I've spent quite a few days now, since seeing the newest Harry Potter movie, in a bit of a snit over Emma Watson and her portrayal of Hermione.
Its not that Watson isn't a talented actress, she is; nor is she unappealing in any way. Actually, Watson is perfectly qualified to act the part of Hermione and perfectly lovely as well which, in a way, was my issue. Watson is undeniably pretty, beautiful even, and for awhile now I've been mad that the hair-and-makeup crew, the producers of the movie, even Watson herself did nothing at all to hide that fact. Nothing at all in spite that fact that Hermione is supposed to be the smart one of the trio, the talented and ambitious one... not the pretty one.
Then I read this :
A number of reviewers have been particularly put off by the lovely and lithe Emma Watson, who plays brainiac Hermione, complaining that her good looks make it impossible to accept her character's nerdy persona. It's as though we live in a society where women aren't supposed to be sexy and sharply intelligent at the same time--oh wait, we do live in that society. [...] But both the folks crying foul and salivating over Hermione's good looks ought to go back to the source material and feel thoroughly ashamed of themselves.JK Rowling may not be perfect in terms of writing gender roles, but she does a great job illustrating how Hermione's intellectual assertiveness blinds the men around her to her growing attractiveness. In the fourth book, when Hermione dresses up in a gown, the boys who are her best friends literally don't recognize her because they've de-sexualized her. That's why Hermione's blossoming, and the other characters' eventual acceptance of her as both brilliant and womanly, has made her into a patron saint for girl geeks around the world who want to be proud of who they are without being pigeonholed as asexual.
I've been making Hermione something she was never intended to be; the heroine of my awkward and unattractive (at least in my own mind) adolescent self - someone not pretty, like me, who still had friends and had value as a person, who even found love all while not being a knockout.
In all honesty its been a long while since I've read the books so I can't say, with any accuracy, what Rowling may have intended or not intended for us to think about Hermione's looks. What I can do, however, is ask myself: why does it matter so much? Why am I so attached to my image of Hermione as a perpetually average looking, bushy-haired teenage girl?
Rowling broke major ground in terms of preteen and teenage girl's self esteem - giving them a role-model who can be both intelligent and visually appealing. My problem with the movies exists because that specific insecurity didn't apply to me; as a small girl who preferred books to people quite naturally for a long time it never occurred to me that hiding my intelligence was a tactic that could make me more appealing to the peers that I found myself isolated from.
I always thought my status as the outcast was about the way I looked. I hated my legs, my stomach, my hair - random parts of my slim adolescent body. I was convinced that if I just had a more curvy figure, or boobs, curly hair, knees that didn't look so weird, the clothes everyone else had... if I just looked like them they would like me.
That's why I identified with Hermione right away - she was always reading, obsessed with her work, she had bushy hair and big teeth... in short, she was both smart and unattractive just like me, yet somehow she also had the close relationships that I could not seem to grasp throughout middle school and Jr. High School.
Eventually I grew out of my awkwardness and found myself some close friends, some confidence... but inside, well, the old insecurities still die hard.
I've been ranting about this topic quite a bit in my real life lately, beginning my complaints with the absence of Hermione's trademark bushy hair and continuing from there, becoming more and more incensed as I run out of textual inconsistencies and move into my own perceptions of Hermione. Yet, in spite of all my ranting, no one seems to share my anger, my disillusionment... and quite rightfully so; their Hermione is not necessarily the same as my Hermione, as part of the beauty of a book is that we all paint the same scenes in our own way.
I understand their reluctance to share my anger about Hermione but, at the same time, I see my anger and the makeup/wardrobe/etc. choices that caused it as symptoms of a larger problem. A problem rooted in our society's values, rather than in my own head.
"I don't want to watch a movie with unattractive people," a friend of mine who is very much a feminist responded in the wake of my angry rants, just yesterday. "Even Snape is cast to look more attractive than he is," she added.* These statements made me even more angry, at first, but in the end they are the statements that eventually drew me away from my irrational anger to reveal the true source of my frustration: the way we often value beauty above all else, almost universally, as a society (especially so when we are considering the value of a woman, but still true in terms of men.)
I have become very confident, perhaps even slightly cocky, as I've grown into a college sophomore. I'm smart, a good writer, a good friend, passionate, entertaining, compassionate... I'm a pretty awesome person, and I know it... yet the mirror remains my achilles heel. On the best of days I can stare myself straight in the eye and know I have value, both for my inside and my outside; furthermore, I have fun shopping for clothes and dressing myself in ways that make me feel both confident an attractive. On my worst of days I can spend hours staring at everything but my eyes (my protruding stomach, my frizzy hair, my substantial thighs...) before collapsing into a pile of tears, usually onto my boyfriend or a friend - people who always seems to know how to build me right back up.
Don't get me wrong, I am endlessly grateful for the support I have from family and friends... the support that has allowed me to love myself as much as I do today. Yet at the same time I am infuriated that something so randomly assigned and unrelated to the core of my self can bring me down in the way that it does again, and again, and again. Furthermore, I am both saddened and motivated by the fact that I am not alone in this weakness.
Awhile back a commenter on my blog responded to a post I made about the beauty that everyone possesses with this:
While I would never put it as harshly as this commenter, there is some truth to be found in there. People come in varying degrees of intelligence, varying degrees of athleticism, and so on... right down to varying in terms of beauty; yet all too often we see teenage girls and boys, or even adult men and women, collapsing in the way that I all too often do - paralyzed by our dissatisfaction with what we see reflected in the mirror. Much more often, I believe, than we see people feeling similarly pained about a lack of intellectual ability, athletic ability, communication skills, and so on...
Beauty, at least in the world I've grown up dealing with, is a form of power almost universally accepted and desired. As one writer aptly explains:
I choose this article (aside from the fact that it makes use of legitimate research to make its claims) because its not all bad news; according to the author of this piece, "hiring managers say it is the appearance of confidence they find attractive, not the presence of physical beauty. And they contend that attractiveness has more to do with how you carry yourself and the energy you exude rather than having perfect features or a great physique."
Attractiveness-boosting confidence aside, its undeniable: the sting that comes with being considered average looking, or even downright unattractive, in a world that takes beauty into account almost every step of the way.
In the end I want to live in the world that it appears Rowling tried to sculpt through her writing; a world where, pretty ugly or in between, Hermione (and everyone else) is judged on the contents of her character, rather than her reflection in any mirror.
I don't quite yet know how I'm going to get there yet** but I know where I'm going and, for now, that's enough.
*****************************************************
* These arguments, incidentally, also bring to mind my boyfriend's anger over Slughorn's transformation from a portly mustachioed book character who quite resembled a walrus, to a trimmer and clean-faced on-screen professor. "I wanted to see a fat man with a mustache," he had complained after the movies had ended. A valid but quickly forgotten complaint as he moved on to other issues he found in the film. (My friends all love to pick apart these movies in relation to the books for fun.)
** Just like our Trio has no idea, at the conclusion of this latest film, how they're going to go about finding all of the Horcruxes - or even what the Horcruxes are... another movie plot hole, but that's not something for me to tackle here :)
[Crossposted @ Amplify]
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Hermione in my Head.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15094
I really liked this post!
I also used to be really upset that the film's version of Hermione wasn't the bushy-haired girl that I think Rowling intended her to be. And I'm still mad that the movie industry finds it necessary to make every single female character conventionally attractive.
However,the tricky part is it's kind of a lose-lose situation. If Hermione is conventionally beautiful, then it sends the message that all girls need to conform to a certain beauty standard, no matter how great their other qualities. But on the other hand, if we insist that Hermione has to be awkward-looking then it sends the message that smart girls can't be beautiful, that you have to choose one or the other. And I think this dilemma is very telling. Our society places so much value on female beauty, yet at the same time belittles the people who do fit this beauty standard by stereotyping them as dumb bimbos. This system essentially sets women up to fail.
As an aside, I'd just like to say that I don't really agree with the analysis about Hermione's sexuality that you quoted in your post. They fail to mention that in the scene at the ball Hermione makes a point of explaining that she did a spell to get her hair so smooth but she's too busy to bother doing it everyday. Rowling really does stress that physical appearance is not Hermione's priority, so the film definitely does stray from the book in making Hermione seem much more focused on her beauty. Also, the quote about being "pigeon-holed as asexual" very unfairly implies that only conventionally beautiful people are sexual beings.
I wasn't 100% on board with the quoted analysis either, but I couldn't remember the book-details that would explain why so thank you for that! I just appreciated it in the sense that it pointed out to me the lose-lose situation you mentioned - why couldn't Hermione be pretty? I totally agree that the system seems to be set up for women to fail.
Thank you for your input!
Hermione has been one of my favorite fiction characters since I was in 4th grade. And personally, I think that Emma Watson has done an excellent job in her portrayal of her. I was irritated when, in the 3rd film, her hair went from endearingly bushy to those perfect ringlets...but I also noticed in the latest film that it has become less manicured, and more natural looking. I don't think that a change in hairstyle necessarily denotes sexualization, though. If you notice, in the 3rd film all the characters became more acceptably mainstream in their appearance. I think it had more to do with a change in director and a change in interpretation than with an overt effort to only make Hermione look more polished.
In the end, I respect Emma Watson immensely. She is genuinely intelligent (she's attending Brown in the fall), conducts herself with poise, and remains true to the character and nuances of Hermione despite changes in hair and make-up. And she just so happens to add beauty to the mix, as well. I think we are doing her an injustice if we criticize her beauty and forget the fact that she is just as complex a girl as the one she portrays on screen.
On the one hand, it pisses me off that if a female character in the movie has no sexual draw, she's viewed as completely useless. Invisible. Unless at some point she receives some completely sexualizing make-over. And I understand where you come from, having spent half of high school being the chubby girl.
On the other hand...
As an adult, I'm considered the hot girl, and I find it completely crippling to my intellectual self. I'm a brilliant woman in many ways and none of my smarts are taken very seriously because I'm attractive.
Men that I work with, who I supervise, don't respect my intelligence. They expect nothing less than a sweetie pie. And of course, they expect me to be delighted when they call me "sexy".
I like characters like Hermione because I like to see an example of a female who is smart and capable, and beautiful, and is more to her male companions than just a pretty face. Partly, because I'm inspired by a woman's ability to overcome her own good looks, and because I'm inspired by the idea of a man looking at a woman as an intellectual equal, despite her beauty.
I've seen the way things are handed to me by those who think I'm beautiful. But, unfortunately, consideration for my intellectual and creative capabilities is not one of them. And I feel guilty. Like I should hide my physical beauty.
Heroines like Hermione make me feel proud of what I've been blessed with.
My situation is kinda like yours, as far as the "rags-to-riches" type thing (only it's plain-to-beautiful).
I have always been the smart, funny girl, and I was relatively plain-looking and awkward until I hit about 16. Because of this, I had enjoyed the privilege of having adults and my peers, both male and female, listen to what I said and take me seriously. None of the boys wanted to date me, however, because they were intimidated by my big mouth. Once I started to blossom into a hot girl, things took a rather unfortunate turn for me, and I had all these guys who wanted to bang me, but they still didn't want to date me, because I still had a big mouth. It led to a rough couple of years of being taken advantage of, a lot, by shitty men (low self-esteem will do that too ya).
Recently, however (thanks, feminism!) I have learned to own my intelligence along with my hot body and my pretty face, and not settle for men who don't meet my standards and who don't truly respect what I have to say. Lately, it seems that my attitude and quick wit attract men just as much as my looks. I do sometimes feel like men are slightly in awe of the fact that intelligence and humor can exist in a sexy woman. Or, they think, "Wow, she has political beliefs, how CUTE!" but once I disagree with them, it's not so cute anymore. I don't take it as an insult anymore, however; I just take it as them entering the general process of growing up and realizing that personality traits cannot automatically be associated with appearances.
My experience with men underestimating me only extends to the dating world, however. I don't encounter any problems in my work, but that's probably because straight men don't usually frequent Women's Studies Master's programs (unfortunately! We'd love to have them. But there's hope for the future.)
I dated a man who majored in women's studies in college. He was wonderful to date. He still dumped me for no reason and broke my heart, but they ARE out there.
But yeah, thats exactly what I mean. I hate being reduced to my good looks.
Another thing to consider here is that Emma Watson has been cast in this role for near a decade now. There was no way for the producers to determine how physically attractive she was going to be now all those years ago.
Besides, the character isn't someone who is obsessed with beauty - she doesn't go around as a school girl wearing stillettos for instance, she just happens to look how she looks, she doesn't seem to try to be anything other than neat (her prediliction for study lends itself to being orderly).
"In the fourth book, when Hermione dresses up in a gown, the boys who are her best friends literally don't recognize her because they've de-sexualized her."
One comment here. I think it's great that Hermione's friends don't think of her as a sexual entity. If they did it would distract from and put a strain on their relationship. Even the budding romance between Hemione and Ron is as a result of being kindred spirits. Whilst this type of relationship doesn't always lead to romance it seems like when it does the romance is stronger for it. The sexual attraction is developed second rather than being the primary motivator for the relationship. Yay to that!
In fact I think feminism has a role to play in creating opportunities for this type of relaitonship. When women and men are segregated in the types of roles they can fulfill there are many fewer opportunities for men and women to become kindred spirits. A great side-effect of having more equal numbers of men and women working and studying alongside each other with the same goals is that there is no sense of each other being from different planets. That has to be a positive thing for relationships, when each party is more able to understand the motivations of the other.
My understanding, from reading the books, was that Hermione grew quite lovely over time. She learned to display both brains AND looks while maintaining her sense of self. She did not have to choose one over the other, and Ron, Harry, and the other boys took note of this rather late, as the quoted article states. Perhaps I am misremembering, but that's the way I always pictured Hermione's growth throughout the series.
You remembered it quite well.I was never under the impression that Hermione was not an attractive girl.As they grow older everyone noticed it as well( including Harry and Ron).
I like the fact that her best friends are male,but they always appreciated Hermione first and foremost, for her intelligence. Isn't that want we want as women?
"I understand their reluctance to share my anger about Hermione but, at the same time, I see my anger and the makeup/wardrobe/etc. choices that caused it"
Do you really think that they makeup and wardrobe choices *caused* your anger?
My anger, though it stems from my own childhood insecurities (something I readily admit in the original post and here), was brought on due to the way directors have progressively styled Watson-as-Hermione in the movies (styling her hair more and more professionally, placing her in more and more stylish clothing etc.) Although I once tried to play it off, simply, as annoyance over the movie's departure from the book's descriptions of my favorite character, over time I could not help but examine the personal reasons underneath that were fueling my anger. That's what this post was about - realizing those insecurities and coming to an understanding about how they were creating unnecessary anger over Watson's role in these movies.
I hope that clarifies!
My anger, though it stems from my own childhood insecurities (something I readily admit in the original post and here), was brought on due to the way directors have progressively styled Watson-as-Hermione in the movies (styling her hair more and more professionally, placing her in more and more stylish clothing etc.) Although I once tried to play it off, simply, as annoyance over the movie's departure from the book's descriptions of my favorite character, over time I could not help but examine the personal reasons underneath that were fueling my anger. That's what this post was about - realizing those insecurities and coming to an understanding about how they were creating unnecessary anger over Watson's role in these movies.
I hope that clarifies!
My anger, though it stems from my own childhood insecurities (something I readily admit in the original post and here), was brought on due to the way directors have progressively styled Watson-as-Hermione in the movies (styling her hair more and more professionally, placing her in more and more stylish clothing etc.) Although I once tried to play it off, simply, as annoyance over the movie's departure from the book's descriptions of my favorite character, over time I could not help but examine the personal reasons underneath that were fueling my anger. That's what this post was about - realizing those insecurities and coming to an understanding about how they were creating unnecessary anger over Watson's role in these movies.
I hope that clarifies!
Crap - sorry about that, firefox crashed and apparently decided when I restored the session (twice) to continue re-posting my comment. Ugh.
Crap - sorry about that, firefox crashed and apparently decided when I restored the session (twice) to continue re-posting my comment. Ugh.
Um - Why can't she be smart and beautiful? It's not fair to say a woman can either be one or the other, not both. Am I on a feminist blog, or not? :(
This is exactly what I was thinking while I read this post, along with the thought "Are you serious?"..What is happening to Feministing.com?
I thought that was what the original was about? From what I was able to get from it, the original poster was questioning why she still has the idea in her head of smart and sexy being polar opposites. Yet at the same time, recognizing how not feminist that is. And yet, also wondering why the movie industry has to make her sexy, as if her smarts alone weren't enough.
I have never watched Harry Potter *gasp*
While I don't think I quite managed to express myself fully in this blog post (please forgive me, I have grown far to used to writing for a small audience of people who know me well enough to fill in my blanks) this is exactly the conclusion that I came to in writing the original post. While I (regrettably) never came flat out and said it when I concluded the post with, "In the end I want to live in the world that it appears Rowling tried to sculpt through her writing; a world where, pretty ugly or in between, Hermione (and everyone else) is judged on the contents of her character, rather than her reflection in any mirror" I had hoped to convey the idea that it doesn't MATTER what Hermione looks like - making Emma Watson's beautiful portrayal something I was no longer upset about - and that my attachment to Hermione as a purposefully unattractive character was a result of my own insecurities that I could now see and confront.
In my mind, it seems quite sensible to be angry at her portrayal in the films. I certainly never knew anyone at that age that looked nearly as glamorous and perfectly done-up at every moment as Hermione does in the more recent movies... while I do believe she was meant to be "beautiful" in the books, I always took it as a natural beauty that she possesses while still living a normal life (if being at Hogwarts can be considered normal!) that is often very busy, stressful, and dangerous. Of course a woman can be smart and beautiful, but it's hard to incessantly save the world while getting straight As AND keep looking like a model at every given moment.
It seems to be feeding into this general culture of total perfection that many women and girls face today - you have to always be nice, smart, successful, confident, thin, look gorgeous at all times, and get the guy - whereas I saw Hermione's character as a more attainable kind of heroine.
In my mind, it seems quite sensible to be angry at her portrayal in the films. I certainly never knew anyone at that age that looked nearly as glamorous and perfectly done-up at every moment as Hermione does in the more recent movies... while I do believe she was meant to be "beautiful" in the books, I always took it as a natural beauty that she possesses while still living a normal life (if being at Hogwarts can be considered normal!) that is often very busy, stressful, and dangerous. Of course a woman can be smart and beautiful, but it's hard to incessantly save the world while getting straight As AND keep looking like a model at every given moment.
It seems to be feeding into this general culture of total perfection that many women and girls face today - you have to always be nice, smart, successful, confident, thin, look gorgeous at all times, and get the guy - whereas I saw Hermione's character as a more attainable kind of heroine.
"Hermione is supposed to be the smart one of the trio, the talented and ambitious one... not the pretty one"
Rowling didn't make Hermione ugly; she made her a slightly awkward and unconfident child. Of course, as she grew up, she grew out of that and developed a sense of self-esteem and strength. When Hermione "dresses up", her friends are surprised not because they are seeing a uncharacteristically sexualized version of their best friend, its because they are seeing her hold herself in a different way--more confidently and with a newfound sense of self-assurance. THAT is where the "beauty" comes from in the Harry Potter books, and in real life.
P.S. I distinctly remember in the books Hermione admitting that she stopped using the "hair potion" that makes her hair shiny and sleek because it is too much of a bother. But by then, she doesn't need it anymore :)
"Hermione is supposed to be the smart one of the trio, the talented and ambitious one... not the pretty one"
First of all, thinking of Hermione as the "talented one", or the ambitious one" or the "pretty one" is just another way of objectifying her, or reducing her to one of the many qualitiies that make her HER.
Rowling didn't make Hermione ugly; she made her a slightly awkward and unconfident child. Of course, as she grew up, she grew out of that and developed a sense of self-esteem and strength. When Hermione "dresses up", her friends are surprised not because they are seeing a uncharacteristically sexualized version of their best friend, its because they are seeing her hold herself in a different way--more confidently and with a newfound sense of self-assurance. THAT is where the "beauty" comes from in the Harry Potter books, and in real life.
Finally, do we really need "ugly" role models to feel good about ourselves? Can we simply appreciated the totality of our existence-flaws and faults, mind and body, experiences and dreams--and not just one aspect of it, physical appearance.
P.S. I distinctly remember in the books Hermione admitting that she stopped using the "hair potion" that makes her hair shiny and sleek because it is too much of a bother. But by then, she doesn't need it anymore :)
The interesting thing to me is that when I see someone who's hot, and who seems to get a lot of male attention, I automatically think that she's dumb. It's not *necessarily* that I think that you can't be smart and beautiful (and I would consider myself an example) but it's more that when I see someone who makes me insecure about my own looks (or my own brains for that matter) I have to find a way to put her down, and more specifically, to elevate myself over her.
This seems to me like a pattern of women putting each other down, whether in the workplace or socially or wherever (and I mean this as part of a broad conversation, not as a means of attacking or criticizing the original post) perhaps because we perceive that there are limited resources out there (men, jobs, respect, prestige...whatever) and that women must constantly be in competition with each other.
I see this the most on my campus where the ideal is to be smart, to drink a lot and to be gorgeous (and make it seem effortless) but where reputation and also sorority life (even amongst the feminist sororities) is governed by standards that WE as women put on each other. I see this in my family where WE as women judge each other by looks, parenting skills, etc... and I'm sure men do this as well with the crazy "man-code" and pressure to be "manly" but the point I'm trying to make is that a lot of women are keen on putting each other down, make themselves feel better, and defeat the whole women's unity/advancement ideas in the process...maybe?
Am I the only one who thought that she was average looking? And I don't mean that in a disparaging way, but she just looked normal to me. I think most people look normal. I don't see her as a bombshell. She looked pretty natural, aside from the ringlets. I thought she was totally appropriate for the character.
Hermione in the books has bushy hair, but she's never said to be ugly. I always assumed that when other girls called her ugly in the books, it was just teenage antics.
I have to agree with this... I was sitting here biting my tongue. She's obviously not ugly and is in fact attractive - but I don't see her as overly attractive and certainly not as a bombshell. She seems rather average looking to me (for her age). Most girls of that age group are fairly attractive, she doesn't stand out to me above my cousins, neices, teenagers I encounter frequently at work, etc. But maybe it's been awhile since I saw any of the movies?
A bit off topic, but it's always been such a huge disappointment to me that the books, like almost all children's books, feature a male as the leading/title character. I get that there are female characters, but seriously... Whoopty doo. That doesn't impress me. You might think that a female author would understand this. Why couldn't they have been the Hermione books?
Oh wait, because then she couldn't have sold 647 billion copies because it wouldn't have been a children's book series... It would have been a little girl's book series.
/rant
They were meant to feauture a girl as the main character. At some point she was told to change it because "no one will buy a book about a girl".
Actually, I believe she was told to publish under JK instead of her first name, because publishers didn't think people would buy the books if they knew a woman wrote it.
This is unfair. JKR didn't write a book for the sole purpose of it being her vehicle to combat gender stereotypes. She wrote a book because the idea came to her. And actually, she never meant to "feauture a girl as the main character", Pharoah Katt; she has explicitly said that Harry simply "came to her" as boy (http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm).
The Harry Potter books are full of strong and powerful-both in the good way and bad way--female characters. I think it is unfair to call the author sexist simply because she followed her creative integrity.
On a side note, I think the best way for an author to communicate a particular ideal, such as feminism, is not to force it down their readers throats (say, in the form of a series about Harriet Potter), but to blend it within the rest of the story, making it real, natural, convincing, and contagious. I think Rowling achieves that perfectly in her books.
It's unfair of me to voice my opinion? Noted.
I never called the author sexist so you put that word in my mouth. That said, I do firmly believe that the children's book industry is extremely biased and sexist and that the fact that the series features a male main character, whether inspired by a true artistic spark or pure money lust, is massively responsible for the extreme financial success of the books.
I'm thoroughly confused by the "Harriet Potter" portion of your comment. So if the author had, from the beginning, decided to write a book about a female character named Harriet Potter instead of Harry Potter, that would have been akin to shoving feminism down readers' throats? I'm not sure how else to interpret what you said.
J.K.R. came up with the idea of Harry as a boy. 50/50 chance. It would be forcing a different story/idea/whatever if she changed it to Harriet, which she did BRIEFLY consider. I'm pretty sure that's all Hypatia meant.
I don't know much about the publishing industry, so a book with a strong female character as the lead may be rejected for being about a girl. I think it's pretty likely that it has happened before and could happen again.
I read some library book (sorry, it was a really random little biography I can't remember the name of, probably something like "JK Rowling") that mentioned both the thought of Harriet Potter and that Harriet came about after Harry, and only came because JKR is a self proclaimed feminist (says random little biography). Anyway, the point I've been meandering to is that each "type" of person exists in a male and female form. Bellatrix and Voldemort, Luna and Neville, etc. This really seems like a way of quietly putting in strong females, and women that hold their own, toe-to-toe with the "menfolk" or whatever. I believe she put these characters in to subtly reinforce that women can be just as scary, or funny, or smart as men, and expanded this feminism to an audience that might not have read the book had it been about a girl.
Sorry for super long post of Harry Potter stuff. Its kinda what I do.
So millions of adults and children alike read the Harry Potter series simply because it features a main male character? I'm sorry, have you ever read the books, to be assuming that this is the series' main appeal?
Its unfair to assume that the author deliberately chose to write a story with a male lead character just so her books would sell more. Forcefully fitting a character who came to her as male into a female form, is what I meant by "forcing feminism down people's throats".
Furthermore, the Harry Potter characters aren't defined by their gender. Hermione isn't smart because she is a girl; she's a girl who happens to be smart. Harry isn't a hero because he is a boy; he's a boy who happens to be the hero of the story. JKR made gender secondary to the qualities of her characters, and in doing so, encourages her own feminist ideals in a more effective way, than had she crudely changed Harry to a Harriet.
That's really simplifying the argument... if the books had had a female heroine, it would have changed how they were marketed, changed the target audience, etc. Thsse factors do make a difference in how books are read and sold. These books might have become a hit even with a heroine, but they probably would have been marketed specifically towards girls rather than as a general fantasy series. Studies show (I can't link to them, I'm sorry, but I've heard these cited many times) that boys don't like to read books with female heroines, but that girls are equally comfortable reading books with male or female heroines. A female lead would have had less of a mass appeal, and I'm sure the publishers know it. Again, this may have made the publisher invest less money in advertising, distribute it less widely, etc.
I do think these books would have been at least a modest hit either way. They're too appealing and fun not to at least gather a cult following. But no, I don't think Harriet Potter would have been the blockbuster Harry Potter was, just for societal reasons on all levels.
Exactly. My argument was never that Rowling was specifically being sexist in writing a book with a male main character, but that the books likely would never have even been turned into movies or made it onto the best sellers list with a female in the main role.
How is writing a book with a female lead shoving feminism down throats? That's ridiculous. Are you saying you can't write a book that is "real, natural, convincing, and contagious" with a female lead? Double ridiculous.,,you're ridiculous.
I think the "real, natural..." part meant that it would be trying to fit a story thought of for a male character onto a female character.
Because she thought of Harry as "Harry" rather than "Harriet" first, while she was forming the story, she stuck with him.
I think the "real, natural..." part meant that it would be trying to fit a story thought of for a male character onto a female character.
Because she thought of Harry as "Harry" rather than "Harriet" first, while she was forming the story, she stuck with him.
Ok, I stand corrected. I read somewhere that she was told her books would fail if a girl was the main character. But you're right, that's different from being told to change the main character to a boy.
Thank for the post sunfollower! I can totally relate to the way you feel.
PS. I got annoyed from this particular book/movie because they had pretty much everyone dating/snogging somebody. Why couldn't one of the characters still be cool, but not end up hooking up with anyone? I blame teen movies like this one for making dating seem like the only normal thing to do and making those of us that did not date in high school feel even more like outcasts.
"...I blame teen movies like this one for making dating seem like the only normal thing to do and making those of us that did not date in high school feel even more like outcasts."
And it's not just the teen movies either! Heck, even the edition of Changing Bodies, Changing Lives that I had as a teen said that making out with one's date was the only alternative to having some sort of sex (what did the authors think those of us without dates were, chopped liver?).
I've been comparing the perceptions of Hermione expressed in this thread with those I've seen in fanfic, particularly that written by young women in their teens. Many of these writers, sadly, have been thoroughly indoctrinated with the popular media's notion that Beauty is All. At one of my favorite discussion fora (now defunct), the phrase "Hermione had changed over the summer" came to be something of an in-joke, because so many stories started with that very notion: Hermione comes back to school for fifth/sixth/seventh year, with her hair straightened (and usually "raven black") and her teeth fixed; she is dressed in some variation on "tight black hip-hugger jeans and a blood-red halter top", with pierced navel and probably a small tattoo or so. And, most importantly, she has realized the "truth" that she was unable to see before: that books and study are stupid things to be interested in, much less important than fashion and and shopping and the music of Evanescence and getting herself re-sorted into Slytherin so she can date Draco.
Her looks weren't really described very much after her introduction in book one. Emma Watson isn't what I would call attractive then but what girl that age (she was 10 when she was casted) is? Of course she grew up and looked different but the book doesn't go into much detail on what she looks like as she ages.
Because I'm a Harry/Hermione shipper (please refrain from a shipping debate with me, I'm so tired of those) I always remember this moment however I forget which book it was at the moment. Hermione says she's ugly or atleast that she thinks Harry thinks she's ugly and he says "I don't think you're ugly." So Hermione was pretty in the books(atleast to Harry anyway).
On another note, I've seen people also complain about Bonnie not being attractive enough. From book five and on, Ginny is very popular and dates several guys. Her first boyfriend, Micheal Corner, was not featured in the movies but her second, Dean Thomas is however sparringly.
But like I said her looks are described too much. As much as we get past her introduction is red hair and chocolate brown eyes. It's possible she was popular for something other than her looks. I always felt her character was very flat and she never really had a defined personality. So if she's popular for her personality, it's off-page.
I just wanted to say I love the Harry Potter books and movies (though usually I always hate the movie at first b/c they miss so many key elements and change stuff, but in time I forgive).
Anyways, in the third movie did any of you get super annoyed when Hermione says "Does the back of my hair really look like that?" It just irritated me because it wasn't a comment Hermione would ever make, totally out of character.
I just don't think Watson, Grint, or even or Radcliffe are very good actors. Admittedly I have not seen them in anything other than the HP movies and Radcliffe got good reviews for Equus (although a lot of them mentioned that he was "brave" for doing nudity, which isn't much of an endorsement of his acting).
In the most recent film Watson and Grint were just awful. Could be the script and the direction, but there is no evidence to me that they are "good actors".
I really enjoyed reading this post and all the replies.
First off, I love that there have been so many different responses to this, which just goes to show how many different ways all of us have interpreted and personalized Hermione and the HP books, just as we have interpreted and personalized feminism in a million different ways.
I'm a huge, HUGE fan of the books, and one of those people who can read things I like over and over again, so at this point I've read the entire series at least 10 times and know it pretty much back to front. I find it very interesting that you would interpret Hermione as almost a fictional version of you--brainy and witty but not classically beautiful. I did the same thing but differently. I've always been one of the smarter ones and one of the prettier ones (though I wouldn't call myself "hot"), but I never really saw myself that way. I beat myself down a lot with the thought that I was smart but not the smartest, pretty but not the prettiest. It wasn't until my senior year of high school that I started to gain a lot more self confidence.
Hermione always represented myself to me--smart and hard-working but also attractive in an understated, unimportant way. She's always been a feminist figure to me, because although I thought of her as a smart and pretty girl, those qualities were never what her character was about. Especially in the later books Hermione's character became valuable because of her maturity, increased open-mindedness, and understanding of the people around her. She never tolerated prejudice and embraced her own uniqueness. I think those are the qualities, rather than her brains or her looks, that make her such an important figure in literature.
The Hermione in MY head looked like a girl I used to know as a child (I started reading the books when I was 9) who was mixed English/afro caribbean. I think I cast her because she had buck teeth and bushy hair. She was pretty though. I never thought of Hermione as plain at all.
Let's talk probabilities!
P(a female is intelligent) -- high
P(a female is attractive) -- high
P(a female is both intelligent & attractive) -- not so high
A talented writer like Joanne displays this sense of likelihood unless she is specifically writing about a hot genius.
But profit oriented producers take a primarily intelligent Hermione and turn her into a hot genius for a few more bucks... and girls on feministing debate what Rowling really intended!
At first I thought you were being sarcastic about that probabilities thing, but what you said about us "girls" on Feministing leads me to think that you were being serious. Therefore, I would like to politely suggest that you are possibly unaware of the large amount of attractive AND intelligent women in the world because none of them will talk to you.
"Girls" was a mistake. Could have said "women" as well. I didn't realize that it would be offensive to feminist readers. And I think it got you thinking me as a male chauvinist. I'm not.
But yes, I was serious. I would make my point clear this way:
P(a MALE is intelligent) -- high
P(a MALE is attractive) -- high
P(a MALE is both intelligent & attractive) -- not so high
That is, I was referring to the general rule that there are fewer persons who are both intelligent and attractive as compared with persons who are only intelligent or only attractive. And that if Joanne were to make Hermione a "Hot Genius" it would take focus away from the main character of her book.
Okay, sorry I misunderstood. But yes, many adult women, feminist or not, consider it an insult to call us "girls." It's infantilizing and dismissive.
And yes, you did come off as a male chauvinist because your "probabilities" imply that intelligent, attractive women are few and far between, and that most women are one or the other. Honestly, that's just as insulting when you replace "women" with "men."
I've always, always been upset with Watson's appearance being the representation of Hermione. When her hair frizzed up when trying to brew the Draught of Living Death in the beginning of this last movie, I turned to my friend and told her *that* is what her hair is supposed to be like *all the time.* Being rather bushy-haired myself, I suppose that's why I take so much offense that their version of bushy is just somewhat wavy. I couldn't care less about any of her other features (mostly because Rowling never really described them), just as long as they get the hair right--which is not a difficult task. Besides, bushy-haired and beautiful are not mutually exclusive traits.
I always complain about Harry, too. How he's supposed to have black hair, not dark brown, and bright green eyes, not blue. It bugs me whenever they say he's got his mother's eyes.
PS: Also pointed out to my friend something. They make an effort to include different people of color in the movie, but most of the students are average height and they are *all* average weight. For some reason, there are no fat students at Hogwarts--except Malfoy's drones. Why is that? You think they wouldn't mind having some chubby extras at least.
You know, I think this is a problem with movies made out of books-the characters as they are in your head never look like the person picked to play them. Even on this thread, everyone's saying, "My version/vision of Hermione was...etc etc" and that's the great thing about books-they let you have that vision. Nothing filled in for you, lot easier to get into. None of the actors looked like how I pictured those characters in my head (except, oddly enough, Harry's Uncle. he was perfect) and that's something I find really hard to get over in films.
For those of you who are major harry potter fans, you will remember that the transformation of hermione started in the second book when she was given beaver teeth by someone ( I can't remember who at this moment) and when she had madame pomfrey fix them she had them taken from her actual teeth to being entirely fixed and small. Rowling continues to mention the physical transformation as she got older in the books. I actually always appreciated that about hermione personally. It was good to have a character who was both extremly intelligent and smart. It showed girls that they could be both. That the geeky girls can be attractive too, and that you don't have to be a bimbo to be beautiful. It allowed me to think that it was okay to be both and not try to hide either.
This is part, too, of the allure--to girls--of the Twilight books. The "heroine" (protagoniste?) is an unrelentingly hard-on-herself, average, "plain Jane," be-sweatpanted and awkward teenage girl. That the most (in the book) fascinating and handsome d00d in all of high school high should pay attention to HER! -- well! -- it's an old trope, isn't it? The underdog? I wonder how many books written for men involve a hot guy realizing he loves a plain lady without some kind of major lionizing hoo-ha about his discernment or transformation into a human being (Shallow Hal) or whatever.
"I'm smart, a good writer, a good friend, passionate, entertaining, compassionate... I'm a pretty awesome person" so you're lucky. You don't deserve that any more than a pretty woman deserves to be pretty...you have one sort of privilege, and not another.
I realise that partly you're complaining about the social construction that says you have to be attractive to be worth anything, but being intelligent and all those other things makes your life good in ways that attractive, but less intelligent people don't get.
Chat up lines I've never heard:
"Cor look at the brain on that..."
"Hallo darling, let me take you to a gender studies class"
Feministing should look at the fan reaction to Ginny (it's negative, of course). She dates a lot (moreso in the book than in the film), she's very forward and proactive about her feelings for Harry and she risks her life to protect him - and the fan base is NOT liking it at all. It's quite sad, she's probably my favourite character after Malfoy.
I guess they prefer Hermione sobbing on Harry's shoulder than Ginny putting Harry's life before her own.
Thankfully, the fan base also seems to hate Lavender Brown, the brainless, nasty, lovestruck Ron fangirl.
but shes introduced as the moony-eyed fangirl/damsel in distress in the second novel and thats always the thing i think of first when i think of her. shes just so boring! doesnt seem to really have a personality, always following harry around and doing whatever.
i like when she stands up to ron when it comes to her dating. that was smart. but on the whole, i think she lacks in substance.
luna lovegood is my secondary character of choice.
My high school experience starting with me being a frizzy-haired geek and ended with a fair bit of attention from boys. Sometimes both at once, depending on which group I was hanging out with, which was incredibly confusing and weird. So Hermione was pretty relatable to me in that sense. But I appreciate this post's reminder that my experience is not everyone else's, my Hermione is not everyone else's, and just because I find her relatable does not mean she's perfect from a feminist perspective.
At the same time, I was 19 when I first read Harry Potter, and it made me realize how starved for relatable heroines I had been as a kid/teenager. I mean there had been female characters I liked and admired in books growing up, but Hermione had it all: insecurities I could relate to (the hair!!), intelligence, sass, real character development. Mostly, I loved that even for all her insecurities, she NEVER apologized for being smarter than everyone else.
Regarding the issue that "Hermione's friends had desexualized her"... on the flip side, one of the things I really appreciate in retrospect is that Harry and Ron didn't have to see Hermione as "hot" before they valued her as a person, worthy of friendship and dignity. She's still in the gawky stage when Draco calls her a "mudblood," and later when Snape publicly humiliates her about her teeth. Doesn't matter to Ron, who goes ballistic in her defense. And he wasn't angry because he was trying to "impress the hot chick" or whatever... he was sincerely angry that they'd hurt her. (Admittedly I really like Ron/Hermione, but if Harry/Hermione is your thing, I think you could make a similar case.)
I think, regardless of the later issues around Hermione's attractiveness, that's a pretty good basis for a relationship. As far as the message it sends to the audience, I think you could do worse than suggesting the smart, self-possessed young woman would find happiness with her imperfect-but-goodhearted best friend. Lord knows that's a healthier message than Twilight, or the "shy goodhearted girl ends up with brooding quasi-abusive bad boy" narrative that's so disturbingly frequent elsewhere.
"Regarding the issue that 'Hermione's friends had desexualized her'... on the flip side, one of the things I really appreciate in retrospect is that Harry and Ron didn't have to see Hermione as 'hot' before they valued her as a person, worthy of friendship and dignity."
Yeah, that was something I liked about the books too (well, books 1-5, since I haven't got around to reading 6 or 7).
Not a big Potter fan but I think it's fine that H. is pretty and intelligent.
But, of course, we would not be having this conversation about a male actor/role. Men can be smart AND attractive, unattractive AND smart, dumb AND attractive, etc. Men simply have more freedom to express a range of talents and personal attributes.
I'm really sick of polarizing women's brains and looks. We have TV shows like Beauty and the Geek, The Big Bang theory, etc (granted, in these shows the men are smart and nerdy-looking, but in some cases, adorable).
There are very few examples of truly brainy women in pop culture. But here are a few I have come up with:
The female doctors on House
The female detectives on Criminal Minds
The Closer
The female lead in Bones
Scully from X-Files (sadly only in re-runs)
There are some intelligent women portrayed but they are seldom unattrctive. But TV and film are visual mediums. Most of the males are attractive too.
BTW: After an awkward period, I've always been considered pretty. I'm also a total nerd and work in a field that requires brains and a high IQ. It throws people who meet me before they know what I do for a living. People tend to expect me to work in a lower-status profession ('casue I'm a girl). People who know my job status but haven't met me yet are usually surprised by my appearance when they actually see me. Makes life interesting...
You can add Lisa Simpson and Daria Morgendorffer to that list. As well as Samantha Carter from Stargate SG-1 and I suppose Tapping's other sci-fi character from Sanctuary.