Occasionally Snarky and Meta

I think that the first problem is that we see the entire Wizarding World through the very realistically written eyes of a preteen, then teenage, boy - one who is very new to this world. When I was sixteen, I hated cheerleaders. Why? Because everyone in "my crowd" did. Even though I didn't like half the people in my "crowd" either, or at least had no real friendship with them. We just recognized each other as Allies against the Dark Arts that was cheerleading.  They weren't inviting me to the movies either. While it's true that some cheerleaders were led to believe their ambitions meant they ought to become horrible human beings... most of them just really liked cheering. I can't remember more than one of them ever being mean to me. Ignoring me? Oh yes. But nastiness? Mean Girls-esque behavior? Other than one gossipy girl, nope. And yet all through high school I was convinced they were the pinnacle of evil, simply because that's what nerdy bookish girls were supposed to think. Harry is teenage boy who has social biases based on things people - including adults who really should've known better (same with me) - have told him. Moreover, his social life at Hogwarts is pretty restricted to Ron and Hermione, both of whom, being Gryffindors, have some pretty definitive ideas themselves. (I think that's the one thing that kept Hermione out of Ravenclaw, but I'll touch that later on).


We don't know much about the feelings and ideas of other wizards, although Dumbledore does admit to Harry that the Sorting ritual is an iffy concept when it comes down to it. Harry also never outright questions many things in the wizarding world, such as its treatment of muggles and Azkaban, although he is tortured by Dementors, and we know people have been sent there more to handle the law for the Ministry so they don't have to bother. While Harry never outright says "I don't like Azkaban", it's because he doesn't really need to. Hagrid and Sirius are two people he cares about (regardless of how fans feel about those characters), and they suffered because of the injustice of it. As far as the way muggles go, again, it's the actions that show the problems more than Harry's response.  (And even then, adult!Harry doesn't have any problem with the possibility of his son being a Slytherin. It's just that we only see adult!Harry for a few pages, so we really don't know what he's like apart from the fact that all was apparently well.)

Which brings me to my next point. I think that JK Rowling is a bit like Dumbledore in the story - she expects people to draw their own conclusions. She doesn't want a third person omniscient narrative that tells us everything. Some fans won't need to dig deeper, allowing themselves to just take it all at face value, whereas others can choose to see the massive hypocrisies and fallacies within the universe, as well as possible explanations for things that may seem hypocritical. One thing that appears to be a conundrum is the issue of Housing. Why weren't Percy and Peter in Slytherin? Dumbledore, for that matter? Why wasn't Hermione a Ravenclaw? And why were the nice Hufflepuffs often not nice at all? I think that there's two answers:

1. The Housing system is supposed to be full of flaws, and JKR never got to explore this point further. I think that originally, we were supposed to see more subversion of the idea that Gryffindor = Brave, Ravenclaw = Smart, etc. The fourth book seemed to be leaning that direction, but nothing really happened. I think that this is just one example of the things JKR meant to develop but never had room.  Remember, Dean Thomas has an entire backstory she never wrote in.


2. The Housing system is also complex, because human beings are complex, and JKR is more aware of this than we realize. Let's look at Gryffindor. It's my impression that Gryffindors are essentially knights; they go into battle for the person or cause they're supporting, regardless of what others might think. If you're on their side, this is an excellent thing, but if you're not? God help you. There also tends to be a certain level of narrow-mindedness, because in a way, there is only The Cause. It's hard to run into battle looking the other way. Take Percy (who people often said should have been a Slytherin) and Sirius. Both of them actually deserted their families for what they saw, according to their beliefs and values at the time, as the greater good. Harry and the readers know Fudge was a tool, but Percy believed in him, so that's who he was willing to fall on his sword for. Sirius saw the evil that his family supported and caused, so he left to fight for Dumbledore, who he believed in. Both of them chose cause over family - it's just that Sirius's was the "right" cause.

Peter is a little harder to explain, because there is the implication that he really only switched sides (a few times) to save his own neck. On the other hand, when he outright admits to Sirius that he was scared, Sirius says that Peter had been selling secrets all along. This doesn't sound like a terrified young man to me, but someone who, like Percy and Sirius, saw something else as the Greater Cause. Hermione, meanwhile, has  even been asked in canon why she's not Ravenclaw. My reasoning is this - she's smart, but what really drives her are, again, her causes. And this can make her a little scary and even misguided; I wouldn't have personally suggested comparing Remus to a House Elf to drive home my arguments, and tricking House Elves into touching clothes is downright ignorant. She really isn't open minded, although she'd tell you she is - for her, it's about fighting Evil, whatever the Evil is at that moment. This is what makes her and Luna such an awkward match - Luna would probably have an entire conversation with Winky on the practicality of being a House Elf. Hermione just wants to indoctrinate. (This is not to say I have any hatred towards Hermione - I actually love her growth throughout the books.)

Moving onto Slytherin... the Hat Song paints a picture of people who are in it for themselves. But is this true? Voldemort certainly was, but then, he's not the best example. And yet he's the "greatest" example Harry has to go by - the other Slytherins he interacts with aren't his favorite people, so that doesn't help. He basically sees the people he doesn't like and then he sees Voldemort.  At least, that's how it is at first. We really know four Slytherins - Slughorn, Narcissa, Draco and Snape. While Slughorn does seem a little self-serving, he may screwed up from years of guilt and not quite as fickle as he seems. (After all, the guy did give advice to Voldemort.) When we see him in HBP, his life's a mess. I don't think we can rely on the damaged, confused Slughorn of HBP. Instead I look at the Slughorn who got his House to help fight. (The movie had the entire House under, well, house arrest. JKR has said it was supposed to be obvious that the Slytherins came back to fight.) He also, if memory serves me correctly, made sure the younger ones got out of the way. That isn't so self-serving. It seems what really drives Slytherin is more the things nearest and dearest to them. So in fact, had Percy been in Slytherin, he may have chosen to pretend he loved Dumbledore if only because Molly and Arthur did. Draco clearly doesn't want to kill Dumbledore, but knows it's best for his family. Narcissa risks being killed by Voldemort just so she can know if her son is still alive.

Unfortunately, because so many Slytherin families are for Voldemort, what seems to be a vicious cycle has transpired. Perhaps Lucius was once like Draco, more reluctant, but knew what his family wanted - or needed. On the other hand, not everyone's idea of nearest and dearest is something we can understand - a Slytherin might decide that the only thing he cares about is his watch, and kill his brother for stealing it. These are just a few examples; I could go on all day. Ultimately I think that Houses really are more complicated than we realize.

Lastly, I think in many ways, Harry Potter is a vanilla series - not for its appeal to all ages, but in that it came out around the same time as other books and shows with more of a sour taste. In Joss Whedon's shows, characters switch sides and moral compasses like there's no tomorrow; so I think when a book like Harry Potter has sketchier elements that could be portrayed as actually bad, it seems misplaced when JK Rowling wasn't trying to write "Harry the Voldemort Slayer." Although the Ministry does seem to fall into Wolfram and Hart territory, at least seasons 1-2 Wolfram and Hart. Nevertheless, I think that it comes close to having shades of gray  - honestly, Snape and Lily aren't so different from Spike and Buffy, minus the weird sex, and Hermione and Willow both do questionable things with their gifts that their friends notice. But the edge we've gotten used to isn't there, because ultimately Harry Potter's still closer to a fairy tale (albeit an adult one) than an urban fantasy with rock music and vampires. This also means that Good and Evil are still more clearly defined - Harry gets away with a lot of things Angel, Buffy, and Dean Winchester didn't.


In short, while I do think there are elements of Harry Potter that are problematic, I think we ought to give JK Rowling more credit. The woman knew what she was doing. It's just sometimes easy to miss.