HARRY POTTER IV
Round 1

July 2000
==Monica Edinger==

Okay. I know I've filled up mail boxes for all of you who were at ALA.. Well, what can I say, I'm jealous. But at least I had lots of time to finish HP IV. Now, for those who have completed the book. (Again this is a spoiler post so stop reading if you want to approach HP IV with a pure mind.) It was great fun to read. I enjoyed it and pretty much agree with the many enthusiastic reviews. However, no one is perfect and there were things that bothered me.

1. House elves. I've just read Judith Shulevitz's thoughts on them after reading to page 442: "But I can't help feeling a tiny bit uncomfortable at the way the elves speak, which sounds like it was lifted directly from Uncle Tom's Cabin. Actually, there's a more likely source for the elves' habit of marrying the first-person pronoun with the third-person conjugation of "to be," and their excessive use of the progressive tense ("I is not sure you did Dobby a favor, sir, when you is setting him free")--to say nothing of their cringing, wincing, self-flagellating behavior and their conflicted feelings about freedom. That source is grotesquely racist movie portrayals of house servants, black and subcontinental Indian. What exactly is Rowling doing here? Had she suddenly had a lapse in taste? Or will the elf narrative suddenly change in tone, and go from jokey to serious?" (Click to read the referred article -- fcl.) I agree with her. Winky made me really uncomfortable. I couldn't figure out what Rowling was getting at with Hermoine's SPEW. It never was resolved. Was that intentional? The boys didn't seem to get it and Hermoine came off as some sort of extreme PETA-like person. Was that Rowling's intent? Does she want us to think the house elves are truly happy in servitude?

2. Female stereotypes. People have complained about this before, but I must say this book does nothing to allay those complaints. Even Hermoine, much as I like her, comes off as the classic nerdy girl who turns Cinderella at the ball (instead of glasses to take off as usually happens she has bushy hair that was smoothed out for the ball. Wow. She becomes a beauty because of that? Those who've met me know I've got rather bushy hair myself and am always quite a beauty -- joke, joke!!!) We have absolutely no sense of Cho other than that she is evidently a great Seeker and popular (always giggling with friends when mentioned in the text.) Ginny barely figures. Of the adults, the only one who is given much text-time is Mrs. Wesley, the ur-mother. But must she be quite so stereotypic? Why couldn't Harry and Ron couldn't offer to help her as she fussed about in the kitchen, instead of leaving. She doesn't go to the World Cup. And most annoying, when Dumbledore asks if he can count on her and Arthur regarding Voldemort it is Bill who interjects that he will tell his father; why can't Mrs. Wesley have some sort of agency besides that of mothering? Rita Skeeter? What can I say? I guess it is a boy's world, but I do wish there would be one female adult character on the lines of Sirius, Hagrid, even Snape. And Professor McGonagall is not nearly as well-formed in my mind as is Snape.

3. Muggles. I wish there had been more sense of them other than the Dursleys by now, 4/7 the way through the series. If the Malfoys are going to get nastier about Hermoine's half-muggle status it would help to know her parents or some nice/smart Muggles. Is the Voldemort battle going to happen only in the magical world? 4. Voldemort. Who was he? How did he get to this point? We knew a lot more about Darth Vader by this point in the Star Wars series to understand why he went to the Dark Side. I have no clue why Voldemort is so bad. Just because he had a lousy childhood (at Hogwarths)? Because he so hated Harry's dad? And why would people want to follow him? Say Wormtail? Don't get it yet. Pullman, Tolkien and Alexander and others made this much more credible for me. Sure, I'm interested to know what is going to happen, but I don't have the back story here. Voldemort was actually much more scary to me in the earlier books when he was less defined. Any comments?

== Melynda Huskey ==

Dear Monica, You've touched on a couple of things that I, too, am walking around with. I finished the book on Saturday night, and really enjoyed it on the whole. But I can't let go of the house elf issue. And I can't decide where Rowling is going with it. I think, for example of Ron using the expression, "We've been working like house elves," which is clearly formed by analogy to "working like a black," an expression I heard often from white British neighbors who spent many years in Zambia enjoying the fruits of colonialism. Are we intended to see that Ron shares a (genuinely) racist point of view which is common among wizards, and be uncomfortable? Or should we feel that H. is being silly, childish, applying silly Muggle ideas in inappropriate contexts? (House elves aren't human, after all, so how could they have human rights?) Hermione is clever enough not to have settled on SPEW in the first place, frankly. The superficial multiculturalism of HP has always kind of bothered me--here a black kid, there a pair of Indian twins, but all the adults with names are white. And I feel very uncomfortable about the introduction of casual racism in a context where the person objecting to it is portrayed as sweet, but laughable and misguided. It reminds me of the disappointment I felt on my first reading of *The Golden Compass* when I read that most servants had daemons in the form of dogs--as if doing someone else's housework necessarily made you faithful, loyal, not-terribly-bright, but trainable, like Huxley's Deltas in *Strange New World.* Is it not possible to conceive of a fantasy universe which doesn't depend on the willing labor of an "inferior" race which delights in or deserves servitude? On the other hand, the introduction of the giant theme, and Dumbledore's willingness to meet Dobby's terms of employment, as well as his demand that the giants be brought back into negotiations, suggest that perhaps racism will become a major theme in following books--following the "racial purity" thread already introduced in terms of "mudbloods." Goodness knows I hope so. Was anyone else struck by the fact that Harry has to rescue Ron in the underwater challenge? Cedric got Cho, Viktor got Hermione, but Harry got Ron. Is romance blossoming? (Of course not. But my job would certainly be made easier if Harry were to be gay. Imagine the worlds that would rock!) I hate to see McGonagal disappearing as a character--and as poor as the Weasleys' are, why doesn't Mrs. Weasley get a job, for heaven's sake? Does Mr. Weasley ever make a meal? Or any of the brood of boys who live there? Presumably women can be employed outside the home--and not only nosy, stupid women who can easily be kidnapped and deployed by evil, or morally bankrupt journalists and "passing" headmistresses in denial about their gianthood. I'm reminded of an interview given by Susan Cooper in the 70s in which she declared that it was silly to think that novels had to have strong powerful girls in them, that girls were people and boys were people, and girls could just put themselves in the place of boys if they wanted to identify with a character. My niece recently loaned me *Wild Magic* by Tamora Pierce, part of a series in which (I gather) there are lots of active, powerful women. I was mainly struck by the rapid and thorough (hetero)sexualizing of all the women. If they're not married and mothers, they're swooning over the good looks or power or skill of the men around them. But perhaps that's more than enough ranting from me. And despite all this, I did really enjoy the book.

== Monica Edinger ==

Melynda, I too don't want to be overly nitpicky. I liked the book tremendously. But I'm glad you were able to reinforce some of my misgivings. I also forgot to mention Fleur who seemed very much the token female in the competition. And those veelas? I truly am not generally overly fussy about PC issues, but when I think about characters who intrigue me only two females come to mind: Hermione (of course) and Madame Maxime. I was disappointed not to learn more about the latter, but it seems likely, as you point out, that the giants are going to be a presence in the next book so that, no doubt, includes Madame Maxime, big boned as she is. I find all the rest pretty dull. Even Rita who is such a one-note caricature. But I do feel that the most problematical is Mrs. Wesley. I think she could continue to be a nurturer, but still otherwise engaged too. For example, why wasn't she at the World Cup? She could have been there seeing to it they had warm clothes, enough to eat, etc. So why not? Did she have to stay home to mend clothes? And, yes, you are so right, she could have a job. After all, the kids are all at school or work. (I could see her working with garden gnomes, for example.) I had a colleague years ago always complaining about money, but his wife didn't work. Since I teach most of my colleagues were women with families. Needless to say he didn't get a great deal of sympathy from them.

== Kathleen Kelly MacMillan ==

"Even Hermoine, much as I like her, comes off as the classic nerdy girl who turns Cinderella at the ball (instead of glasses to take off as usually happens she has bushy hair that was smoothed out for the ball."

I completely disagree! As someone else pointed out, she's just dressing up as anyone would do for such an occasion. And it's a shock because the rest of them are not used to thinking of Hermione that way. But it doesn't change who she is--she doesn't suddenly become a giggly girl or anything. She's still practical Hermione ("It's way to much bother to do every day"). And I see her emerging as such a strong female. She has come so far from the little girl who was crying in the bathroom because someone made fun of her. I mean, look at how she deals with Malfoy (my new favorite scene: "Twitchy little ferret, aren't you Malfoy?") and the Slytherins after all those horrible articles come out about her.We are just gettig to see new sides of her as she grows up (Ron and Harry are too--especially Ron!)

Just my $0.02.

== Philip Nel ==

Re: House-elves and how seriously should we take Hermione's SPEW crusade. An excellent question -- the book seemed to present a mixed message on that. For me, the comment that explained the whole house-elf subplot was Sirius Black's remark "If you want to know what a man's like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals" (525, Scholastic edition), which seems supported by the fact that Dumbledore pays Dobby upon his request, whereas the Malfoys and Crouch treat their house-elves poorly. Black's comment and Dumbledore's behavior seem to validate Hermione's intentions. Another comment that validates her point of view is Dumbledore's comments -- near the end of the novel -- about forming alliances with those whom the magical world has discriminated against. Sending envoys to the giants, for example.

Re: Voldemort and why we don't know more about his background. HP II and IV, in particular, give us a lot of details about of Voldemort's background -- parallels with Harry, the development of an obviously racist ideology (reminiscent of Hitler) regarding "mudbloods" and "purebloods." If the question is "why is Voldemort evil?" then my question is should Rowling be telling us -- or should she be telling us now? That is, there are interesting evil characters throughout literature and we don't always receive a psychological profile (Iago, for example). And, if we wish for a psychological profile, perhaps it will be forthcoming...?

== Monica Edinger ==

Janet, Kathleen, and Phil, Thanks so much for taking the time to respond to my initial comments. I again want to say that I really like HP and can certainly see what Rowling is attempting to do with some of the more problematic parts of the book. It is an ambitious undertaking. But, hey, why not question some of it? Here's another point. Someone I know is about a 1/3 the way through and wondered why the lengthy World Cup sequence. I thought she had a point. Was this really necessary? Especially at such length? Couldn't the required plot details have been provided more expeditiously? I do think she is trying to make some sort of point about the house elves, but it seems a bit muddled (if not muggled. sorry, couldn't resist.) Janet wrote, " Harry's and Ron's cluelessness in this regard is very common in issues like this. It shows that people of goodwill can be wrong. But the house elves' self denigration is also not uncommon in the world and brings up questions about rescuing those who don't wish to be saved--can one really "help" those who don't want help?" I could recognize Ron and Harry responding to Hermoine as do real people to something that doesn't seem that serious to them (say, compared to Voldemort.) I also could see how she was showing Winky and others as feeling truly happy in their servitude (what else do they know?) Who knows. How cool if the house elves become a major feature of the coming battle! I look forward to seeing kids' take on the house elves. Especially kids with different degrees of content knowledge (Hey, this is getting to be like our historical fiction thread!) That is, my quess is that kids with less knowledge of historical slavery and oppression will pay less attention to it than those (and us) who know more.

As for the giggling girls. I teach in a middle school (grades 4-8) and there isn't anywhere as much giggling as at Horwarths. So witches are more retro than New York City girls (esp. French witches? Beautiful French witches?) I felt Hermoine's crush on Lockhart was more along the lines of what I have seen in real life than the giggling (which, I guess, is Rowling's demo of hormonal development.) Although, yes, they would behave this way at a dance. Ever been to a middle school dance? I have. And, Kathleen, I do understand why Rowling had Hermoine so transform at the ball (in fact, I would have LOVED Hermoine as a kid; she's my kind of identify-with-character), but it was full of Cinderella-imagery nonetheless. And, of course, Harry is the prime Cinderella in the books (my kids called that one last year during our Cinderella study.)

As for Muggles, maybe we are suppose to know them because we are them (What was that old Pogo/Al Capp line? Something about the enemy being us?), but I think if the direction is toward the issue of pureblood, then why not some decent Muggles in the stories?

And I do understand the one-dimensionality of Voldemort. But I want to know more. But it is true, that because he seems so similar to Vader and others of whom I did know more by now, I suppose I'm having a sort of Pavlovian response --- that is, it is time in this saga to tell me more about the Dark Side because that is what happens in all the other sagas like this one. It doesn't' mean, as Phil pointed out, that it is necessary.

== Kathleen Kelly MacMillan ==

Right--I think the house-elves will become like the Gunguns in Star Wars--the comic relief that helps save the day.

== Waller Hastings ==

Phil wrote: Re: Voldemort and why we don't know more about his background. . . . And, if we wish for a psychological profile, perhaps it will be forthcoming...?

Well, but we ARE getting a psychological profile, in the scene where Harry is held captive and Voldemort gloats by telling him how he came to this place. (This scene, where the villain stops to tell the hero how brilliant he - the villain - was, rather than just finishing him off as any rational person would do, is a pretty hackneyed piece of narration. For which, see below.) Voldemort reveals that his father was a Muggle who abandoned V's mother before the baddie was even born; he repaid the kindness by killing his father. That appears to provide a lot of explanation for his animosity towards Muggles generally, and his hatred of Mudbloods is consistent with the self-loathing that would accompany such hate for one-half of one's own ancestry. Though it is a bit difficult to understand why he would essentially confess to being a Mudblood in front of the Death Eaters, many of whom detest Mudbloods thoroughly.

There was some earlier discussion about whether the book is good or bad, overrated, or whatever. Having finished it today (at the expense of planning classes), it seems to me that Rowling IS rather a bit off her previous mark - primarily because of some hackneyed techniques for exposition, such as Voldemort's (and subsequently Crouch Jr's) confessions near the end and the unwieldy way in which she tried to recap the earlier books in the early chapters. This last explains why the first few chapters seem to develop slowly, as Monica suggests. There is a lot of good stuff, there, but Rowling would have benefited from another round of severe editorial cuts - perhaps as much as a third of the book might have been removed, to the benefit of the narrative as a whole. Once you get into the story, it reads well, but the pacing at the beginning is slow. It seems to me, since Rowling (or her editor) seem to feel an explanation for all references to events or characters from the earlier books is necessary, that this might be better handled by a brief (perhaps 10 pages) "Summary of what has gone before" appended to the beginning of subsequent books. Then, those who need it might consult with the summary, while those who don't can go on to the story. But really, it's hard to imagine someone approaching Harry Potter for the first time and deciding to begin with volume 4 of the series - especially with the length of the book.

== Janet Zarem ==

What a good suggestion. Maybe even an old-fashionned Dramatis Personae, followed by said summary? It may also be time to stop "translating" the books into "American," After all, it's clear Americans are going to read them anyway at this point. Can you imagine an HP fan throwing down HP 5 because it shows Harry and Ron eating crumpets instead of muffins (the "translation" used in the previous books)? It could be done humorously: a glossary called "Brit Speak for American Muggles" or whatever, since the assumption seems to be that only American speakers (as distinct from, say, Australian speakers) of English are so dim they need everything wirtten in their version of the language.

== Catherine Sarette ==

One of my staff members had a sudden insight a month or so before this latest HP came out. She's been doing a series of Harry Potter parties, and she said, "You know, the thing that puts this series over the top with kids is the _details_.

When I read the opening of book 4, especially the description of the World Cup, I thought, "Yep, Rowling knows what her audience wants, and here she is, giving it to them, and lots of it."

I don't think Harry Potter is great classic children's literature. Has anyone yet mentioned the unlikelihood that kids would meekly agree to lose their favorite game, with its many teams and players; replaced by a tournament in which only two champions from their school get to play? Wouldn't some of the Quidditch athletes (and their parents!) protest bitterly? And the scene with Voldemort made me wish Scott Evil would turn up to scornfully predict what was going to happen, the way he does every time Dr. Evil fails to kill Austin Powers. But I enjoyed Rowling's latest anyway, and I actually think the bits with the wizards and their devices are more fun than the workings of the plot.

== Philip Nel ==

Agreed that the World Cup sequence is long. I think it's included for several reasons, one of which is: what would a Harry Potter novel be without a game of quidditch? Since the TriWizard tournament takes the place of the Quidditch games at Hogwarts, Rowling is sating our desire for quidditch. Another reason it's included is that these books are mysteries and the Quidditch match introduces several questions which Rowling then answers up at the end: who put the Death Eaters mark in the sky? why did Winky have Harry's wand? why wasn't Crouch sitting in his seat in the top box? Also introduced are Vela, portkeys, and the characters of Viktor Krum, Ludo Bagman, Cedric and Amos Diggory. These novels are intricately plotted -- details that may not seem important earlier on in fact form part of a careful puzzle that Rowling is constructing.

I agree with those who have noted the racist overtones in the house-elves' style of speech. However, I do not think that Rowling is endorsing enslavement of house-elves (or of any other group, for that matter). See my earlier comment (from yesterday) in which I point out how Dumbeldore's treatment of Dobby and Sirius Black's remarks support Hermione's position. Furthermore, we might think of Rowling as dramatizing the ideological effects of enslavement. To borrow from Foucault's analyses of power, we might say that the house-elves have absorbed the structures of power and oppression so thoroughly that it (oppression) has become a psychological condition as well as societal one. Hermione and Harry, who come from outside of the wizarding community, are able to perceive the house-elves' condition as enslavement (notice that, though Harry is not enthusiastic about SPEW, he also does not actively take Ron's side here); the Weasley children, who all grew up in the wizarding world, perceive the house-elves' condition as natural or normal. I think that Rowling may be showing us how systems of hierarchy and dominance become naturalized and invisible to those who have power -- and even naturalized to those who lack power.

Regarding giggling girls. I think it may be important to note that not all of Rowling's girls giggle. I could be mistaken, but I do not recall giggling occurring from Hermione, Angelina Johnson, Cho Chang, or Fleur. There's a wider range of behavior than that. The books are not without gender issues, but they're remarkably progressive when compared to, say, Susan Cooper's _Dark Is Rising_ series or C. S. Lewis' _Narnia_ series. That said, of course, if we compare them with contemporary fantasy, they may not stack up quite so well. Hermione is no Lyra, and, indeed, I don't think there is a female character in Rowling who even approaches Lyra. I guess I have to equivocate on this issue. I really like Hermione -- she's one of my favorite characters. To turn back on my own remarks in this paragraph: why must Hermione be more like Lyra? Couldn't she be Hermione?

I agree with Katy Grant: I think that the UK and US editions are almost identical this time (in terms of text). (I've read the US edition and am now working through the UK edition.) The sole differences I've noticed so far are things like "jail" for "gaol." If my memory is accurate, Rowling turned in the manuscript a bit behind schedule. Perhaps a large manuscript turned in late managed to escape those who would "translate" it into American.

And, agreed with Philip Pullman, June Cummins and others. The NYT's decision to create a separate Children's List takes power away from children's lit. I think that their decision to create a separate children's list is an overreaction to the success of the _Potter_ books. But, more than merely reflecting the lower esteem in which most people hold children's literature, their decision reflects the economics of book publishing. I'll bet that publishers of popular "adult" fiction are more than a bit peeved that Harry has bumped their "product" from the NYT lists -- the NYT Bestseller imprimatur helps to sell books, does it not?

== Karla Möller ==

To all who have shared comment on Potter IV - I have been enjoying them greatly!

First of all - as a disclaimer of sorts - I have all the books both in the US and in the British version (and even two on tape as well) and have read all multiple times - silently and out loud to kids - and have enjoyed them - though this last one is lowest on my list and I agree that it could have done with another round of serious editing -

With that said - the sexism I see in the series has troubled me from the start (beginning with subtle but irritating things like the continual use of "Harry, Ron and Hermione" that only stood out to me after having read over a thousand pages out loud so that it now comes out in a simliar fashion kids singing the Abc's and coming to "L-M-N-O-P" - Ditto to all who are troubled by the house elves depiction, behavior, and speech. I have read all the books aloud to my children and had to stumble as I was reading Winky's speech out loud, sounding as it did like the racist "black speech" of what one would hope was in the past - Not only that, but with the clear description in the second book that Dobby had brown skin made this whole "inferior/enslaved and loving it" theme more disturbing. And the explicit description of Angelina Johnson (name spelling may be a bit off) as a black girl whereas the others who are not described as black are (I guess) assumed to be white?? Even the remark Sirius makes about how one "treats one's inferiors" is buying into the idea that the house elves are indeed "inferior" - I could go on but won't -

Though Hermione has her bright moments, I had hoped for so much more than her to be reintroduced in this novel through Harry's belief (later noted to be actual) that her tone would be "shrill and panicky" upon learning about his dream.

As to who saved whom from the lake - I got the idea that they were saving the person that was most important to them at the time - for whatever reason. It made sense to me that the two older boys who were more mature in their relationships with females would have their current love interests foremost in their minds and that Harry (at 3-4 years younger) whose friendship with Ron had taken some heavy blows earlier in the book would have his best friend upmost in his mind - we learned little about Fleur to know why her sister was placed for her to rescue, but the poster who mentioned this event left her out -

== Theyer Hillary ==

Regarding women: I think Mrs. Weasely's "quiet power" (as someone put it in a previous post) will become very important. The scene at the end when she hugs Harry and he finally cries is very telling. Remember, it was the motherly sacrifice that saved Harry's life to begin with. I expect quietly great things from Mrs. Weasley, and it is made very clear that she rules her house and everyone in it.

Regarding the House Elves: comic relief, someone to laugh at now that the geeky, nerdy, unsure kids have to become the heroes. Also remind me of Golum in Tolkien's book, disregarded at first because he is unpleasant, but plays a vital role in the end. The house elves are magical creatures, remember, and cannot break out of slavery until they are given clothes. This is not a matter of one race overpowering another, I took it to be the natural order of a magical world.

Regarding the Giants: I LOVED this!!! Finally, some bias in the wizardry world! Dumbledore's ability to forsee the need for friendship with them told me that they will become important allies. Remember Beorn in The Hobbit? Quietly there, fierce and powerful, not wanting to get involved, but a friend in the end when he is needed.

Regarding Hermione: She is awesome!!! The dance scene showed me that she is so much more in control than Ron and Harry. When Ron asked her and she already had a date, their shock was great! I cracked up!!! She is fighting for what she thinks is right wholeheartedly, and is not yet at the point that gets girls where giving in to make friends becomes more important that sticking to your guns.

It was an awesome book, I read nonstop for five hours, and I haven't done that in a long time.

== Kathleen Kelly MacMillan ==

Yes! I loved her in this book. I like that we are seeing her grow up a little faster than Ron and Harry (which is believable). The scene where Ron and Harry are dueling with the trick wands in Transfiguration class really brought it home to me. I just have this clear picture of Ron and Harry looking up at Professor McGonagall with parrot and fish in their respective hands, and Hermione over to the side rolling her eyes at them. She's always been my favorite character but she just keeps getting better.

== Janet Zarem ==

Dear Monica, I speak as a fellow enthusiast of the HP books. I find them a rollicking good read, totally diverting. I would say they are closer to the "Redwall" books than to "His Dark Materials," which I consider a true classic of literature, children's or otherwise. Although I am sorry that they seem to be obscuring many other worthy books, I am delighted that so many children are reading who weren't reading before. My point of reference is as a bookseller and a former educator, not an academic, though I am also interested in children's literary criticism or I wouldn't be on this list.

I can not speak with any authority on the issues of house elves as representing an oppressed group, as discussed below. I am clear that Rowling's position is that Harry and Ron are wrong and that Hermione is right--because of Dumbledore's position. Whether or not this part of the book was executed with grace and sensitivity is another matter. Harry's and Ron's cluelessness in this regard is very common in issues like this. It shows that people of goodwill can be wrong. But the house elves' self denigration is also not uncommon in the world and brings up questions about rescuing those who don't wish to be saved--can one really "help" those who don't want help? These are murking areas when we address them psychologically (instead of politically?) I'm not sure whether Rowling is portraying a psychological situation or a political one--or, in fact, attempting anything of the sort! Personally, I get the feeling this issue that will be further developed in the next books. But we'll see.

Sexism. I don't believe these books are meant to be revolutionary in content; I think they are meant to be compulsively readable stories (though obviously they aren't to everybody). There are enough indications that smarts are valued in women (Hermione's comments to Ron in HP 4 as one current example) and that a compassionate and grateful heart is more valuable than just allure (Fleur after Harry saves her sister) that I'm not too concerned about the Veela (even though I, too, was thrown by them, much as I was by Winky). My guess is that using "Harry" as a bully pulpit would be distracting to readers; and the last thing Rowling wants to do is distract her readers (though some may be distracted by what they see as bad editing anyway). Whether or not we like it, feminine beauty is very important to males (in Western industrial culture), period. Too bad. I apologize if I'm insulting the men on the listserv, but this just seems to be true whether or not we women like or value it. It's especially true in boys, as distinct from men ( who have had so much more experience in the world and who may enjoy looking but who understand other values are just as or more important). Listen to any group of adolescent or pre-adolescent boys. In fact, it's also true of girls, and thus the giggling and swooning over some of the boys at Hogwarts and Hermione's "crush" on Lockhart. I'll bet children understand this, whether or not they endorse it (if they're mature enough to be thinking that way--and teen readers certainly are). They recognize it as realistic in the Western, middle and upper class, etc. territory "Harry" inhabits. This kind of reality is part of what makes the fantasy in "Harry" work. And as for Cinderella, as another member of this listserv mentionned a few days back on her HP review (via web link), it's Harry who's the Cinderella figure in these books. He's an orphan being reared by wildly unsympathetic relatives and he's even got a magical godfather! Hermione has done what any woman (or man, for that matter) would do to attend a ball: look as good as she can given the prevailing standards. I, too, wish that the other female figures in these books were a bit more prominent and developed. I wish Fleur hadn't come in last. Mrs. Weasley, however, rules the roost from her ur-mother kitchen--a traditional kind of female power, but power nonetheless. Professor McGonagall is second in command at Hogwarts and we could arguably see more of her even if we don't learn more about her. Perhaps she will come more to the forefront as the books move inexorably towards the great showdown between Harry/Dumbledore's force's and Voldemort and his followers. But I, personally, do not consider it an unpardonable sin that the emphasis in these books is on the male characters, no matter what my wishes are.

Muggles. Hey, all of us reading these books are Muggles--we know all about Muggledom. They're not primarily about Muggles, they're about magical characters.

Voldemort. Yeah, Id like to know more about him, too. It would make him more, shall be say, interesting, and maybe even scarier. Now that we're learning more about Snape, I hope Voldemort won't be far behind. But I think the emphasis in the books is on his just being pure evil, not on how he got that way. As readers in the now 21st Century, I think we've gotten used to expecting interesting explanations of why people and situations are the way they are. But not every work is designed to address these kinds of curiosities or questions. Some are written to simply present them as part of a story. The kind of complexitiy we see in HP is best exemplified, perhaps, by Dumbledore's attitudes about werewolves and giants, as in Lupin and Hagrid. Seeing that the supposed "bad guys" may not be at all; or in giving people a second chance to prove themselves (as in Snape)--not being mislead by appearances. It's not the complexity of delving into the psychological whys and wherefores.

Let me say finally that I mention all of the above as a simple response to your (Monica's, for those of you still reading) question, which was "Any comments?" These are mine, as of today. I find that as I read the posts on child-lit my own ideas change and develop and I expect they will regarding this thread. I have no need to be "right" about any of this. I'm not sure, in fact, anyone can be. The whole point seems to be to further discussion and exploration, not to assess a definitive truth. So my comments are made, if not in agreement with, in respect to, all. Janet Zarem p.s. As always, please pardon the typos or "grammaticos" that always seems to accompany my long posts.

== Janet Zarem ==

I've been thinking about house elves, giants and Professor Lupin this morning. In a review of HP4 in the "Los Angeles Times" this morning Jonathan Levi noted that he and his son both concluded that it was the first book since "Little Black Sambo" to endorse slavery. Other than a lack of information about LBS and the deplorable illustrations that accompanied unauthorized editions of the text (which ally it with the Black Slave trade--if I'm misinformed about this, someone please let me know), I found this statement to be a little strange, mostly because Dumbledore (clearly the embodiment of the forces of Good) is against unpaid house elf labor and because it's made an issue of at all by Hermione, arguably the best student at Hogwarts. Now, these criticisms are worthy and real, and I understand the objections based on dialect and the "humorous" name of Hermione's organization, SPEW. If you look back into Books 1,2, and 3, it's also obvious that themes, characters and events from one book surface in later books, developed more fully. It's difficult to imagine that the house elf issue won't be one of those themes, and it's even more difficult to imagine that "Harry" is in favor of slave labor, given the tone and events of all four books and the fact that Draco Malfoy and his family, the most elitist, classist, and prejudiced characters in the books--and "with" Lord Voldemort--treat their house elf very badly, to understate the case. Has no one noticed before that Hagrid doesn't exactly speak "the King's English"? I haven't heard complaints about that. And I also wonder if there isn't a bit of American bias in this discussion. After all, it's the Americans, not the British, who had to fight a Civil War to outlaw the African (and other Black) slave trade, and who are still struggling mightily with the results of both the trade and the war. Let's hear more from our British members. I want to be understood: I'm not saying it's not a point for discussion, strong disagreement, or argument. I'm just feeling a bit wary this morning of the American bias that seems to, unusually unconsciously of course, pervade this list and these conversations. It also seems to me that Rowling keeps making point after point in these books about the difference between appearance and substance. Dumbledore, always the touchstone for rationality and goodness, hires a werewolf as a teacher, puts total confidence in a giant (well, a half giant), offers to pay his house elves, strenuously supports the rights of wizard offspring of Muggles, and in every other way indicates that he is vehemently opposed to the kind of mentality that automatically demeans "the other" and that would use the word "mudblood." As these books begin to further explore the issue of evil as allied to prejudice in the wizard world (Voldemort as a kind of Hitler, if you will), I think we may see more development of this theme. I don't read other lists, and I'm aware that some of my statements may well have been covered more fully on them. I count on those child_lit subscribers who bring us news from those other discussions which may offer both information and subtlety beyond what I can do. That something has gone amiss for a group of readers regarding house elves, racism or feminism is beyond dispute. That "Harry Potter" is an argument for racist or sexist points of view seems pretty bizarre to this reader. Janet Zarem, about to leave to attend a wedding!

Last Updated: July 19, 2000