When discussing Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings in class the other day, the opportunity was taken to discuss why both Dumbledore and Gandalf were both men, which ultimately lead to the discussion ending on the cry of “freaking patriarchy, man.”
For the sake of playing Devil’s Advocate (so put down your pitchforks and stop looking for a photo of me wearing a fedora) I would like to take just a quick moment to suggest that, with regard to the character situation itself, it may be entirely possible that the characters were simply written as male, because why not? I say this out of the same curiosity that asks “Why wasn’t Dumbledore a woman?” but came to the opposite conclusion - that it really doesn’t matter one way or another, because nothing in the story particularly deals with Dumbledore’s gender identity. (His sexuality was such a non-issue, partly because he was an old man and this was a children’s book, that it wasn’t until Rowling made a statement after the fact that we knew he was gay.)
There’s very real concerns spawned by “patriarchy,” including Joanne Rowling being told to have the front of her book list her name as ‘J.K. Rowling” out of a concern that boys wouldn’t read her book if they thought she was a woman, but I really and truly fear that we’re approaching a reductio ad absurdum kind of moment by questioning why these two characters were both male. Rowling was clearly inspired by Tolkien, who wrote a male mentor-wizard because it was probably something he felt like he was capable of writing.
If I’m horrifically wrong or if you just have a very strong opinion, let me know in the comments. I kinda just wanted to throw a possibility out there.
---
4 of 5
I have to agree with you here. I think that both authors had male wizards instead of female witch leaders was because they just wanted to. maybe they weren't trying to even send a message in regards to the gender they chose for their leading roles in a way. I mean why would it matter? I don't think it has anything to do with patriarchy, it was just the author preferred choice and it fit the story they were trying to tell.
ReplyDeleteIt's refreshing to hear someone say that it doesn't matter. I've taken a lot of lit classes with feminist teachers and it drives me INSANE. But, there is something to be said for how interesting the characters are for male readers. For whatever reason, SOME men (not all, making that clear) have issues with leading female characters in epic stories. As a female, I don't really care one way or another. Who knows? this may be the same for others out there. I could be wrong, for I am not male and can't really vouch for the validity of that statement. I think it would be interesting to hear from some others in class. Who do you identify with in Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings (which is a bad example because there are apparently only like 5 females in all of Middle Earth)?
ReplyDeleteI'm going to be the one arguing the opposite side, sorry. It DEFINITELY matters. It matters a whole lot that there are very few female characters of importance in Lord of the Rings and it matters that the most powerful wizard in Harry Potter is male. It could just be chance on the last one, but the fact that JK Rowling was convinced to abbreviate her name to make herself more gender-neutral is an indication of why the lack of representation matters. People think boys won't read or watch things with strong female characters. There was the controversy around the movie Tangled, remember? Disney claimed boys don't go see movies with girls' names in the title, so they changed the name from Rapunzel to Tangled. It's kind of the same concept, and it's why Harry Potter is probably so popular: he's not a girl. Male heroes are supposed to appeal to both genders, but boys are not expected to like "girl" things, and therefore heroines are way less popular than heroes. If the series were called Harriet Potter, it would lose a large chunk of the fanbase, for sure.
ReplyDeleteAnd don't even get me started on Dumbledore's sexuality and why it was added almost as an afterthought and not included in the book, as if gay people don't need representation too. Yeah, it's a controversial topic, but there are so few books and movies and TV shows that have gay characters where being gay isn't the central focus of their character. Dumbledore could have been that, but instead he was killed off and revealed to be gay posthumously, and honestly, I think that sucks. Representation is extremely important and I really wish Rowling would never have mentioned Dumbledore's sexuality at all rather than basically add it after the series ended and when the financial backlash would be minimal.