Would the harry potter franchise be as popular if harry was female?

I agree. It seems to be political correctness that backfires.
I have also not found that to be true, that is, women have a more profound capacity for love. Love manifests itself a bit differently between men and women, but women have certainly not cornered the market on Love. Even the mother/child bond isn't as magical as we'd like to believe.

 

First, you make many good points and I hope you don't think I hate women or chick lit and I want to burn all the Sweet Valley High books. I don't! Thanks for the discussion because I want to make sure I know where I stand on this and that I'm able to express my position clearly. You may change my mind!

I still have to disagree about Sweet Valley and Babysitters on some level. I am aware that they confronted the topics and issues you list above, and that's admirable I suppose. But the presentation undermines the content. From the barbie dreamhouse jacket design to the obvious, preachy style found in between the covers (yes, I have had opportunity to read a bit of these books, and more recently than when they were published), these books scream FOR GIRLS in a bad way.

It's like the Working Girl Barbie doll. You remember that toy? Yeah, she's going to work, but she's carrying a pink briefcase!

So it's kind of hypocritical, right? Because it's trying to break stereotypes while still strongly enforcing them. I guess that's how I feel about the GIRLS ONLY type series. And honestly I'd feel the same way about a BOYS ONLY series. I believe men can be nurturers and don't always have to be portrayed as lacking emotional understanding, always seeking direct conflict over mediation, etc.

I think Harry Potter is as gender neutral as it can be and still be popular.

Ehhhh no. Not what I'm saying at all. I believe a story about shopping has the potential to be as interesting to me as a story about barbarian warriors, but it needs to take a different tack than the hackneyed, stereotyped, extremely dull view that "All women LIVE for it!!! All women are obsessed with fashion and shopping and those that aren't are not real women!!" Often this is implied more than stated outright, but it's always bad. In striving for a VERY female voice writers often take the easy route, exploit cliches and expectations, and forget to write a UNIQUE female voice. This is a trap that is VERY common in niche fiction, which is why it is BAD.

I'd hate a macho barbarian fantasy novel that fell into every cliche of that genre as well. Believe me, I've read a couple.

But when I speak of a feminine voice I mean books like The Awakening by Kate Chopin and The Color Purple by Alice Walker. Two of my favorite books. Were those authors trying to fit a gender neutral expectation I had for them as a male reader? No, those are unique feminine voices that made me see through the eyes of the opposite sex. Not every book can be the Color Purple but, jesus, it'd be nice if more books would at least TRY.

I think Blood & Sand is crap, I don't want women to shut up and I happen to like a lot of things about Glee. I think Glee is actually a perfect example of the kind of gender neutral stories I'm talking about. It busts stereotypes but without making that the point of the whole story. You have an extremely sensitive and nurturing MALE lead, a woman playing the macho all-business villain and a cast of kids of all different genders and persuasions, all of whom have good qualities and bad qualities.

Well, I said original programming and I want you to compare the quality of a Lifetime original movie, say the upcoming one about The Craigslist Killer, to any episode of The Sopranos and tell me the Sopranos isn't better. Yes, HBO has its own set of requirements and taboos when it comes to its programming but one thing it doesn't do is talk down to its audience, which is what Lifetime does on a regular basis when it comes to original programming.

Niche art IS bad art. Art is about the universal. Not universal appeal but universal connection. You want to connect with everyone you can and get your message across. When you create niche art you are telling a large segment of the population "You shouldn't even bother watching this. This is not FOR you. It's for women/african-americans/christians/whites. It contains ideas they will understand and you won't. It contains ideas they will agree with and you won't.

Art is for making a statement and expressing yourself. Why would anyone want to make a statement so small and limited in its scope? It ceases being a work of art and on some level becomes a work of rhetoric. Niche art defines its niche, defines a class of people, which we postmodernists know is impossible and insulting and tacky and just plain dumb.

I disagree that for kids any reading is good reading. I think we should have higher standards.

 

Laugh all you want Mrs. G but it is true. I can barely comprehend the level of compassion and unconditional love I have seen and felt from the important women in my life.

I am a cold hearted SOB. I care about very little and find weakness in emotion. I am most certainly an aggressive alpha male type personality. I have no doubt I am barely a gene or two away from running naked thru the woods and swinging from branches. The only thing that keeps my heart from growing completely cold and full of hate is the compassion I see in my girlfriends face or the way my friend holds and teaches her children. In those moments I remember my humanity. Take that for what you will.

On and btw there IS a reason men like Spartacus Blood and Sand and not Glee. Quite frankly Glee makes me sick to my stomach. As a man I find absolutely nothing compelling or interesting about it on any level. Spartacus however is a blood bath full of brutal violence. As a man I enjoy the violence. Just as I enjoy watching Boxing or UFC. There IS a reason the VAST majority of martial combat fans are men. I would wager 97% of the pay per view market for every boxing match and UFC event are purchased by men. There is a reason when you walk into the grocery store there are eight thousand womens fashion magazines. Who buys them? Women!

If you want to believe that outside of physical differences that men and women are exactly the same thats cool. I don't see it that way at all.

 

I don't think that KatG has been saying that men = women. If she has, I would certainly disagree with it. There are differences. The biological does to some degree influences the mental or emotional. The extent of the influence I leave to those wiser than me.

From what I've read she is stating that men and women are multi-faceted, in that some girls like girlie books, some men like throat slitters, and some like both or something in between. If men as a group were to expand their reading horizons, they might become more accepting of a female main character (outside the sex object role, even if masked as an action women) as opposed to the current trend. Which I think is fair enough.

As to women being more nurturting than men, I disagree. I think the nurturing instinct is present in both men and women. In a traditional intact family unit it may be expressed in different ways, but love and nurturing is normally a trait readily apparent in both parents (assuming a healthy relationship). In a broken or non-traditional family unit, a male can assume both the motherly and fatherly roles (and usually do) and a female do likewise. I've seen single dads doing the dishes, laundry, kissing little Johnie's "boo-boo" to make it feel better, etc. and I've seen single moms teaching their kids how to kick a ball and telling him to get up and walk it off if he falls down hurt. The capacity and variation of love in the human heart (regardless of gender) is limitless, so far as I am concerned.

As to whether Harry Potter would have been as succesful if marketed as Harriet Potter, I don't think so. I don't think it would have enticed the majority of the boys (or men, as there is a substantial adult market for YA, if I understand correctly). Whether nature or nurture, I don't think most males are wired to read the adventures of Harriette Potter. While they have no problem with Hermione Granger as a prominent non-romantic sidekick (and let's face it, she was a much better wizard than Harry with just as much in the way of guts and desire to do the right thing), they would not have related to her. Or would not have wanted to appear to relate to her in the minds of their peers, your pick.

Just as important though, are the mothers (or parents). They are looking for reading material for their sons. They want positive male role models for their sons. Heroic without necessarily being a throat slitter, adventuresome without being a criminal, nice without being a wimp, likes girls but is not a womanizer. Harriette Potter would have done fine with the girls (and maybe a decent segment of the boys), but would have lost the mass appeal it currently enjoys with the adults who are trying to intice their boys into reading. All IMO, of course.

 

Deleted. Double post. My mistake.

 

I do not agree with most of your post but it was very well articulated.

This part in particular I found interesting as I think it speaks to a more troubling matter. The issue here is the concept of a role model. Parents should be teaching their children to think for themselves and to question authority. Parents should be teaching their children that the idea of a role model is an illusion. All people are flawed. The only role model(s) in a child's life should be his/her parents and/or family.

I started reading at a fairly high level at a rather young age. I never viewed any character in a book as a role model. I didn't need a moral compass then quite frankly I never have. I enjoyed characters and their stories but understood fantasy from reality very early on. I learned early on that it is okay to root for your favorite athletes but foolish to try to be like them.

So the idea that a parent takes solace in the solid moral foundations in a book series such as Harry Potter is baffling to me. The more pertinent point being if a parent has raised their child in a manner that encourages free thinking, open dialogue, logic and reason then I do not think there is a need to carefully censor literary exposure. Should a 7 year old read Joe Abercrombie? No that is probably a bit too much but there is no reason that child should be forced to read inane, boring, disney-like fair. Hand your child a copy of The Hobbit. Challenge them. Encouraging your child to read Harry Potter is the intellectual equivalent of watching Saturday morning cartoons.

 

Again, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

First, you don't have children of your own.
Second, you've never read a Harry Potter book-- because if you had you would know that comparing The Hobbit, which is nothing more than a silly romp through middle-earth, to the last four HP books is ridiculous in the extreme. The Lord of the Rings is a masterpiece, of that there is no doubt, but the rest of Tolkien's work is in the range of forgettable to unreadable.

 

Again you are missing the point. This discussion is about the Harry Potter franchise in all its forms. Furthermore these books are so highly publicized that reading them isn't a required prerequisite for discussion. I watched one or two of the movies which were horrible but at least gave me a frame of reference about the franchise. I am quite sure MANY people here have not read the books. The movies in this case are close enough.

 

Hm. Nah, you've gotta read the book to be able to carry on a meaningful in-depth conversation about the book regarding its artistic/intellectual value. Saying "I've seen the movie" does not work at all. Think of how many dumb movies have been made from great books.

These books are highly publicized, sure, but to make a value judgement on the book's merits or lack thereof you can't go by second-hand reports. You have to read the book. Think of how many terrible books are overhyped and how many great books never receive the media attention they deserve. Publicity is no reliable indicator of a novel's worth.

It's fine to dislike Harry Potter and to voice that opinion but don't act like it's an informed opinion when it is not.

You know you don't have to have read the books to have an informed opinion of whether the book would have sold more or less with a female protagonist. Which is the topic of the thread!

 

Already responded to that. Wouldn't make a difference. Nothing about gender is relevant in this franchise. Harry Potter or Henriette Potter same thing. Disney G rated. The movies and books have done well and I suspect from a demographics standpoint that they have sold equally well amongst all children.

 

I would normally agree with you Break. I have no issue with your logic it is sound. But again I think the sheer volume of public exposure with this franchise allows for a level of discourse that normally wouldn't work if one hasn't read the books.

 

Authoritative? No you are being too sensitive. I made no claims about what you do or do not think or feel. You laughed at something I expressed and I responded. Fairly simple. Nothing dictated and certainly not authoritatively. I don't post in an authoritative manner it is not allowed around here. So I have to pull back dramatically. If anything, particularly in your case as I respect your intelligence and your kindness, I hold back even more.

I have never made any claims that Western Society has gender equality. Womens rights still have a long way to go. I support womens rights. I have no problem with a female boss, or a female making more money than I, etc etc. I would have no problem voting for a female president so please don't preach to me as if I am somehow anti-female.

Your specific issue with me is that I personally think there is a difference between men and women that is beyond the physical. Okay we agree to disagree.

You also come across as speaking to what men should be doing or have to do. I do not have to read a book where the female is the lead protagonist no more than I have to watch the WNBA. What I have to do and what I will do is support a womans right to receive equal pay and equal treatment.

 

Gotta say, much as I love ya', I disagree in every way humanly possible. I mean, apart from the objectivist way you put forward that argument... If that's what you would teach your child, or have taught them, fine, but no one 'should' do anythnig.

People are flawed, yes, but children should learn that for themselves. Besides, that doesn't stop people looking up to them. I love my Philosophy tutor, though he is disorganized, rushing around, never replies to people, half-mad and a little disturbingly evil to cats. I still think he's one of the greatest role models I've ever had. I don't have to enbody all of him, just the bits that have helped me, that I see ni a healthy light.

Plus, he's not my family. The only father figure I ever had was not a nice man one hundred per cent of the time. I think nour days parents and family fold inwards on themselves and keep their kids away from the outside world, thinknig every other person is a peadophile or wanting to teach them 'bad habbits'.

How do families start? From lovers. Or sometimes, not even lovers, just two people who got along for a while. But mostly lovers. Peolpe who were never family but become family.

But that's off the point.

That's one thing I like about Harry Potter. It creates a larger family, Harry feeling like Hogwarts is his home, the Order and it's members becomnig one, extended family but while always keeping family values, showing the Weasley's and Harry's maurning for his parents. It shows not to prejudge, given Sirius' role. Hopefully this will let some kids stop listening to their parents and what other, random adults decide needs to be spoon fed into their brains.

 

If you were a woman, you may think different. It is all perspective. Like Barrett says, female love is easier for you to accept and easier for you to pinpoint.

What about women who have never born children, or can never bare them?

I guess it's like saying Males are generally stronger. It is a stereotype that is accepted because it is the default and norm. But it will always come down to the individual male and females conditioning, surroundings, way of being raised, stature, training, motivation, etc.

Have you ever met a gay (male) couple, also? I know a few, and without meaning to draw stereotypes, they are more romantic than any other couples I know, whereas my friend, a woman engaged to another woman, spends most of her days sitting around with her and not showing much love.

And I know the answer I will get. Genetics. Well, there are a lot of differences between people who live on different contenants, with different skni colours, features, climate adjustmants, statures, requirements, etc. But no one ever mentions these. Somehow, it wouldn't be right. But mentioning it to a female is fine.

 

Now this is a good argument. Well done Luya. I do not agree with your point about role models but I found your interpretation of Potter interesting. You actually took a very different approach. For you the Potter books seem to represent the idea of questioning preconception and thinking for yourself. I personally do not see that in the Potter franchise but again I can understand your perspective.

I personally think the concept of a role model is absurd. My grandfather is the closest think I had to one. I learned early on people are flawed and I didn't need a role model. I was quite content being me from a very early age. I adopted a philosophy a long time ago. If people like me...cool .... If they don't .... F Em .... There are only a handful of people in this world whose opinions of me have any importance. As for the rest *shrugs*

 

Luya dear men are physically stronger. Every strength record in the world is owned by a man. There is a reason women do not fight men in Boxing or MMA. They are not physically strong enough. There is nothing wrong with that. Any man worth his weight knows that you never ever strike a woman no matter what.

 

So, you're saying it's genetics then?

Next time a person with black skin and a person with white skin, or olive skin, or anything say they are the same you'll be there to tell them they are not in any way, right? Because that's probably illegal or something. as well as upseting many people.

Statistically, yes, men are built to be stronger. But what I'm saying is that it will depend on the woman's background and training. Are you telling me that a woman who's trained in weight lifting for ten years couldn't manage to punch you in the face and knock you out?

Fighting, is also, not just about strength, otherwise the stories we read about flimsy little Knights and ten tonne dragons would be pathetically pointless. No man wants to hit a woman incase she moves out of the way, elbows his temple, knees his gut and floors him. The humiliation would suck. The fact the humiliation is still there is the thing that bugs me.

It shows that you're not in the normal statistic, I suppose.

But seriously, either never raise a hand to anyone or do. Don't single out women, because it feels patronizing. All though I know myself there are many women who use it as an excuse to yell at men and throw things, and tantrum, and be general horrible people. I just grew up a tomboy, fightings my thing. I don't like gentlemen.