearly see that one of Rowling's goals is to be a feminist writer, to support, broadly speaking, equal rights and equal respect for girls and boys and for women and men, and to recognize that at the present moment in history the world isn't equally respectful and supportive of girls and boys, that women still, today, are discriminated against and treated unfairly. Here is another of her quotes on the subject:
I think writing about the time in Hermione’s life that I write about - growing from childhood into womanhood, literally, I think it brought back to me how very difficult it is. So much is expected of you as you become a woman, and often you are asked to sacrifice parts of you in becoming a girl, I would say. Hermione doesn’t.
Of course, there are many who would and will argue that Rowling failed to reach her goal. I would group their critiques into three categories, in ascending order (in my opinion) of validity:
1 - J.K. Rowling created bad role models--girls and women who are weak, passive, pining away for boys/men, filling stereotypical jobs, supporting men rather than achieving in their own right, etc.
I argued ten years ago and still believe that this is mostly nonsense, that it can be easily overturned by simply comparing Rowling's girls and women to her boys and men, who can just as easily be described as weak, passive, pining away, filling stereotypically feminine/inferior jobs and roles, etc. I think that this complaint is mostly in the eye (and prejudices) of the beholder rather than the creator and is primarily an example of how many women (and some men) judge women (real and fictional) in harsh, unrealistic ways. My friend peachespig put it very well:
The awful thing about prejudices is that we all know them, we've got them stored in our heads, and even if we don't actively think we believe them, they can creep into our perception when we're not paying attention. The sense I am getting from some people is that it's the author's duty to actively and explicitly describe a character in a positive, non-stereotyping light so as to counteract the negative picture we may otherwise allow to creep in of our own accord. That is, she's failing if she simply calls Slughorn very fat and then goes on to describe his colorful personality, because such a neutral statement leaves room for us readers to "fill in the blanks" with our assumptions that "fat" is meant negatively.
That is to say, I think they'd only be satisfied if she was so explicitly positive about his weight that we were left with no mental room to think anything about him but sunshine and daisies. Of course, in that case they'd probably hate his character as dull and pastede on and savage her for that.
So, while there probably is material in The Casual Vacancy and the three published Cormoran Strike books that would apply to this issue, I didn't notice it and won't be discussing it. And, insofar as this criticism was related to the characters being alleged "bad role models" for children, the fact that these four books were targeted toward adults make them irrelevant to this issue. As for the movie and the play, I simply don't know enough about them yet to have an opinion.
2 - J.K. Rowling sees and portrays the two main sexes in an essentialist way--that she believes and shows that "girls (or women) are like this and boys (or men) are like that."
This is based mostly on certain times Rowling used particular phrases in interview quotes, almost always protesting what she believed was unwise crushing on Draco or Snape:
It’s a romantic, but unhealthy, and unfortunately all too common delusion of - delusion, there you go - of girls, and you [nods to Melissa] will know this, that they are going to change someone.
and (about Lily and James):
MA: How did they get together? She hated James, from what we’ve seen.
JKR: Did she really? You’re a woman, you know what I’m saying. [Laughter]
You can take quotes like this and apply them to portions of the book that seem clearly to demonstrate that Rowling sees overall differences in girls and boys--for instance, that girls mature earlier when it comes to romance, that girls are less prone to physical aggression and rebellion against authority, that they cry more readily, even that girls are less physically courageous than boys.
On the other hand, well, two things. One is that the portrayal in the book might be based on realism rather than essentialism--perhaps the girls in the books have those qualities because girls really are, on the whole, less aggressive than boys or they do actually mature sexually at an earlier age. Or, perhaps, Rowling is accurately portraying that at the time her books were set (in the Wizarding world, like the Muggle world) girls are socialized to be more rule-conforming than boys, more attuned to other people's feelings, less risk-taking, etc.
Also, while it is easy to argue that the girls and women in the books are, on the whole, more likely to have this or that quality than boys, it is hard-to-impossible in these long, bustling, incident-crowded books to say that ALL girls or women are this way or that way. There are plenty of incidents of female violence and risk-taking. Think of the dueling scene in Chamber of Secrets where the only dueling pair to resort to physical scuffling is Hermione and Millicent Bulstrode. Or think of Bellatrix Lestrange as opposed to other Death Eaters. Or, if you're looking at early maturity when it comes to romance, consider Neville's reaction to the Yule Ball. When it comes to crying, we can think of plenty of females who cry, but there is also Hagrid.
If Rowling were truly, completely essentialist, there ought to be NO counter-examples. But what we find is that there are fewer. This seems like sort of a compromise between making a world that will feel comfortable and familiar to readers in our actually-quite-sexist society and making a world where people who don't conform to gender stereotypes (whether overwhelmingly, or just in certain aspects) will find a place to exist and characters to identify with.
If we look at Rowling's non-HP books, I see the same kind of thing. For instance, Robin Ellacott in the first Cormoran Strike book is newly engaged and bursting with the excitement of that state, eager to buy bridal magazines and share the news with her friends, who receive it "with either squeals of excitement or envious comments, which gave Robin equal pleasure." We definitely get the impression that generally, on the whole, women are excited about weddings. In a later book, Robin is portrayed as impatient with and uninterested in the details of planning her wedding, due to being preoccupied with much more urgent worries (and, possibly, to her having doubts about going though with it). But this is a single counter-example, placed against a general portrayal of Robin and other women being, well, girly about weddings.
Similarly, Robin is shown to be a particularly skilled and experienced driver, more so than the "hero" Strike, which seems like a counter-example to a stereotype. However, just before we are first shown Robin's skills in a dramatic manner, we see this:
At least, Strike noted with relief, Robin could drive. His sister, Lucy, was distractible and unreliable behind the wheel. Charlotte had always driven her Lexus in a manner that caused Strike physical pain: speeding through red lights, turning up one-way streets, smoking and chatting on her mobile, narrowly missing cyclists and the opening doors of parked cars...
In a later book, Strike reflects again on Robin's competent driving and thinks again of Poor Women Drivers He Has Known--Lucy and Charlotte again, and his Aunt Joan and a former colleague as well.
It is almost like Rowling feels awkward about claiming such an ability for her female co-protagonist and "makes up for it" by giving us multiple examples of in-universe females who are rotten drivers so we won't feel it is unrealistic for Robin to be superb. Which... okay, and it is also character development--that Cormoran is somewhat sexist but aware of it and trying to be less so. But, really, it's not that weird for a woman to be a good driver. It does happen!
In general, though, Robin is quite traditionally-feminine, which I like. I like that she has a life-long ambition to be a policeman or detective and she's quite good at it, but she's not notably tomboyish or "strong." She's just delightful! As is Cormoran Strike! Clearly I love them both too much to have any objective view about whether or not these books have the flaw of essentialism. However, moving on to the next critique...
3 - J.K. Rowling fails in representation--her books reinforce the idea that boys and men are more important than girls and women, that they are the natural protagonists of stories, and, basically, that the world revolves around them.
I was much struck in the past by how overwhelmingly male the essential actors in the structure of the Harry Potter story are. As I said:
Harry is male. The villain, Voldemort, is male. Harry's primary mentor, Dumbledore, is male. Hagrid, the guide who leads Harry into the magical world, is male. Snape, the ambiguous figure so central to Harry's mystery, is male. Draco Malfoy, Harry's foil and rival, is male. Of the five characters that appeared to J.K. Rowling that very first day on the train -- Harry, Ron, Hagrid, Nearly-Headless Nick, and Peeves -- all five are male. And now we find that -- originally -- the seer who started the whole process was male as well.
Is it only me who finds this absolutely riveting? In the very document I quoted above, we see the juxtaposition of the overwhelmingly masculine main characters with Rowling's careful and conscientious balancing of her Hogwarts faculty to have six males and six females. We have seen her carefully integrate her Quidditch teams, establish female Ministers for Magic and Hogwarts Headmasters back for centuries, give Harry one male and one female best friend, make the Hogwarts founders and the current heads of houses two and two, and do all sorts of things to achieve gender equity, to get away from male domination. And yet, at the very heart of the story, in the most important roles, we have (with the exception of Lily) male after male after male after male.
So, yeah, I quoted Rowling above saying "Although it is true that you do have a headmaster as opposed to a headmistress, but that has not always been the case. As you will find out, there have been equal numbers of headmistresses." This may well be true, but if we look at the headmasters who actually have lines in the books, they are Armando Dippet (Tom Riddle's headmaster), Phineas Nigellus, and Dumbledore, three MALES. And, of course, Snape, which makes four. And, sure, we're told that my beloved McGonagall became headmaster next but, goshdarnitall, the series was already over so we don't see her doing it.
Similarly, we may hear about female Ministers for Magic, but during the time of the book series we see Fudge, Scrimgeour, and Thicknesse, with Kingsley Shacklebolt to succeed next. Not a woman to be seen.
But, as suggestive as this might all seem, when it comes right down to it, we didn't have a sufficient sample size to make a determination. Or, to quote myself again:
We're working with a sample size of exactly one here. On this particular issue, the entire Harry Potter series isn't any different from a short story.
As we all know, if you hire one tall white thin heterosexual married male, that might be because he's simply the best person for the job. But if your organization is filled to the brim with tall white thin heterosexual married males in all the important roles, people are going to start drawing certain conclusions. Well, now we have a sample size of five, and the news isn't good:
Harry Potter: Male
Discussion above.
The Casual Vacancy: Male
This isn't as clear as the other works, but I would argue the protagonist is Barry Fairbrother, the man who dies at the beginning of the book. The rest of the novel is an examination of his importance by way of the (negative) results of his absence. Like Harry Potter, he has a likable and competent female lieutenant, Parminder Jawanda, but (again like Harry and Hermione) it is clear that Barry has qualities that Parminder lacks, qualities that make him the "hero" and her the helpful supporter. Also, at the end of the book it is revealed that Barry might, we hope, have a successor who is female. But this story is not told and, like Minerva McGonagall, we don't see her in action.
Cormoran Strike novels: Male
Yes, Robin Ellacott is also a protagonist and her point of view is shown as well as his, but there is never any doubt that Strike is the primary protagonist and Robin is the secondary protagonist. Strike is older than Robin, more experienced, better at the job, and is actually her boss, who trains her and gives her orders. He is the one who solves all three murder mysteries--Robin has insights and realizations for smaller portions of the mystery but it is always Strike (so far) who puts it all together at the end. And, just to be clear, my copies of the second and third books both say "A Cormoran Strike Novel" on the front cover. Again, we see the hero and the helpful and competent female lieutenant.
The Cursed Child: Male
It is already clear that the protagonist of this play is Albus Severus Potter. It seems that Harry is a secondary protagonist and of course he is male as well. This need not have been. Al has a sister who could have been the protagonist, though I think almost anyone reading the Deathly Hallows epilogue would choose Al for the sequel. And, of course, that was again Rowling's choice to make the most evocative and appealing of the next-generation characters male. We don't know yet, but it seems likely that Rose Weasley, Al's cousin who is in his class year, will have a secondary, supporting role, possibly similar to Hermione's role in Harry's story (since Ron says Rose has inherited her mother's brains).
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them: Male
It seems clear that Newt Scamander is the protagonist of the film. It looks like there is a secondary female character, Porpentina Goldstein, who seems well-set to be a competent female helper and extremely likely to also be a love interest.
I don't think there's any room, now, to argue that J.K. Rowling's central story creator, wherever it is in her subconscious or unconscious or whatever, isn't deeply sexist. When she thinks of active protagonists who do things, who make a story, who are important, she thinks of males. This is probably good in terms of her sales numbers and the popularity of her books. In fact, when she was trying to get her detective series to the public under a pseudonym, she chose a male identity, probably wise considering the kind of story she was offering: action adventure mystery starring an ex-military investigator.
And, as long as she continues to devote most of her writing time to the Cormoran Strike series---and she has said that she envisions at least seven more books---this will not change. It may be quite a while before Rowling explores her feminine side. Though ... I would not be surprised if at some point Robin takes over the Cormoran Strike books---or at least becomes a truly equal protagonist.
Twelve Fail-Safe Ways to Charm Witches
Before I leave the subject of J.K. Rowling's feminism, I want to say one more thing. In that previous era of ten years ago, I contrasted Rowling with Ursula LeGuin, saying that LeGuin was consciously writing on a theme of feminism and Rowling wasn't:
It seems to me that LeGuin's stories (many of them) are about feminism, in a structural thematic way. And yet LeGuin, not Rowling, is the one who wrote "weak as women's magic." I think one of the reasons Rowling tries to be "fair," if that's the right word, is that feminism is totally not what she's writing about. I don't think she wants it (consciously or unconsciously) to be an issue. LeGuin, of course, very much does.
That is no longer true. I think the third Cormoran Strike novel, Career of Evil, is very much about feminism, or more specifically about misogyny and the effect it has on women's lives. The bad guy/murderer is motivated by misogyny in much the same way that Voldemort is motivated by pureblood prejudice in the Harry Potter series. There are many details about the book that tie into this theme. One is the corrosive effect of street harassment making Robin's job more difficult and unpleasant. Another is the way the murderer constantly thinks of her as "The Secretary", when we see her angered/hurt when others refer to her as Strike's secretary. And, of course, the general plot is that the villain decides to take his revenge on Cormoran Strike, a man, by killing and mutilating women. Because, basically, he gets off on killing and mutilating women. And his point-of-view narrative is a constant stream of hating and denigrating women.
I'd even argue that Robin's entire story and character, her relationship with her family, her fiancé, and Strike, and everything that happens to her is consciously feminist in a way Hermione's or Parminder's or McGonagall's story isn't. I think ... that's progress?
And I will be especially interested in what the "Fantastic Beasts" movie offers on this topic. Certainly the setting (1920's New York) offers opportunities for feminism.
Well, this is plenty long for an LJ post and I've only covered my first subject (and the most interesting one to me), feminism. So the other subjects of debate will be covered in a subsequent post or posts.
All I've done so far this week is change three characters' genders and I still don't know whether their current genitalia are permanent.
This is a post I've been meaning to write for a little while and J.K. Rowling's tweet today is too good of a lead-in to miss. I'm using my Lockhart icon not to indicate that I'm using this post to toot my own horn (I mean, no more than every post has that ultimate purpose) but to reflect that it will include more than the usual recommended daily allowance of self-quoting from my past posts.
Ten years ago, I was interested in the formation of the critical assessment of J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series, which was beginning to emerge with the publication of the next-to-last book and in anticipation of the final book. I was curious about how (if at all) the discussions, jokes, memes, rants, and enthusiasms posted on the internet by us, the "original fans" of the series, would contribute to the future critical consensus. My opinion--possibly outrageously Lockhartian--was that we, the fandom, would have some effect. Here's how I put it in an essay I posted in the Scribbulus section of the Leaky Cauldron website:
while the critical consensus is bound to change and evolve over time, we--the original Harry Potter readers--are providing the starting point. We are bending the twig from which the tree of critical response will grow.
And in a discussion on my LJ with a fellow fan of more Slytherfen-ish sympathies, I said the following:
go_back_chief: I also think there are some weaknesses now, that will no doubt improve when she's written more; it's something you can notice from book to book sometimes, but we should remember that this is the only story she's written so far, even though it's six books.
angua9: I feel that I will be in a much better position to judge Rowling's strengths and weaknesses as a writer when (if) I have the opportunity to read other works by her. It isn't clear to me now which things are HP (or Harry, even), which things are due to the intended audience, and which things are Rowling. It seems to me that I can see improvements in her writing abilities so far (especially in the early ones), but there's not much she can do at this point to change or improve her initial vision.
And, of course, judging an unfinished work is always tricky.
Well, the work is no longer unfinished. And I have since read four other books written by J.K. Rowling, five if you count The Tales of Beedle the Bard. In addition, we know a fair amount about an upcoming movie (Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them) scripted by her and an upcoming two-part stage play (The Cursed Child) created with her approval and collaboration.
So how about it then? What do we think now of the topics we were hotly debating in 2006 and 2007? Are her books unfeminist, fat-phobic, full of plot-holes and bad messages, "Calvinistic" in morality, unsatisfying in romance, and supportive of slavery? Or, more specifically, does our NEW information provide any resolution to our OLD debates?
Obviously, this discussion will involve some degree of spoilers for The Casual Vacancy and the Cormoran Strike books, but I will try not to say anything too revealing. I definitely won't reveal the identity of the murderer in the three mystery novels.
Now, I Consider Myself to Be a Feminist
My section heading is a direct quote from Rowling. Here is the context:
Very early on in writing the series, I remember a female journalist saying to me that Mrs Weasley, ‘Well, you know, she’s just a mother.’ And I was absolutely incensed by that comment. Now, I consider myself to be a feminist, and I’d always wanted to show that just because a woman has made a choice, a free choice to say, ‘Well, I’m going to raise my family and that’s going to be my choice. I may go back to a career, I may have a career part time, but that’s my choice.’ Doesn’t mean that that’s all she can do. And as we proved there in that little battle, Molly Weasley comes out and proves herself the equal of any warrior on that battlefield.
Here is an earlier quote from her on the same subject (possibly with the self-same journalist referred to above):
McCormick: This is a question from Bridget from Toronto, and she's 12. Bridget's wondering, "Why did you create a magical society where men and women play such traditional roles? It seems most of the women Wizards pitter and patter around the house while the men do all the dark work."
Rowling: [laughs] That's not entirely true, because if you look at Professor McGonagall, she's a very, very powerful witch, and she's in a position of power. And in fact, if you look at the Hogwarts' staff - I had this discussion with someone the other day - it is exactly 50/50. Although it is true that you do have a headmaster as opposed to a headmistress, but that has not always been the case. As you will find out, there have been equal numbers of headmistresses.
Do Witches patter around the house? No. Mrs. Weasley stays at home, but if you think it's easy raising seven children, including Fred and George Weasley, then I pity... [laughs] Women who've had seven children will not see that as a soft option.
But no, I don't think that's true. I've said this before. I sometimes feel frustrated in that I'm just over halfway through the series. It's like being interrupted halfway through a sentence and someone saying, "I know what you're going to say." No, you don't. When I've finished, then we can have this discussion, because at the end of book seven, then I can talk about everything in a full and frank way. But right at the moment we're only halfway through.
So we can clearly see that one of Rowling's goals is to be a feminist writer, to support, broadly speaking, equal rights and equal respect for girls and boys and for women and men, and to recognize that at the present moment in history the world isn't equally respectful and supportive of girls and boys, that women still, today, are discriminated against and treated unfairly. Here is another of her quotes on the subject:
I think writing about the time in Hermione’s life that I write about - growing from childhood into womanhood, literally, I think it brought back to me how very difficult it is. So much is expected of you as you become a woman, and often you are asked to sacrifice parts of you in becoming a girl, I would say. Hermione doesn’t.
Of course, there are many who would and will argue that Rowling failed to reach her goal. I would group their critiques into three categories, in ascending order (in my opinion) of validity:
1 - J.K. Rowling created bad role models--girls and women who are weak, passive, pining away for boys/men, filling stereotypical jobs, supporting men rather than achieving in their own right, etc.
I argued ten years ago and still believe that this is mostly nonsense, that it can be easily overturned by simply comparing Rowling's girls and women to her boys and men, who can just as easily be described as weak, passive, pining away, filling stereotypically feminine/inferior jobs and roles, etc. I think that this complaint is mostly in the eye (and prejudices) of the beholder rather than the creator and is primarily an example of how many women (and some men) judge women (real and fictional) in harsh, unrealistic ways. My friend peachespig put it very well:
The awful thing about prejudices is that we all know them, we've got them stored in our heads, and even if we don't actively think we believe them, they can creep into our perception when we're not paying attention. The sense I am getting from some people is that it's the author's duty to actively and explicitly describe a character in a positive, non-stereotyping light so as to counteract the negative picture we may otherwise allow to creep in of our own accord. That is, she's failing if she simply calls Slughorn very fat and then goes on to describe his colorful personality, because such a neutral statement leaves room for us readers to "fill in the blanks" with our assumptions that "fat" is meant negatively.
That is to say, I think they'd only be satisfied if she was so explicitly positive about his weight that we were left with no mental room to think anything about him but sunshine and daisies. Of course, in that case they'd probably hate his character as dull and pastede on and savage her for that.
So, while there probably is material in The Casual Vacancy and the three published Cormoran Strike books that would apply to this issue, I didn't notice it and won't be discussing it. And, insofar as this criticism was related to the characters being alleged "bad role models" for children, the fact that these four books were targeted toward adults make them irrelevant to this issue. As for the movie and the play, I simply don't know enough about them yet to have an opinion.
2 - J.K. Rowling sees and portrays the two main sexes in an essentialist way--that she believes and shows that "girls (or women) are like this and boys (or men) are like that."
This is based mostly on certain times Rowling used particular phrases in interview quotes, almost always protesting what she believed was unwise crushing on Draco or Snape:
It’s a romantic, but unhealthy, and unfortunately all too common delusion of - delusion, there you go - of girls, and you [nods to Melissa] will know this, that they are going to change someone.
and (about Lily and James):
MA: How did they get together? She hated James, from what we’ve seen.
JKR: Did she really? You’re a woman, you know what I’m saying. [Laughter]
You can take quotes like this and apply them to portions of the book that seem clearly to demonstrate that Rowling sees overall differences in girls and boys--for instance, that girls mature earlier when it comes to romance, that girls are less prone to physical aggression and rebellion against authority, that they cry more readily, even that girls are less physically courageous than boys.
On the other hand, well, two things. One is that the portrayal in the book might be based on realism rather than essentialism--perhaps the girls in the books have those qualities because girls really are, on the whole, less aggressive than boys or they do actually mature sexually at an earlier age. Or, perhaps, Rowling is accurately portraying that at the time her books were set (in the Wizarding world, like the Muggle world) girls are socialized to be more rule-conforming than boys, more attuned to other people's feelings, less risk-taking, etc.
Also, while it is easy to argue that the girls and women in the books are, on the whole, more likely to have this or that quality than boys, it is hard-to-impossible in these long, bustling, incident-crowded books to say that ALL girls or women are this way or that way. There are plenty of incidents of female violence and risk-taking. Think of the dueling scene in Chamber of Secrets where the only dueling pair to resort to physical scuffling is Hermione and Millicent Bulstrode. Or think of Bellatrix Lestrange as opposed to other Death Eaters. Or, if you're looking at early maturity when it comes to romance, consider Neville's reaction to the Yule Ball. When it comes to crying, we can think of plenty of females who cry, but there is also Hagrid.
If Rowling were truly, completely essentialist, there ought to be NO counter-examples. But what we find is that there are fewer. This seems like sort of a compromise between making a world that will feel comfortable and familiar to readers in our actually-quite-sexist society and making a world where people who don't conform to gender stereotypes (whether overwhelmingly, or just in certain aspects) will find a place to exist and characters to identify with.
If we look at Rowling's non-HP books, I see the same kind of thing. For instance, Robin Ellacott in the first Cormoran Strike book is newly engaged and bursting with the excitement of that state, eager to buy bridal magazines and share the news with her friends, who receive it "with either squeals of excitement or envious comments, which gave Robin equal pleasure." We definitely get the impression that generally, on the whole, women are excited about weddings. In a later book, Robin is portrayed as impatient with and uninterested in the details of planning her wedding, due to being preoccupied with much more urgent worries (and, possibly, to her having doubts about going though with it). But this is a single counter-example, placed against a general portrayal of Robin and other women being, well, girly about weddings.
Similarly, Robin is shown to be a particularly skilled and experienced driver, more so than the "hero" Strike, which seems like a counter-example to a stereotype. However, just before we are first shown Robin's skills in a dramatic manner, we see this:
At least, Strike noted with relief, Robin could drive. His sister, Lucy, was distractible and unreliable behind the wheel. Charlotte had always driven her Lexus in a manner that caused Strike physical pain: speeding through red lights, turning up one-way streets, smoking and chatting on her mobile, narrowly missing cyclists and the opening doors of parked cars...
In a later book, Strike reflects again on Robin's competent driving and thinks again of Poor Women Drivers He Has Known--Lucy and Charlotte again, and his Aunt Joan and a former colleague as well.
It is almost like Rowling feels awkward about claiming such an ability for her female co-protagonist and "makes up for it" by giving us multiple examples of in-universe females who are rotten drivers so we won't feel it is unrealistic for Robin to be superb. Which... okay, and it is also character development--that Cormoran is somewhat sexist but aware of it and trying to be less so. But, really, it's not that weird for a woman to be a good driver. It does happen!
In general, though, Robin is quite traditionally-feminine, which I like. I like that she has a life-long ambition to be a policeman or detective and she's quite good at it, but she's not notably tomboyish or "strong." She's just delightful! As is Cormoran Strike! Clearly I love them both too much to have any objective view about whether or not these books have the flaw of essentialism. However, moving on to the next critique...
3 - J.K. Rowling fails in representation--her books reinforce the idea that boys and men are more important than girls and women, that they are the natural protagonists of stories, and, basically, that the world revolves around them.
I was much struck in the past by how overwhelmingly male the essential actors in the structure of the Harry Potter story are. As I said:
Harry is male. The villain, Voldemort, is male. Harry's primary mentor, Dumbledore, is male. Hagrid, the guide who leads Harry into the magical world, is male. Snape, the ambiguous figure so central to Harry's mystery, is male. Draco Malfoy, Harry's foil and rival, is male. Of the five characters that appeared to J.K. Rowling that very first day on the train -- Harry, Ron, Hagrid, Nearly-Headless Nick, and Peeves -- all five are male. And now we find that -- originally -- the seer who started the whole process was male as well.
Is it only me who finds this absolutely riveting? In the very document I quoted above, we see the juxtaposition of the overwhelmingly masculine main characters with Rowling's careful and conscientious balancing of her Hogwarts faculty to have six males and six females. We have seen her carefully integrate her Quidditch teams, establish female Ministers for Magic and Hogwarts Headmasters back for centuries, give Harry one male and one female best friend, make the Hogwarts founders and the current heads of houses two and two, and do all sorts of things to achieve gender equity, to get away from male domination. And yet, at the very heart of the story, in the most important roles, we have (with the exception of Lily) male after male after male after male.
So, yeah, I quoted Rowling above saying "Although it is true that you do have a headmaster as opposed to a headmistress, but that has not always been the case. As you will find out, there have been equal numbers of headmistresses." This may well be true, but if we look at the headmasters who actually have lines in the books, they are Armando Dippet (Tom Riddle's headmaster), Phineas Nigellus, and Dumbledore, three MALES. And, of course, Snape, which makes four. And, sure, we're told that my beloved McGonagall became headmaster next but, goshdarnitall, the series was already over so we don't see her doing it.
Similarly, we may hear about female Ministers for Magic, but during the time of the book series we see Fudge, Scrimgeour, and Thicknesse, with Kingsley Shacklebolt to succeed next. Not a woman to be seen.
But, as suggestive as this might all seem, when it comes right down to it, we didn't have a sufficient sample size to make a determination. Or, to quote myself again:
We're working with a sample size of exactly one here. On this particular issue, the entire Harry Potter series isn't any different from a short story.
As we all know, if you hire one tall white thin heterosexual married male, that might be because he's simply the best person for the job. But if your organization is filled to the brim with tall white thin heterosexual married males in all the important roles, people are going to start drawing certain conclusions. Well, now we have a sample size of five, and the news isn't good:
Harry Potter: Male
Discussion above.
The Casual Vacancy: Male
This isn't as clear as the other works, but I would argue the protagonist is Barry Fairbrother, the man who dies at the beginning of the book. The rest of the novel is an examination of his importance by way of the (negative) results of his absence. Like Harry Potter, he has a likable and competent female lieutenant, Parminder Jawanda, but (again like Harry and Hermione) it is clear that Barry has qualities that Parminder lacks, qualities that make him the "hero" and her the helpful supporter. Also, at the end of the book it is revealed that Barry might, we hope, have a successor who is female. But this story is not told and, like Minerva McGonagall, we don't see her in action.
Cormoran Strike novels: Male
Yes, Robin Ellacott is also a protagonist and her point of view is shown as well as his, but there is never any doubt that Strike is the primary protagonist and Robin is the secondary protagonist. Strike is older than Robin, more experienced, better at the job, and is actually her boss, who trains her and gives her orders. He is the one who solves all three murder mysteries--Robin has insights and realizations for smaller portions of the mystery but it is always Strike (so far) who puts it all together at the end. And, just to be clear, my copies of the second and third books both say "A Cormoran Strike Novel" on the front cover. Again, we see the hero and the helpful and competent female lieutenant.
The Cursed Child: Male
It is already clear that the protagonist of this play is Albus Severus Potter. It seems that Harry is a secondary protagonist and of course he is male as well. This need not have been. Al has a sister who could have been the protagonist, though I think almost anyone reading the Deathly Hallows epilogue would choose Al for the sequel. And, of course, that was again Rowling's choice to make the most evocative and appealing of the next-generation characters male. We don't know yet, but it seems likely that Rose Weasley, Al's cousin who is in his class year, will have a secondary, supporting role, possibly similar to Hermione's role in Harry's story (since Ron says Rose has inherited her mother's brains).
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them: Male
It seems clear that Newt Scamander is the protagonist of the film. It looks like there is a secondary female character, Porpentina Goldstein, who seems well-set to be a competent female helper and extremely likely to also be a love interest.
I don't think there's any room, now, to argue that J.K. Rowling's central story creator, wherever it is in her subconscious or unconscious or whatever, isn't deeply sexist. When she thinks of active protagonists who do things, who make a story, who are important, she thinks of males. This is probably good in terms of her sales numbers and the popularity of her books. In fact, when she was trying to get her detective series to the public under a pseudonym, she chose a male identity, probably wise considering the kind of story she was offering: action adventure mystery starring an ex-military investigator.
And, as long as she continues to devote most of her writing time to the Cormoran Strike series---and she has said that she envisions at least seven more books---this will not change. It may be quite a while before Rowling explores her feminine side. Though ... I would not be surprised if at some point Robin takes over the Cormoran Strike books---or at least becomes a truly equal protagonist.
Twelve Fail-Safe Ways to Charm Witches
Before I leave the subject of J.K. Rowling's feminism, I want to say one more thing. In that previous era of ten years ago, I contrasted Rowling with Ursula LeGuin, saying that LeGuin was consciously writing on a theme of feminism and Rowling wasn't:
It seems to me that LeGuin's stories (many of them) are about feminism, in a structural thematic way. And yet LeGuin, not Rowling, is the one who wrote "weak as women's magic." I think one of the reasons Rowling tries to be "fair," if that's the right word, is that feminism is totally not what she's writing about. I don't think she wants it (consciously or unconsciously) to be an issue. LeGuin, of course, very much does.
That is no longer true. I think the third Cormoran Strike novel, Career of Evil, is very much about feminism, or more specifically about misogyny and the effect it has on women's lives. The bad guy/murderer is motivated by misogyny in much the same way that Voldemort is motivated by pureblood prejudice in the Harry Potter series. There are many details about the book that tie into this theme. One is the corrosive effect of street harassment making Robin's job more difficult and unpleasant. Another is the way the murderer constantly thinks of her as "The Secretary", when we see her angered/hurt when others refer to her as Strike's secretary. And, of course, the general plot is that the villain decides to take his revenge on Cormoran Strike, a man, by killing and mutilating women. Because, basically, he gets off on killing and mutilating women. And his point-of-view narrative is a constant stream of hating and denigrating women.
I'd even argue that Robin's entire story and character, her relationship with her family, her fiancé, and Strike, and everything that happens to her is consciously feminist in a way Hermione's or Parminder's or McGonagall's story isn't. I think ... that's progress?
And I will be especially interested in what the "Fantastic Beasts" movie offers on this topic. Certainly the setting (1920's New York) offers opportunities for feminism.
Well, this is plenty long for an LJ post and I've only covered my first subject (and the most interesting one to me), feminism. So the other subjects of debate will be covered in a subsequent post or posts.