I’m not sure how I’ve managed to blog for eight months without ever writing a post about the female characters from the Harry Potter series, but now seems like a good time to start for two reasons: 1. The last movie was just released. (I saw it, I liked it very much, but I didn’t blog about it because A Dance with Dragons took priority.) 2. Sady Doyle wrote an interesting piece for the Global Comment called, “In praise of Joanne Rowling’s Hermione Granger series.” In this editorial, she takes her readers through an interesting mental exercise, asking us to imagine a world where a fantasy series about a girl heroine, written by Joanne Rowling, receives the same overwhelming success as a fantasy series about a boy named Harry Potter, written by J.K. Rowling.
That world, of course, doesn’t exist. Three young adult fantasy series with strong female leads pop into mind immediately – Suzanne Collins’ The Hunger Games trilogy, Scott Westerfeld’s Uglies, and Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials – but none of them have achieved the same success as the Harry Potter series. (Plus, two of those series were written by men, and Lyra in His Dark Materials shared co-lead status with Will.) As Doyle points out, Rowling was pressured by her publisher to go by the name J.K. Rowling rather than showing to the world that she was – gasp! – a woman. That alone tells you how the world perceives women authors, or at least how the publishing world thinks the world perceives women authors.
Anyway, I read through the whole piece, and I was struck by two things: 1) Doyle accurately and warmly describes everything that’s wonderful about Hermione Granger, while also 2) dismissing Harry and most of the other female characters in the series. I was alternately pleased and annoyed with this editorial to the point where I felt I had to comment. Follow me as I participate in an incredibly self-indulgent activity: criticism of criticism.
This is probably my favorite paragraph of the editorial:
“Hermione is not Chosen. That’s the best thing about her. Hermione is a hero because she decides to be a hero; she’s brave, she’s principled, she works hard, and she never apologizes for the fact that her goal is to be very, extremely good at this whole “wizard” deal. Just as Hermione’s origins are nothing special, we’re left with the impression that her much-vaunted intelligence might not be anything special, on its own. But Hermione is never comfortable with relying on her “gifts” to get by. There’s no prophecy assuring her importance; the only way for Hermione to have the life she wants is to work for it. So Hermione Granger, generation-defining role model, works her adorable British ass off for seven straight books in a row. Although she deals with the slings and arrows of any coming-of-age tale — being told that she’s “bossy,” stuck-up, boring, “annoying,” etc — she’s too strong to let that stop her. In Hermione Granger and the Prisoner of Azkaban, she actually masters the forces of space and time just so that she can have more hours in the day to learn.”
This is a brilliant, warm summary of what makes Hermione such an engaging, inspiring character. Hermione is intellectual and bright and uses her wits to get herself and the boys out of scrapes time and time again.
Only a few paragraphs later, Doyle gets off-base.
“Other female characters were introduced, and developed beyond stereotype; we learned to value McGonagall as much as Dumbledore, to stop slagging Lavender Brown off as clingy and gross because she actually wanted her boyfriend to like her, to see the Patil sisters and Luna as something other than flaky, intuitive, girly idiots. Unbelievably, even Ginny Weasley got an actual personality.”
She makes a good point about Lavender Brown. As much as I love Ron Weasley, I was never comfortable with the way we were supposed to laugh at Lavender. But the rest of the paragraph confuses me. Clearly Doyle is being sarcastic, pointing out all of the things that didn’t happen in the series…except Ginny did develop an actual personality (one that was often obnoxious, but that’s an argument for a different day). McGonagall wasn’t as central to the plot as Dumbledore was, but she had plenty of time to shine in Order of the Phoenix and readers certainly love her.
And wow, look at that creative argument where she dismisses the Patil sisters and Luna as girly idiots. Because, you see, girly means feminine, meaning girly is an INSULT, because being girly is a BAD thing. Using “girly” as an insult is TOTES feminist! And clearly, because Luna is intuitive where Hermione is intellectual, she’s worth much less as a character. It can’t be that two different girls have two different approaches to life.
Doyle then goes on to criticize Rowling’s writing of the house-elf storyline:
“The best thing about this development is Rowling’s lack of condescension; it’s easy to take potshots at youthful activism, and a lesser author would have played Hermione’s campaign for nasty comedy. Imagine that abomination; Hermione being the only character to notice that her sparkly, magical world relied on the creation of a goddamn slave race, and all of the supposedly sympathetic characters being like, “no, they like slavery! Stop being such a downer!” Instead, Hermione works with the house-elves to free them early on, and many house-elves become well-developed, central characters.”
I guess she forgot to read the part in Deathly Hallows where Hermione proves to be absolutely right about the house-elves. Sure, Hermione is flawed in her approach to free the elves early on, but I’m not remotely interested in reading about a flawless character who never makes mistakes. I do agree, however, about the characterization of the elves. I was never comfortable with the way the elves as a species were portrayed as subservient, fawning, and less than intelligent.
Doyle goes on to talk about Harry:
“The character of Harry Potter is an obnoxious error in the Hermione Granger universe, made more obnoxious by his constant presence. It’s tempting to just write Harry off as a love interest who didn’t quite work out; the popular-yet-brooding jock is hardly an unfamiliar type.”
The popular-yet-brooding jock? HARRY? Is Doyle talking about Rowling’s version of Harry or Snape’s version of Harry?
But the criticism of Harry doesn’t stop there:
“Harry is not particularly bright or studious; he’s provided with an endless supply of gifts and favors; he’s the heir to no less than two huge fortunes; he’s privileged above his fellow students, due to his fame for something he didn’t actually do himself; he even seems to take credit for ‘Dumbledore’s Army,’ which Hermione started.”
Yes, Harry is totally privileged. Let’s forget about the number of times the entire school – or the entire Wizarding community – ostracized him, spread nasty rumors about him, and tried to discredit him because he spoke uncomfortable truths that they didn’t want to hear. Let’s forget about the abuse he suffered for eleven years (and every summer until his sixteenth birthday) at the hands of the Dursleys. As for the part about being an heir to two fortunes? He received the first fortune because his parents were murdered, and the second because his beloved godfather was killed (right in front of him, no less). Harry would give that money back in a heartbeat if it meant living with his loving parents and godfather.
Then she describes the different fates of Harry and Hermione by the end of the book:
“In the end, we see Harry married to some girl he met as a teenager, dropping his kids off at school, and reminiscing about his glory days. In the end, Potter is just another jock who peaked in high school. And Hermione? Well. Rowling would never insult Hermione by dropping her into some suburban nightmare of marrying a boy she met before graduation. What we learn about Hermione is what she does for her job.”
1. Almost all of the characters, including the boys, end up married to people they met before graduation. The few exceptions include Charlie Weasley (who never married) and Cho Chang (who married a Muggle).
2. No, Hermione’s career is not mentioned in the epilogue of the book. Neither is Ginny’s or Luna’s. Neither is Harry’s, Ron’s, or Draco’s. The epilogue, for everyone, is about marriages and kids and families. We learn about Neville’s job, and that’s it.
3. A suburban nightmare. Yes, Hermione is living in a nightmare because she married a boy whom she loves and who loves her back, and had two kids with him, one of whom is a girl who seems to share her mother’s intelligence. I think this was exactly the plot of The Stepford Wives.
And then there’s the last part:
“Although we are, thankfully, treated to the hint that she’s been hooking up with Neville Longbottom. ‘For truly,’ goes the last line, ‘Neville somehow got really handsome. All was well.’ Indeed.”
The last line of a hypothetical series starring a bright, resourceful, intelligent young woman is her thinking about a hot guy.
I appreciate Doyle’s main point. I don’t think she is criticizing Rowling for not writing the Hermione Granger series, but simply writing about a hypothetical scenario where Hermione were the main character. I wish we lived in a world where a series about Hermione could have that same kind of success. I also don’t think that the Harry Potter series is above criticism – far from it. I just think it’s a shame that Doyle has to dismiss Harry and the girls in the series to praise Hermione. I don’t think Hermione would appreciate that.
Articles
Interviews
Novels, Fiction & Silliness
Reviews
I think that Luna was my favorite character in the whole series, because everyone thinks she’s completely nuts but she’s actually very smart in a non-traditional way. She doesn’t fit in any sort of mold.
Luna’s great. Her commentary on the Quidditch match was probably my favorite part of Half-Blood Prince. I like that she’s odd, aware that she’s different, but still completely confident and sure of herself.
excellent analysis and I hate how the person dissed other girls to praise Hermione because luna in fact is very smart. not in the same way as Hermione, but both are intelligent. plus like you said there is nothing wrong with being girly. anyway I read an article the other day that the characterization of Hermione herself might be sexist/misogynistic. she’s seen as one of the guys and every other female that is girly is actually portrayed in a rather negative way.
granted Hermione isn’t amazing because she’s one of the guys, but because of her wit, intelligence, and loyalty, but it was an interesting article. man if only I can find it again.
Yeah, Luna’s very bright. She’s in Ravenclaw, after all. And she’s shown to be incredibly insightful and wise. I think Doyle definitely has a point about the way Lavender is portrayed, but I think she’s off-base about Luna.
she’s seen as one of the guys and every other female that is girly is actually portrayed in a rather negative way.
I can agree with that. The teen girls that are more overtly feminine – Parvati and Lavender – are portrayed as being girlier and therefore “sillier” than girls like Hermione or Ginny. But, they do still eagerly and bravely participate in the final battle at Hogwarts, so I don’t think we’re meant to dismiss them entirely.
The series also has Molly Weasley, a strong female character who very much has a stereotypical female role as wife, mother, and homemaker. I think Rowling had a pretty wide variety of adult female characters.
omg I forgot about molly weasley. thanks. I tend to forget about the adults, since I’ve always focused on the trio and the younger characters, except for snape and McGonagall, but those two were professors and were focused on quite a bit, especially snape.
lol and I love the little dig on Ginny’s personality being obnoxious because I so agree.
I have a post all about Ginny coming up, because in some ways I find her character very appealing, and in other ways she annoys the crap out of me.
I’m looking forward to it. also I’m looking for books where the female protagonist also has her feminine.girly side. I mean I love the female ones that don’t, because there is nothing wrong with it, but I would like to see a female protagonist that is girly and fierce since it’s possible to be both and I have yet to see it.
I thought the whole itme that Hermione should be the main protagonist. Harry is just… bland. He is the regular shmuck who populates the world of fantasy in which he kind of goes without really thinking and simply being extra lucky. Also… good friends who are conveniently around and act in the name of his goal always.
The series were awesome but I see the points in some of the words of Sady.
Was it Harry’s extra bit of luck that made him master the Patronus charm (an extremely difficult spell) by his third year? Was it his luck that made him solve the Sphinx’s riddle during the TriWizard Tournament without receiving any extra help?
And Harry’s goal was to bring down Voldemort, the most evil wizard of all time, who terrorized and murdered people because of his belief in blood purity. Of course people were going to act in the name of his goal. It was a laudable goal.
I also don’t see how Ron and Hermione are always “conveniently” around, considering that Harry tries several times to leave without them, not wanting to put them into danger. They’re always around because they INSIST on being around.
I always thought, and still think, that one of the biggest strengths, if not THE biggest strength, of the series was the theme about the power of love and friendship. I wouldn’t have enjoyed the series half so much if it were about one kickass teen wizard (male OR female) bringing down the forces of evil. Voldemort, who accepted no help from anyone and thought he was the most brilliant perfect thing EVAH, was defeated by a big team effort.
so agree that the main theme of the book is friendship and love. It was harry’s mom’s love that protected him from harm and I think Voldemort never had that kind of love which is why he was evil.
and the trio’s friendship is such a pure friendship. they’ve all gotten into fights but when one needs help, the other two will always be there.
I do think that out of the three, I find harry a bit bland. I’m not sure why that is though. like Hermione has her flaws. she’s bossy know it all, and her insecurities can be seen as a fault, though they make me love her more. she also comes across as judgmental at times. ron, lol he has a lot of faults as well, but overall he’s a loyal and decent guy. harry, I think has been rather consistent from the beginning. though I think he got rather whiny in the 5th so that could be fault.
I do love harry, but I always wonder how successful the books would have been if harry had been a girl.
lol sorry my comment is slightly ot, but I just love discussing HP.
I have never read a word of Harry Potter, and only really loved one of the movies, Azkaban. I think the salient point is that, how does anyone read all those books and come to the conclusion that it’s a lone hero story? As you said, it’s about power in community and cooperation, family and friendship, which is not to say that obvs yes Harry is the protagonist and hero, but it never feels like he’s doing it alone, or that he gets all the credit.
I’d say Rowlings commitment to, like Germain Greer said, *fraternity* is the very essence of a feminist ideal message.The pop culture world needs more male characters like Harry Potter, targeting him is counter productive to the cause, even if the question as to why there is no female equivalent literary phenomenon is valid.
I’d say Rowlings commitment to, like Germain Greer said, *fraternity* is the very essence of a feminist ideal message.The pop culture world needs more male characters like Harry Potter.
YES.
Of course we need stories with more female protagonists. Of course we need more stories by female authors who aren’t pressured to hide behind gender-neutral initials. Of course I want to live in a world where a book about a girl could achieve the same worldwide success as the Harry Potter series did.
But we do also need more male characters like Harry, who doesn’t have the kind of macho posturing and obsession with individualism & destiny that you see in so many male heroes *cough* Angel *cough.* (Who DOES have that kind of macho posturing? Voldemort.) Harry is repeatedly told, and realizes himself, that his best quality and his key to defeating Voldemort is his ability to love. You rarely see that in male protagonists, and we need more of those male protagonists as badly as we need more female protagonists in general.
I don’t think that Rowling’s use of initials are a bad thing. Leaving aside gender, remember that Tolkein and Lewis both used initials rather than full names.
There are a lot of great female fantasy authors out there, the problem is that most people read what’s popular rather than branching out and discovering them. Let’s not discredit amazing fantasy and sci-fi authors like Ursula K. LeGuin, Anne McCaffrey, Marion Zimmer Bradley, Mary Stewart, Robin McKinley, Elizabeth Haydon, Patricia McKillip, etc. I could keep naming fantastic fantasy writers who are female. I honestly think that a lot of the authors that I just listed deserve more success than Rowling, because their writing is so much better. Rowling is a mediocre writer who happens to be a really good storyteller.
I don’t think that Rowling’s use of initials are a bad thing. Leaving aside gender, remember that Tolkein and Lewis both used initials rather than full names.
It is a bad thing when her publisher tells her she has to use her initials because they think using a woman’s name will alienate male readers. You can’t leave gender aside in this instance. If she had chosen to go by J.K. Rowling simply because she liked the sound of it, that would be a different story.
The rest of your comment is off-topic for this post, though I appreciate the recommendation of other female fantasy authors.
ROWLING ALSO WROTE ABOUT THE FLAWS OF MALE CHARACTERS – YES, EVEN HARRY’S AND RON’S – SHE DIDN’T MAKE THEM SOUND PERFECT. YOU SHOULD APPROACH THE SERIES AS A WHOLE, NOT BY BITS. LOOK AT THE CHARACTERS’ DEVELOPMENTS. AND FOR GOODNESS’ SAKE THE WHOLE WORLD KNOWS THE HARRY POTTER BOOKS WERE WRITTEN BY A WOMAN. SHE HAS HER PICTURE PLASTERED AT THE BACK OF THE BOOKS AND THEY USE THE PRONOUN “SHE” AND “HER” WHEN PERTAINING TO THE AUTHOR. I TAKE IT BOYS READ AND CONTINUE TO READ THE BOOKS EVEN AFTER REALIZING THE AUTHOR WAS A WOMAN? IT WAS NOT HER FAULT THE PUBLISHER WAS A PIGHEAD. THE RUDDY PUBLISHER “FORCED” HER BUT DID YOU EVER THINK SHE “AGREED” BECAUSE SHE HAS A LARGER PURPOSE – THAT IS GETTING THE BOOK PUBLISHED AND INSPIRING MILLIONS OF CHILDREN ALL OVER THE WORLD TO READ AND LOVE AND VALUE FRIENDSHIP ETC ETC?
Since I mostly agree with you, I’m not sure why you’re yelling at me. Unless you mean to be yelling at someone else, and/or are currently under the spell of the same Capslock Monster that plagued poor Harry in Order of the Phoenix.
I like that Harry and Hermione not only never became an item but never became love interests. I appreciate the example of a strong male-female friendship in fiction where the female friend in question isn’t seen as seen as a lesser character because she is one of the main male character’s best friend nor instead of his love interest nor is she ever seen as a girl who is a friend only because she has either failed or not yet become the main male character’s love interest.
Yes to all of this. I loved that there was no romantic longing from EITHER side.
Dude, later on, in a separate feminist rant that missed the mark (this time on A Song of Ice and Fire), Sady argued that GRRM hates Sansa (because some douche-bros in fandom hate Sansa, so it follows by extension that fandom equals the author…just like Harry Potter I guess? and yeah, hates continuously, not just until the end of the first book and that feeling changes due to character growth or anything) not because she’s a spoiled little shit who threw her sister under the bus just to protect the boy she was crushing on, but because she’s feminine. Now, suddenly, Sady comes to the defense of femininity. Also, somehow it’s sexist of fandom to like Arya because it means we devalue femininity. Yeah I’ve…given up on Sady Doyle.
I don’t think she’s completely off-base with the comments about Sansa. There are a lot of people who STILL hate Sansa for mistakes she made in the first book even though she’s grown so much since then, and I’ve definitely seen her dismissed as not being as worthy of a character as Arya because Arya is a tomboy and Sansa is a girly girl.
But yeah, some fans hate Sansa so that means the author hates her too? Please.
I’m researching Harry Potter for an essay I’m writing about feminism in fairy tales, and I constantly come across these weird feminist articles with incredibly flaky support that JK Rowling and Harry Potter somehow display conservative values and chauvinism. I have to admit, having grown up with Harry Potter, I take this rather personally. It just confuses me why some people feel Rowling somehow undermines feminism simply because the hero is a boy and not a girl, I mean holy cow that’s narrow minded. She can write about whoever the hell she chooses. Also, the criticism that all the female characters other than Hermione are portrayed as shallow and flaky is just ridiculous. Rowling created many female characters with many different personalities- as she did with the male characters. In real life, there are girls who are shallow and silly, just like there are girls who are brave and intelligent. Why shouldn’t that be reflected in the book? Sady points out that some of the female characters are not developed enough for her liking (Like Parvati), this is because they are VERY MINOR characters in the scheme of the story, stock characters if you will, and every novel has them. Its like she’s just looking for a way to knock down an incredibly successful female author who has achieved much more then any male writer I’ve ever heard of, so what the hell??? is all I have to say about that.