One of the most surprising things about Representations of Gender in the Harry Potter Series by Elizabeth E. Heilman and Trevor Donaldson was my reaction to it. After reading the authors’ initial disclaimers about what it means to read something like literature through a critical lens, I expected to be prepared for the critique of one of my favorite series of novels. I was mistaken.

I should also quickly note before going further that I consider myself to be a progressive, modern feminist and an advocate for artistic criticism and analysis with regard to gender and sex as well as religion, race, sexuality, and other forms of personal representation that can be portrayed through media.

However, as I was reading this piece, I was frequently frustrated and defensive with the authors and their claims. I am not exactly even sure I can pinpoint 100% why. Despite their critique of a favorite literary work, it is unlikely a result of protective fandom as I am not as rabid a fan as some. In fact, I didn’t read the series until after all of the movies had been released to screen even though I lived during a time when my teenage friends would go to book release parties for Rowling’s latest installments.

Perhaps it is just my own idea of what it means to be critical of what amounts to a children’s book. Yes, it is frequently read and enjoyed by persons of all ages. However, it was originally written with the simple entertainment of young adults in mind, and thus should hardly be subject to an onslaught of ideological analysis afforded the likes of the intentional political allegory found in Animal Farm.

And not just that, but I also felt irritated by the gratuitous attachment of meaning assigned to the sacrifices in character development and reliance on stereotype that a new author had to make in order to get her book published. In fact, J.K. Rowling is a female author that had to use a genderless pseudonym in order to be considered for publishing at all. To me, that inspires at least a token of sympathy (not to mention understanding when it comes to gender norms in her books).

Therefore, this piece brought out an uncontrollable flurry of emotions and eye-rolls. As I read it, I hoped that they would take a breath to acknowledge the fact that Rowling wrote a book that appealed to girls, boys, men, and women equally, and dragging the series through the briar patch of feminist theory was not really necessary. Sort of interesting to a reader on a superficial level, and probably fun to over-analyze as a researcher, okay – but not necessary.

Anyway, I took some notes as I was reading and instead of presenting them one-by-one in boring academic-paper style, I will just list them below, in all their hostile glory. Enjoy.

NOTES ON: Representations of Gender in the Harry Potter Series by Heilman and Donaldson

• Only talks about female actions… Doesn’t value Hermione’s “cleverness” or intelligence (later describes it as a purely feminine trait)
• Speaks of the book as if these characters are real people, but analyzes them in a way that implies they are not (real women are more action-oriented?? Maybe not. These authors only think they should be. Perhaps they are blaming the book on this fact)
• p.147 mentions Hermione helping Harry through her knowledge but never participating in adventures of her own (NO DUH! IT’S NOT CALLED HARRY POTTER AND HERMIONE GRANGER AND THE SOCERER’S STONE!)
• The author JK Rowling is a person reflecting the values of the society she lives in. It is not her responsibility to change those very real attributes in a fictional story merely to serve some kind of idealistic purpose. The world of Harry Potter is not a utopia in many senses, including gender and stereotypes.
• There is little way to know if these were conscious or unconscious decisions made by Rowling – her characters reflect society perhaps making them more relatable -> a quality that sells books to publishers (as does the pseudonym JK Rowling!)
• p. 149 Emotional Females and the part about women crying: these authors describe mostly teenage girls, who, frankly (just like in real life) are hormonal and prone to outbursts of emotion… NOTHING NEW THERE
• p.150 “Yet males rarely touch or cry” -> again NOTHING NEW THERE
• Agree with rest of p.150/151 about portraying females in packs (giggling actions aside)… probably something interesting there.
• Questionable sources on p.154 -> research from the 1980’s and 1990’s about “females” and how they behave around desirable men, or how they read
• Hypocrisy: On one page these authors try to tear down Rowling’s attempts at diversity and inclusion with Angelina being black, but then on another page tear her down for not making it explicit that Dumbledore was gay. It’s like if she says it explicitly then she’s trying too hard, and if she doesn’t then it’s not helpful for disenfranchised groups and her lack of attempt becomes “offensive” (p.157)
• p.158 authors finally admit that Rowling’s representations of males are in line with real-life culture in schools
• While at the conclusion they back-up and say “yes but this is all for the sake of discussion with kids about gender normativity etc” Kids don’t read the social undertones of a book that closely… and the idea of reading a series of novels for something other than their entertainment value would lead me to reading something else entirely. That is, unless I was a researcher tasked with doing just that.