On the plane back from Bangladesh I made the mistake of watching The Crimes of Grindelwald, the latest instalment in Rowling’s exploration of the Potter universe. In this sequel to Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, Grindelwald has escaped from imprisonment by the wizards in the USA and headed off to Europe to find Credence and begin to rouse a following of wizards who will help him achieve his goals. We follow Newt Scamander, Tina, Queenie and Jacob as they attempt to head off Grindelwald and stop him doing whatever he is trying to do.
I cannot give much more of a review of the movie than that because to be honest I didn’t have a clue what was going on in this messy and confusing story, and I was too incensed by a few details of the movie to care too much about the story anyway. What is Johnny Depp doing in this thing? Quite apart from the fact of recent revelations about his personal life, he is well past his use-by date and should be taken out the back of the studios and quietly put out of his misery. To be fair his performance as Grindelwald is better than pretty much anything else he has done in a long time, but this simply means it could have been replaced with pretty much anyone else. But I persevered! Only to find that fat ugly stupid boring Jacob gets his girl, because while in Hollywood every woman has to be stunningly good looking and have a flawless body and perfect make up and clothes, any fat dude in an ill-fitting suit with the personality of a wet blanket can pull any hot chick. There’s hope for you yet, Homer Simpsons of the world! Also, what happened to the sweet and happy Queenie of the first movie, that she makes a sudden Luke Skywalker-esque zig zag to amoral monster in the beat of an eye? Why can’t modern movie-makers figure this simple shit out? Or at least give us some hint of the change in personality that a much-loved character is going to undergo, so we can at least try and understand it[1]? So having overlooked Queenie’s monstrous change, I am left none the wiser as to what Grindelwald is really trying to do or in fact what his actual crimes are. Has he killed anyone yet? Has he actually done anything? Also, what’s with the incredibly complex and twisted family tale involving baby-swapping on the Titanic? Does everything have to have these super complicated antecedents? Can’t Credence just be, well, Credence? Does he have to be someone important? Is it something weird about Americans that everybody in their movies has to be a fucking Kardashian? Heaven forbid that a powerful wizard should just be an ordinary orphan boy (or worse still, a girl!) with nothing to recommend them except their own innate character and talent! Not that anyone in this putrid sequel had any character … even Scamander was a second-rate version of himself from the previous movie, and Tina and Queenie had lost all of the ethereal beauty and charm they had in the first episode.
So, really, this movie had nothing to recommend it overall and is a good reminder of why I skipped most of the Harry Potter movies. But it offers us a fascinating case study in the problem I identified in my review of Fantastic Beasts: This world we are watching is fucked up, and the sooner the Muggles burn it all down, hoist every wizard on a lamppost, and rid the world of their evil, the better. In my review of the first movie I noted that the magical administration seems to have brainwashed its participants and is cool with summary execution, and I also noted that there is a big inequality between muggles and wizards, that the wizards know about and are doing nothing to stop. In this movie the fascism of the wizards becomes even clearer. In addition to the summary executions of the first episode, we now learn that the administration has complete control of your travel rights and a wizard who travels without permission from the administration gets locked in Azkaban for life; we see that they have a well-organized and extensive secret police; we see that they have surveillance and control measures that they can apply even to famous intellectuals (i.e. Dumbledore) with impunity; and we see no semblance of due process for any of this. We also discover that they have strict anti-miscegenation laws – no one is allowed to love a muggle, and the punishment is terrible. Finally we learn that a lot of them think of muggles as inferior and not human, and want to exterminate all of them. Or, in the case of Grindelwald, exterminate most of them but keep a few around as cattle. So basically the wizards are running a parallel world to the muggles that is much much wealthier than the muggle world, could intervene at any time to make the muggle world much wealthier, healthier and better developed, but doesn’t want to and maintains a strict fascist administration that murders and imprisons anyone who opposes it or tries to help the muggles in any way. Dumbledore is in on the whole thing, and even people who break the rules (like Scamander) don’t do so out of any deep dislike of the system – they just break the rules because they want to have a fling in Paris with their American girlfriend.
Nice people all round.
We also get to see that Grindelwald has seen the future and has seen that in a couple of years the muggles are going to go to war and develop new weapons (nuclear weapons and aircraft) that will make wizards look like chickenshit, and his proposed solution to this problem is the mass extermination of all muggles. When he reveals this information to his followers they gasp in horror at the “arrogance” of the muggles in developing such weapons. Nobody seems to put any thought into the possibility that the muggles wouldn’t have to lift a finger to produce anything like nuclear weapons if the wizards would just share their power to breach the laws of thermodynamics with those who are not lucky enough to be born magical. But such a solution would be a step too far – why would they share their wealth with inferior muggles when it’s much more logical just to wipe them out?
Also why am I watching this movie about a couple of servants of a fascist organization (Tina and Scamander) who are working hard to prevent a radical fascist splinter group of their fascist organization from enacting a global program of genocide to stop a movement of non-magical fascists who share exactly the same principles as they do? It’s fascists all the way down. It seems like the only way that this series could turn a moral corner is if we discover that actually Stalin was industrializing the Soviet Union for the sole purpose of exterminating wizards, the real enemies of global prosperity[2]. By the end of this I was cheering for everyone to kill themselves.
So that’s the problem with this movie: everyone in it needs to die. But the movie does give us something of an insight into how confused Americans (I guess; and Rowling, who is British) are getting about fascism. Grindelwald’s organization had obviously Nazi imagery – his thuggish aides wore obviously Nazi style clothes, he himself is suspiciously German, etc. – and his goal of exterminating all the untermenschen[3] is explicitly Nazi. But the organization he is in opposition to is also a straight-up fascist dictatorship, with far-reaching powers of surveillance and secret investigation, enamoured of torture and extra-judicial killings, who control every aspect of their citizens lives. And the organization he is ultimately scared of and trying to stop is also a Nazi organization[4], which will attempt to do all the things he and his opponents in the wizarding world want to do. Yet, the placement of heroes and villains in this movie in the traditional sense tells me that I’m supposed to be supporting one side in opposition to the other, which means I’m supposed to be supporting fascists who are trying to stop some splinter fascists from fighting some fascists. This is both terrible story-writing and also a sign that modern writers have lost their ability to understand Who are the Real Fascists. Usually stories about people opposed to fascists involve brave, good people who generally stand on the side of freedom and liberty – not Other Fascists. So either the writers have got a really vicious sting in the tail of this trilogy, or the writers have some kind of grimdark vision in which we all side with the fascists, or the writers have not got a fucking clue what a fascist is, and are so unmoored from a basic understanding of politics that they can’t any longer tell the difference between Fascists and Anti-Fascists. There are, we are led to believe, good people on both sides! Or at least on one side, which is a significant advance on “there were no good people on either side”, which was (I would have thought) the standard view of fascists fighting fascists until relatively recently.
My inference from all this is that the people writing this movie actually want us to pick a side, and just haven’t noticed that the side we’re supposed to pick is actually a fascist world government that executes people on a whim and imprisons you for life in a hellish prison with soul-eating demons if you have the wrong boarding pass. The writers are so politically ignorant that they don’t understand the difference between fascism and freedom, and/or are so used by now to the creeping fascism overwhelming their nation that they haven’t noticed that the things the magical administration does are deeply wrong. This is consistent with a lot of other warning signs we’re seeing coming from America at the moment: the fact that Elliot Abrams was defended by almost everyone in “serious” political journalism when a politician pointed out his history of treason and lying to congress; the fact that so many movies now have the good guys using torture and summary execution without any moral qualms; the fact that 23 Republican congressmen can vote against a resolution opposing hate because hate is now cool. I could go on. The moral collapse in the US (and the UK?) is now so far gone that the people who produce its propaganda can no longer tell the difference between themselves and the things that their nation once fought. And so it is that we get subjected to movies like The Crimes of Grindelwald, where we are asked to pick a side when all the sides need to die in a fire.
The only pure people in Rowling’s world are the muggles. They need to rise up and destroy the wizards, or at least enslave them, before the wizards try to exterminate everyone on earth. If we’re lucky that will be the sting in the tail of the final movie, but I doubt it. More likely, we’ll be cheering the fascist government as it beats its fascist splinter movement, and then stands back to watch as fascists burn Europe to ashes. And somewhere along the way the writers will assume that we have lost our own moral code, so that we think this hell makes moral sense. I never thought I would have to say this, but I think the fascists have won.
Other reviews you might be interested in …
The problems underlying Rowling’s world.
Why Avengers: Infinity War is a bullying disaster.
Mad Max: Fury Road as a perfect political vision of ecofeminist violence.
fn1: Also a shout-out here to the way Rowling pissed away one of the fundamental parts of Voldemort’s back story with the Queenie-Jacob shenanigans. Apparently Voldemort is evil because he is the child of a union that was forced by love magic, and that’s why he’s a psychopath who doesn’t understand love. This is a super important message from the original books! So in this movie we see Queenie rock up with Jacob under the exact same spell, and it is just a passing gag, nothing serious, no reflection on her personality or on the nature of wizards. These moments – like the newfound hyperspace killer trick in Star Wars: The Last Jedi – undermine the seriousness and impact of whole story arcs in previous canon, and are a really fucking stupid thing to do.
fn2: I guess there’s another bridge-too-far story in which Hitler set up the Nazi Party as a movement dedicated to the destruction of wizards, but somewhere along the way the wizards used mind control powers to change its platform into exterminating other muggles instead, thus avoiding being identified as the real threat facing the world, and accidentally sparking the holocaust as a by-blow of their plan. This might seem tasteless, but what are the alternatives when you have fallen down the rabbit hole into a world where you are supporting fascists in their fight against splinter fascists who want to kill other fascists they consider inferior? It’s a kaleidoscope of fascists down here.
fn3: Sorry I don’t know the German word for “magically unendowed and therefore subhuman subhumans”
fn4: It could be said that because he and his little nazi mates are scared of nuclear weapons that they aren’t just opposed to Nazi Germany but to the technological achievements of all of muggledom, but we all know that this would be a weak excuse since the Nazis are blamed for world war 2 and when any movie hero or villain says that they’re trying to stop ww2 we assume that they are trying to stop the Nazis, not the Allies, because it’s the Nazis who started the war. So I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that his primary enemy in muggledom are the Nazis.
March 12, 2019 at 6:02 am
Firstly, I didn’t think Rowling had any writing credit on these. If so its unfair to blame her for these. Do you blame Tolkien for the Hobbit movies? [1]
Secondly, I don’t see what’s so bad about the fascist magical government. It imprisons people without trial for travel violations, indulges in extrajudicial killings and (from memory) is run by a black woman. It’s like a better version of the Obama regime [2]. She deserves at least one and possibly two Nobel Peace Prizes!
[1] The Hobbit book was bad in its own way(s), but that doesn’t excuse the movies.
[2] Based on Australian political standards, all governments need to be described using terms described for dictatorships. This rule has introduced during the Howard regime. Junta, tyrancy and similar terms are also accepted.
March 12, 2019 at 6:04 am
I forgot to say: I haven’t seen this movie, but I accept your comments. The first was horrifically fascist and made the other Harry Potter novels and movies retrospectively more fascist.
March 12, 2019 at 10:21 am
I just assumed Rowling had a contribution, and googling I can’t find any exact evidence either way, but I’m going to assume she did because 1) I don’t care enough to do detailed research 2) I recall she defended Depp’s involvement which suggests she had some kind of role and 3) she’s famously involved in the uses her world is put to. Regarding the black woman leader of the American wizards, I’m sorry but Scamander carrying a dragon in a suitcase is a way more plausible reality than the idea that an American organization in the 1920s could be led by a black woman. She deserves more than a Nobel Peace Prize for that achievement! Although actually I think in the first movie it was some white dude called Graves, and it isn’t clear what her role in the second movie was. But it appears she was being paid, and allowed to lead an organization that included white Americans, so I think that’s a ludicrous fantasy right there.
[There is something to be said for the weird way that Rowling mixes up colonial- and Victorian-era imagery and a narrative of inherited wealth with a racially egalitarian society – this is a weirdly impossible fiction which I think is built on her soppy left wing British understanding of what “British values” really are. It’s a Guardian reader’s vision of Empire! I’ve been seeing some discussion online about whether her worldview is left wing or not, and I’m thinking of writing a post on this].
I wouldn’t say that these movies make the Harry Potter movies retrospectively fascist but unless they have some weird plot twist in the third movie they will have me thinking “wait! The wizard world was deeply fascist during the Harry Potter books but she didn’t tell us about this – did she lie to us in order to get us to support the wrong side!?” which is a weird way to understand what are apparently some of the most influential YA fiction ever written …
March 15, 2019 at 7:41 am
I don’t know that Rowling has any coherent theory of politics. The authorities in Harry Potter are very English – archaically organised, class-ridden, vengeful and protective of privilege (see, eg, the fate of Stephen Ward). As such, they are a familiar archetype to English readers.
Her political interventions are, AFAIK, on behalf of the left.
April 6, 2019 at 9:08 pm
Her politics are purely Left. But her view on how a wizard world could work is almost a parody of right wing critiques of left wing authoritarianism.
Putting aside the fascist activities in the Magical Creature movies, in the books alone we see:
1. Deep State activities (e.g. the Ministry of Magic doesn’t report to the government or parliament. We don’t even ever hear of wizardly elections).
2. The punishments at Hogwarts are draconian – physical torture or extreme risks to students is just a thing that happens.
3. Magical racism (e.g. against half-giants or lycanthropes) is just the norm of the society, even ignoring the “mudblood” biases that are actually condemned.
4. Muggles are explicitly looked down on as less enlightened and therefore not capable of contributing towards decision making (aligning with “elitist” criticisms of left wing thought)
5. Life sentences are a thing and the death penalty (or at least having your soul torn out) are on the table in a way that makes the US criminal system look OK (e.g. why the hell is Sirius in prison in a world with truth serum?)
6. The understanding of economics is laughable (see “Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality” for a method to generate infinite gold based on the magical world fixed exchange rates)
7. The Ministry of Magic wields a terrifying amount of unchecked power – as seen when Voldemort takes it over. If your only defence is “always be led by good people” then the next “good person” should burn that structure down before Trump comes to power…
April 7, 2019 at 2:30 pm
All true. My point is that this kind of criticism of the book’s implicit politics is a bit like asking how the sewage system in Moria worked, or why the porpoise in Alice in Wonderland is parading along the sand. It’s a collection of English tropes stitched together by a narrative about a boy with magic.
April 7, 2019 at 8:28 pm
Peter T, not a good idea to mention sewage systems in Moria: Paul is obsessed with dungeon toilets. You won’t make your point like that!
Rowling is a Blairite leftist, I think (not a big fan of Corbyn). She’s very good value on twitter, and famously supportive of the welfare state, greater support for poor people and single mothers, etc, who upbraids other famous people for not paying taxes. She equates Corbyn with populism and opposes fascism and authoritarianism. So it’s an interesting question how it is that the good guys in her main fictional world are out-and-out fascists. Yes, it’s a collection of English tropes stitched together but why those tropes, and why stitch them together in that way? Is it inevitable that a boarding school story should be set within a fascist society? Does a secret magical world require fascism to keep it secret? It would make sense if she were offering any kind of critique of the world that her students grow up in (for example if there was a twist in which Voldemort was right all along) but she never offers anything of that kind. She also, as I say in this post, seems confused by what fascism is, so it’s possible that she hasn’t even noticed that the society she built is fascist. This might make sense in the context of her original books, since she primarily focused on the boarding school and didn’t maybe intend to describe the broader politics that allows two parallel worlds to function. But in these movies she is exploring the world outside the school, and fashioning the world that exists when the school was at its peak. Dumbledore is part of this story, and so we’re supposed to believe that 70 years later Dumbledore is still around bumbling along tolerating the fascism of a society that (let’s not forget) kills its members for minor crimes. Either she’s building a big twist in the third instalment or she’s really clueless about what’s going on.
If the latter, I think it says a lot about the state that the English-speaking west has reached if its moderate leftist writers can conceive a society as fascist as the world of these movies as the good guys. I don’t think it’s enough to say that it’s just a bunch of stories. And again, I don’t know how we’re supposed to side with the good guys against Grindelwald. Why? What possible reason do I have for doing that? Sure, if I grew up on Potter then I know what side I’m meant to be on. But if I didn’t, surely the best way I can understand these movies is as a story about Grindelwald’s struggle and eventual triumph? Otherwise I’m being asked to enjoy three whole movies about a fascist society that imprisons you for life in a literal hellscape if you travel without permission, in which I identify with the fascists.
Surely that’s not normal?
April 8, 2019 at 7:09 am
Harry Potter spoilers below.
“Dumbledore is part of this story, and so we’re supposed to believe that 70 years later Dumbledore is still around bumbling along tolerating the fascism of a society that (let’s not forget) kills its members for minor crimes.”
Dumbledore is one of the less fascist characters. He explicitly opposes bias against muggles even after having his family and young life wrecked by muggles.
But despite that, he still never opposes the magical secrecy act. He’s the elite and the muggles are the idiots, so they don’t need to know what he knows. He takes this attitude towards Harry till the very end (even past his own death!). This isn’t really a fascist trait [1], but is still an incredibly disturbing one. It’s the nanny state writ small. [2]
In this way we can see that Rowling’s particular dystopia arises from a left wing viewpoint. After that, the trappings of an all powerful state look the same pretty much instantly regardless of where it arose from.
For an alternative read, try comparing the magical world to Soviet Russia and I reckon you’d get just as good a fit if not better [3].
[1] Trump demonstrates that modern fascism prefers an equivalency of idiots over an informed elite.
[2] I can appreciate that a story needs mystery, so that goes some way towards explaining idiotic secrecy towards Harry. But why doesn’t anyone say “Voldemort may have powerful magic, but the muggles are really good at hanging bankers from lightposts (per faustus), maybe they could take out some deatheaters too? And there are millions of them…”?
[3] The magical world explicitly has secret police that can punish you for ill defined crimes at any time and can even remove your memories. This is beyond gulags and the Stasi, such complete power would make Stalin need to go to his bunk…
April 8, 2019 at 7:10 am
And on another topic, how the hell do toilets in dungeons work?i Are all the monsters going outside to poop? Doesn’t that mean the dragon regularly walks past the goblins?
At a bare minimum I expect to see the occasional room with a smelly bucket in it.
April 8, 2019 at 10:40 am
I can see the logical case you’re making Paul but there are a few details of this fascist system that don’t work with the idea that it’s a left-wing dystopic fascism:
1) if it were a society where an enlightened elite rule over the muggle idiots, then the muggles would kind of fill the role of the proles in 1984, and the elite would actually have to rule over them but in broad practice this elite tries as much as possible to hide their existence form the muggles. So it’s more of an illuminati fascism – so a kind of Qanon fever dream, I guess.
2) the attitude towards muggles is generally racist or even exterminationist (depending on which side of the Grindelwald line you fall). And certainly the line between elite and ordinary in this fascist dictatorship is biologically determined (magic/no magic) rather than being determined by political allegiance as is the case in most recent left wing dictatorships
3) if it were a classically leftist dictatorship then the model would be of a vanguardist elite ruling over their own class in its best interests (along lines of the Soviet Socialist Republic in which the leadership are supposed to be drawn from the working class). But they’re explicitly not – there are no muggles in positions of leadership and as far as we can tell there never were.
So it doesn’t work as a left wing dictatorship either. I thought it might match the social structure of the antebellum US south, where there was a poor and a rich (or privileged/unprivileged) class within the white ruling elite, and an extensive network of secret police and state violence to ensure the unprivileged whites didn’t get too close to their racial inferiors in the slave class. But the problem with this parallel is that the muggles aren’t slaves, and aren’t used by the elite in any way.
Also if it were a left wing dictatorship then you’d think the writer would be more a Corbynite, but she’s vociferously opposed to Corbynism. it’s a mess!
But let’s grant for a moment that your conclusion is correct and we’re reading a left-wing dictatorship which somehow the writer thinks is cool. There are still some weird questions …
1) Dumbledore must then take on the form of a Deng Xiaoping/Khrushcev/Gorbaschev-like reformist, who still fully believes in the goals of the revolutionary movement but just thinks it should be done better and more humanely, or perhaps thinks that a return to the original roots of the dictatorship of the magitariat would lead to a more humane society. But typically in western literature these guys don’t get seen in a particularly good light – basically we’re expected to fully side with and love a dude who could best be described as an apologist for an evil regime.
2) The story in Grindelwald now is about a nazi fifth column operating within the socialist revolution, and we’re supposed to side with the well-meaning communist agents who use unorthodox methods to root out this fifth column. In this story they aren’t always ideologically pure but they have the best interests of the revolution at heart. This doesn’t seem like a nice story and in general western audiences wouldn’t be expected to go along comfortably with this story
3) In the Potter era, it becomes a boys own adventure in which schoolkids within the communist school system continually thwart the actions of an evil counter-revolutionary who aims to destroy the lofty goals of the movement. In this story effectively Voldemort is like Winston from 1984, and we’re viewing the whole story from the perspective of the agent who catches him (except it’s done in a schoolyard daze framework) and Winston really is an agent of Eastasia.
I think it’s incredible that a story with this kind of background ideology has been a success in the capitalist and supposedly freedom-loving west. How did it happen that an entire generation of schoolkids grew up barracking for this little group of ideologically correct socialist thugs?
Also I think it’s fair to say that JK Rowling is genuinely and fully personally opposed to dictatorship, and if presented with a template for a left wing dictatorship she would oppose it in favour of a genuine open society based on democratic values. Yet she wrote a series of highly popular books in which the heroes were basically brainwashed kids working as agents for a fascist state. Couldn’t she have come up with a different political background for this series? Why did she choose this one!?
April 8, 2019 at 9:03 pm
“3) if it were a classically leftist dictatorship”
“grant… we’re reading a left-wing dictatorship which somehow the writer thinks is cool.”
Firstly, I’m not proposing that Rowling was imaging the ideal left wing dictatorship nor basing it on a historical one. My thesis above was that if you extended her biases without being careful to limit the fallout then it would result in a dictatorship that looked like the one we’ve observing. The reason for this thesis was to test if we could get a better theory than “I guess this known left wing writer is secretly a fascist”. The completing theory is “Left wing ideas implemented in a stupid way would get you a dictatorship that would look pretty fascist, but have underlying tells to identify it’s origin.”
“1) if it were a society where an enlightened elite rule over the muggle idiots, then the muggles would kind of fill the role of the proles in 1984, and the elite would actually have to rule over them …”
Not necessarily. The critique of a dictatorship growing from modern left wing thought isn’t that it would be deliberately horrible – It’s that it would be accidentally horrible [1]. You don’t need to rule over someone to disempower them or be setting yourself up as the elite. You just need to make all the real choices because the poor dears aren’t capable…
“2) the attitude towards muggles is generally racist or even exterminationist (depending on which side of the Grindelwald line you fall). And certainly the line between elite and ordinary in this fascist dictatorship is biologically determined (magic/no magic)…”
No the dividing line is magical ability and education. It’s a “meritocracy” where philosopher kings get to live in palaces of arbitrary size based on space folding magic while their lessers remember the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic that killed tens of millions.
You can move between classes, but only if you’ve got the right ability and get the right state sponsored education. But the tests for ability are administered by the elite themselves, so you’ll have to take their word on this.
“Dumbledore … could best be described as an apologist for an evil regime.”
Have you read the thread above? We agree the magical world is horrible (aka fascist) and Dumbledore is an apologist for it. I’m not saying your historical analogies work – because (again) Rowling isn’t seeking to write history. She’s writing a world that to her seems benign, but when taken in it’s totality is a dystopia. And yeah, Dumbledore is an apologist for that (in our reading) because Rowling doesn’t think that there is anything to apologise for…
“I think it’s incredible that a story with this kind of background ideology has been a success in the capitalist and supposedly freedom-loving west.”
Yeah… I think the problem is I haven’t explained it well and you presume that a cancerous growth from modern political thought needs to look like a historical growth.
“Couldn’t she have come up with a different political background for this series? Why did she choose this one!?”
I don’t think she chose it.
Once you set in place certain ideals then the extreme disparity just makes the dystopia fall out organically. It’s like how the Culture is horrific.
Her ideas are:
1. Magic exists, but it’s hidden from the masses. This sets up the masses for disenfranchisement.
2. Magic provides useful benefits, but those aren’t shared. This sets up system of a haves and have nots.
3. Someone is working to keep magic secret. This sets up the “Men in Black” (secret police)
4. When the magical and non-magical world come into contact, there has to be a pressure to keep them separate. This sets up government pressure to keep them separate (because its not like Rowling would select corporate pressure to drive this).
The result is the government uses overt and covert pressure to maintain a system of haves and have nots to control the masses. The fact it looks more modern left wing than historical fascist is because of the benign nature of it. It’s philosopher kings looking out over peasants, but they’re nice people who oppose racism. The fact it’s a dictatorship is because you’ve already explicitly disenfranchised the masses so you can hardly claim to be a democracy – at best it’s an oligopoly. And the inherent conflict between your “good” protagonists and the need to defend the setting is going to make the government power more regressive by default.
She’s not aiming for this, but to avoid it you need to have magic be pointless, public or vanishingly rare (so that in aggregate it’s pointless).
[1] In potential for you or me anyway. I’m sure a fascist would talk about how putting all the races together was definitely deliberately horrible, but stuff them.
[2] 3 and 4 are really the same thing, just overt vs covert.
April 9, 2019 at 12:05 am
Maybe I’m misreading you Paul (and I will reply to some of your points tomorrow when I’m not exhausted from kickboxing) but with your talk of “philosopher kings” and “benign” fascism leads me to think you’re assuming the wizard world is benign in its intentions towards the muggles. But is there any evidence of this? Obviously none of us are going to go chapter and verse through the text and there are some parts I never read but I’m not convinced there is any evidence that the wizards are at any point aiming to rule benignly over or alongside muggles. Nothing they do is in the interests of the muggles. I raised this point particularly in connection with the earlier movie, but I’ll make it again: when they repair NY after the battle with Grindelwald the wizards don’t do anything to help the muggles at all, they just restore to a status quo – they don’t for example finish the Empire State Building, or improve the water systems, or anything. The plot of that movie makes really clear that their main concern with recruiting magically-endowed muggles is to stop them turning into the big evil shadow-monster things. When we see the heroes being told not to travel to France there is no indication that this is for the good of the muggles – it appears to be purely an internal wizard politics thing. There are no internships at Hogwarts for white saviour-types to go to muggle world and secretly use their magic to make it better, then put pictures of themselves with smiling no-maj children on Facebook. There is no development program aimed at making the muggle world better (not even secretly), and certainly no open borders leading to debates between different flavours of supposedly leftist wizard about whether it’s worth losing some wizard jobs to muggles in order to improve the muggle economy through remittances[1]. I don’t think there is a single point in any of the books or movies that I have seen or read where anything the wizards do to keep their world secret, or anything they do politically within their wizard world, has anything to do with improving the muggles’ situation. Their goal is to remain completely separate from muggles, and only to interact with them in order to take their children. These aren’t “philosopher kings looking out over peasants” and they’re certainly not “nice people who oppose racism” – it’s very clear from the interactions between the wizards and Hermione that many of them hate muggles, and the entire plot of this series is about a dude who is leading an uprising to exterminate them. This is obviously a natural endpoint for an ideology that says mass mind control of muggles is cool because they mustn’t be allowed to find out that there are a group of hyper rich people living among them who could fix all their temporal problems with a click of their fingers but just don’t want to. [This last point is why I think these muggles need to get apocalyptic on the wizards – though maybe they could keep a few back as slaves to raise up a new generation of socially responsible wizards, and then execute them once those wizards come of age].
A more natural analogy for this setting might be a colonialist program rather than a Soviet model. A small group of people who consider themselves to be racially superior and who have a vastly more powerful technology refuse to share it with a lumpen population that is orders of magnitude larger, except for a very small and elite few who are taken to the elite boarding schools of this rich population and then trained and co-opted into their ideological model, with no benefits flowing back to the communities they have been taken from. The wizards’ wars rage over those colonial peoples and they are just collateral damage in the politics of the rich elite which lives somewhere else, behind impenetrable borders. To a muggle in 1920s New York, the wizard world must be further out of reach than the UK was for Indian colonial subjects of the British Empire in that time. Indeed, the entire debate amongst this elite population is about whether to exterminate the muggles (but keep a small proportion for necessary labour) or whether to live alongside them and explicitly keep them from benefiting from the wealth of the wizard powers, for no apparent reason except that Wizards really hate to share. Now it’s true that this colonial arrangement is an accident of birth rather than a deliberate policy of occupation and subjection, and their methods are infinitely better than the methods of actual colonial governments in the era of the book. But enlightened colonialism has always been a stream of politics in the UK (at least), and that’s essentially what the “better” half of the wizard world in this movie are trying to do. So long, of course, as it costs them precisely nothing to be nice.
It doesn’t surprise me of course that a British writer, whether left or right, would unintentionally build a colonial model for the politics in her fantasy novel, because British people are completely clueless about colonialism and until the subjects forced them to sit up and think about it, both the left and the right of British politics (basically, all factions except a few radicals who weren’t in parliament) considered colonialism to be a natural part of their birthright – differences between political traditions were about the methods of subjection, not the morals. And I think that’s what we see here, two schools of thought on colonial practice being debate at wand point, while the muggles live ignorant of the threat hanging over them.
—
fn1: Remember that even wizards’ trash is incredibly valuable to non-wizards, and yet we don’t see a program to allow muggles to work in hazardous conditions on wizard trash heaps so they can send the scraps home to their families.
April 9, 2019 at 1:49 pm
Ok. But the appeal of the books is to British notions of class. I used to work in a London restaurant which made heaps selling stodgy food to English re-living the public (ie private) school experience, and tourists who thought they were getting authentic English food (in a way, they were).
Hogwarts is a private school – upper class twits by birth, others by exceptional merit. The wizards are the upper classes – private schools, private clubs, exclusive rituals (Ascot, pig-fucking), proles not admitted. Of course they don’t do anything for the proles. That’s not what they are there for. And the government is their tool for maintaining their privilege, by any means necessary.
In this sense, Harry Potter is Enid Blyton and Tom Brown’s Schooldays updated. It is as pure escapism as those, and as little relevant to larger questions.
On the Grindelwald movies I can’t comment, but I imagine the brain-dead lack of creativity of Hollywood would be one factor.
April 10, 2019 at 10:56 am
Peter! First of all on this blog we do not allow the brain-dead lack of creativity of Hollywood to be an excuse for anything. I did not craft this perfectly balanced review of 300 as gay porn on the basis that its creators were brain-dead. We can do better here! (Also, I think Rowling was involved in these movies).
Next, I think your interpretation of wizards as an upper class fails in the same way that Paul’s attempts to portray it as a communist dystopia: both a class system and a communist system require that the elite or vanguard interact with and ultimately benefit from the activities of the lower class/proletariat. But there is no interaction between wizards and muggles, and no benefit to the wizards of having the muggles around. The only time they interact with muggles at all is when they discover a muggle-born wizard and bring them to Hogwarts. We can see how rare this is, because approximately 25% of the annual intake of Hogwarts is muggle-born (according to Rowling). So out of a population of about 6 billion people – with a birth cohort of about 130 million – about 125 muggle-born wizards are created[1]. It’s a sufficiently small number that wizards can hand-deliver invitations to Hogwarts and explain things to their muggle parents. It’s also a sufficiently small number that if they wanted to the wizards could exterminate the entire population of muggles and not really notice the effect on their own society. This isn’t a class-based system, since there is no class-based system in human history where the lower class does nothing for the ruling elite. You never hear of rich people proposing to exterminate all the people who clean their toilets. So this analogy doesn’t work.
But if it does hold it is in itself interesting. Here we have a known Blairite labour supporter writing a series of hugely popular books about the children of the upper class going to war to protect the class system from an interloper, with the explicit purpose at the end of the book of maintaining a system of extreme wealth disparity and inequality. This doesn’t seem like a very labour position to take. The moral of the story isn’t exactly consistent with her politics is it? I think Jacobin has offered up a critique of Harry Potter on this basis – that it’s a model of neoliberal exploitation of the lower classes – but the fact that it was published in Jacobin tells you everything you need to know about its quality. Though there is a certain elegance to a Blairite being “intensely comfortable” with a tiny elite of wizards being extremely rich, and writing a series of books about how enterprising children keep them that way. Can we interpret Voldemort as Corbyn? Should we view all of Rowling’s tweets opposing Corbyn in the context of her writing a hugely popular series of books about the preservation of the class system? I don’t think we can because the model fails at the first hurdle – the central tenet of the dystopia is that of isolationism, not exploitation. So I think it’s more of a colonial than a class model!
fn1: Here I assume an annual intake of about 600 children based on guesses from a) the size of the dining hall and b) the size of the train.
April 10, 2019 at 3:34 pm
First – Hogwarts is for British children only. Not only are there Beauxbatons and Durmstrang, but we hear of magical creatures in Australia – so presumably there’s a Hogwarts equivalent here – probably in Tasmania. So 125 out of 800,000.
You’re right on all the other points. But then viewed from any respectable moral and social standpoint, almost all fantasy (and a great deal of other fiction) is built on disreputable foundations. The ordinary soldier or civilian doesn’t get much pity – they just get killed in thousands off-handedly in climactic battles. Much fiction operates at a tangent to such concerns.
April 10, 2019 at 3:54 pm
A bit of rough googling reveals that there are 143 wizards in each intake of Hogwarts, suggesting (for reasons I don’t understand) that there are 14300 wizards in Britain’s population of 50 million. However, if we go on birth rates, assuming that there is a similar birthrate amongst wizards and muggles, then we should expect that there are 10,500 wizards in Britain, assuming all babies born to wizards go to Hogwarts. If as Rowling has suggested 25% of new intakes are muggle-born, then we expect 35 in every 700,000 births are wizards [I’m using 1995 birth figures approximately here to reflect when the books were written, and assuming the intake covers a single-year birth cohort, which might be unreasonable]. This means that the population growth of wizards would be 25% lower without muggles. But if we consider that Dumbledore was a senior adult – perhaps in his 30s? – in 1925, and was still alive and working in 1995, then we can assume that a wizard’s life span is approximately 30-40 years longer than a humans, and so this 25% lower growth rate is no big deal. This means that if the wizards completely abandoned the muggles and left those 35 births a year to be stifled and turn into evil clouds of smoke, they would barely be a blip in muggle mortality statistics. And similarly if they exterminated all the muggles, they’d ultimately only suffer a small reduction in long-term growth. They don’t get anything else from the muggles. This isn’t an oppressive class relationship, it’s not even a parasitical class relationship!
To be clear, I’m not complaining that this world is better or worse than any other fantasy novel. I’m simply observing that once you step out of the school daze environment and start making movies in the broader universe of adults and exploring the Potterverse in full, the entire thing begins to fall apart, and it’s impossible to escape the conclusion that in siding with Potter and his mates we have been tricked into supporting the bad guys.
April 10, 2019 at 10:06 pm
” we have been tricked into supporting the bad guys”. Dunno. The relationship between fiction and social attitudes is … complicated. I’ve only dabbled in that kind of literary analysis, so anything I say is tentative, but it’s certainly not straightforward. Do we cheer Harry et al as rebels against an established corrupt order? Model his stand on muggle rights? Approve the wizard constitution, such as it is? Horrific punishments and summary justice are standard fare in fiction, but less and less approved out here.
April 11, 2019 at 2:59 pm
I don’t think the kind of horrific punishments we see here are usually deployed on the side of the people we consider good guys. Remember, this is a world where simply traveling from one liberal democracy to another, in a time of peace, without permission, gets you sent to a prison where evil creatures eat your soul. In that prison, people routinely starve themselves to death rather than continue to tolerate the attention of the wardens. I would challenge you to find a similar YA fiction where shit like that happens. I don’t think it was in Narnia, for example; it certainly isn’t in any of the Robert Westall stories (even the Machine Gunners, set during WW2, doesn’t have this level of nasty). I don’t think there’s anything quite like it in Louise Cooper’s work. Ursula le Guin certainly avoided it! How did this creep in and why do we tolerate it?
I’ll have more to say about Harry Potter shortly …
April 13, 2019 at 8:06 pm
““benign” fascism leads me to think you’re assuming the wizard world is benign in its intentions towards the muggles. … I’m not convinced there is any evidence that the wizards are at any point aiming to rule benignly over or alongside muggles.”
I mean benign like “benign cancer”. They’re not out to actively harm the muggles as long as their lessers know their place.
On ““philosopher kings looking out over peasants””
LOL. You have a really positive view of philosopher kings if you feel I’m using it positively :-). I only use the term as an insult.
I can handle Gandalf or Dumbledore having unimaginable power and not using it. But they should never justify this with any other than “I earnt it and stuff you.” [1]
” both a class system and a communist system require that the elite or vanguard interact with and ultimately benefit from the activities of the lower class/proletariat.”
You’re saying its a colonial endeavor because that’s the only one that doesn’t require engaging with the locals? Have you ever heard of “white man’s burden”? The only way to sleep comfortably as a 19th century British twit was to claim that you ever helping the locals. And you had to send vast swathes of your upper class over to administer the blighters (because you couldn’t send your lower class – those filth would get it wrong).
“Paul’s attempts to portray it as a communist dystopia”
Again “I’m not proposing that Rowling was imaging the ideal left wing dictatorship nor basing it on a historical one.”
Seriously, please stop imagining that the history of the world has to play out in the same tired patterns that occurred over the last 2 centauries of European history. There are exiting new mistakes to make and your unwillingness to imagine them guarantees that you won’t “repeat the mistakes of the past as comedy” you’ll “make the blindly obvious mistakes that a toddler could have avoided if they thought for themselves”. Try engaging with this analysis without bothering to say “But in 1918…” or “During the Nuremburg rallies…” or “In Downton Abbey…”.
So, for the last time: I’m not saying Rowling imagined a world that was communist. I’m not saying it was fascist. I’m not saying it was colonialist. I’m not saying it was any word that first year university students rage against. I’m saying it’s a predictable outgrowth of her wish fulfilment and that wish fulfilment incorporates her politics into itself.
This contains elements of other past mistakes, but it’s not any of them directly. It has elements of Tony Blair supporting the Iraq war, because it was for the greater good (or whatever). It has elements of accepting a police state, because London is the most monitored city in the world (even through Beijing exists!) [2]. And most of all, it’s predicated on the idea that it’s good (which is fundamentally build into her writing and even the movies!) even though there is no significant evidence to support this.
So, if I can play into your biases, let’s call me theory that it’s a “particularly Blair-ite hell”. I saw you dismissed it coming from Jacobin, but I’d say it’s a more valid critique than trying to pretend that colonialism was hands off [3].
[1] I don’t even care if their view of earnt varies wildly from mine – I find the honesty is contained in the “stuff you” part of their answer. People who say that let you know they’re not out to justify it.
[2] https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/most-spied-on-cities-in-the-world.html
[3] Because I’ve read Kipling and it also sounded pretty hands in the Anglo-Zulu war. Or even just opposing Gandhi.
April 15, 2019 at 8:43 pm
Actually the majority of British administrators in India were middle class. It was hot, dirty and demanded a high degree of application (two Indian languages at least, intimate familiarity with local customs, years of work in rural areas, slow promotion). The twits accompanied the Viceroy on his three year tour and then departed.
There were also very few of them. Partnership with Indians was essential – something they knew and Victorian London tended to forget or overlook.
April 15, 2019 at 11:19 pm
It’s cute that you two have both commented on colonialism but completely missed the boat. Especially given you’re Australian … but there’s no need to go over that here, because I’ve just written a post exploring the colonial issue in more detail. I’m sure you’ll love it!
Paul, one quibble with your comment: Dumbledore did not “earn” his power and neither did anyone else. Magical power is inherited, and the strength of that power is also inherited. This is made super clear in all the books and all the associated material. I’m sorry but when engaging with this criticism it’s important to understand the world as written, not to make up your own versions. Nobody in Harry Potter earns anything. This genetic basis for power is part of the reason I have previously decried Harry Potter as a story about a trust fund kid who inherits extreme wealth, then gets lots of benefits from it (remember the broomstick in book 1?) In the wizard world wealth is magic, and Harry Potter is born loaded. It’s super important to understand the racial underpinnings of this story if you are going to engage with criticism of it.
April 16, 2019 at 8:40 pm
“Dumbledore did not “earn” his power and neither did anyone else.”
I didn’t say Dumbledore earned his power (nor did Gandalf) would justify it by saying that. I even said “I don’t even care if their view of earnt varies wildly from mine”.
“I’m sorry but when engaging with this criticism it’s important to understand the world as written, not to make up your own versions.”
You’d have more credibility on this claim if you hadn’t just managed to misread a clear nod to the idea that justifying something is different to explaining something. And even with “explaining something” there is a difference between “they told me” and “the reason a thing is that way”.\
I do hope you’re not justifying your views as a “close read” or something like that 😛
April 17, 2019 at 4:34 pm
Paul way up above you wrote:
and then you mentioned Dumbledore “earnt it”, so I assumed you were falling into this mistake. I’m sensitive to misreadings after the Great Tolkien Wars…