> There was an interesting analysis in the Guardian by Richard Adams of
> the Potter books, which looks at their conservative subtext. And
> while I think his analysis is actually correct
...but do see today's letters page (if that is accessible to you) for a
range of retorts.
Interesting the objection that Hogwarts isn't a comprehensive. In every
sense except one - the requirement that pupils possess magical ability - it
is exactly that, as one of today's correspondents pointed out. However,
magical ability is allowed to be a) something that some people have got, in
significant measure, that others haven't, b) something that can be measured
to at least the extent that it is possible to tell which of the two kinds of
person someone is, and c) something that intrinsically has nothing to do
with class, poverty or social privilege, although the Malfoys of the magical
world might wish to pretend it were otherwise. It is, essentially, what
"intelligence" or "academic ability" or "aptitude" was taken to be (or
advertised as) by the architects of the grammar school system...
Dominic
|