“Coding” in terms of literary analysis refers to when an aspect of a character’s identity is presented in the subtext of a work rather than directly stated. This is most commonly discussed in regards to queer coding, a practice that was common from the 1930s through the ’60s when Hollywood’s Hays Code censorship prohibited explicit portrayals of homosexuality. Disability and race can also be subjects of coding, particularly in fantasy stories wherein fictional cultures are meant to parallel real ones. Two incidents this week in the Harry Potter fandom, however, show just how misunderstood the concept of coding is.
Click the button below to start this article in quick view.
The bigger of the two controversies involved a Twitter group of autistic Harry Potter fans accusing writer Gita Jackson of “ableism” for describing Hermione Granger as “annoying” and a “know-it-all.” These fans claimed that Hermione is “coded” as autistic and that criticizing the character for being an “annoying know-it-all” was an attack on autistic people.
Jackson is neurodivergent, and the people accusing her on Twitter seemed to care more about defending a supposedly neurodivergent fictional character than respecting the real neurodivergent person they were talking to. While many neurodivergent people (including Gita) can relate to being labeled as an “annoying know-it-all,” to treat “annoyingness” as if it’s an inherent trait of autism is honestly rather offensive. Not to mention the racial dynamics of a Black person being attacked by white people for tweets specifically discussing Hermione’s connection to “white feminism” are also seriously troubling.
Nonetheless, there’s one big aspect of the Twitter mob’s argument that completely falls apart on further inspection: Hermione is by no means coded as autistic in the Harry Potter books or movies. While there’s a lot about her character autistic people might find relatable, the word “coding” ascribes a level of intentionality in the source material that frankly is not there. It’s easier to make a textual case for Luna Lovegood or Newt Scamander being on the spectrum than it is for Hermione.
To be fair, while there’s not much evidence for Hermione being autistic, there’s nothing to truly disprove that interpretation of the character either, so it’s understandable that some readers chose to interpret her as such. This, however, is not coding. This is headcanon, a personal interpretation that is separate from the canonical text. The thing with headcanons, not everyone shares the same one. It seems among a large chunk of the fandom, there’s been confusion between headcanon and actual canon/coding, which creates chaos when one person, convinced Hermione is autistic, starts a fight with another person, who doesn’t believe this to be the case.
The second Harry Potter fandom controversy of the week presented an even more warped understanding of coding. A now-deleted TikTok video claimed, “Severus Snape is both POC [People of Color] and Queer coded, and it’s probably the majority of the reason that you people don’t like him.” Even those with the most cursory knowledge of the Harry Potter series could probably tell you that Snape is not coded as either of those things — he’s actually the opposite.
Snape’s whole character arc is based on his attraction to a woman: Harry’s mother Lily. Lily’s the only person Snape is ever shown to have been attracted to in the Harry Potter series. As such, he’s likely not gay, and there’s not even a hint he’s bisexual in the series’ canon. His obsession with Lily and his hatred of her partner James Potter drove him to join Voldemort’s Death Eaters, a wizard supremacist organization intentionally coded to resemble real-world white supremacist organizations like the Nazis and the Klu Klux Klan. White supremacist coding would more or less rule out any potential POC coding.
There’s something about Snape, in particular, that seems to lead to a lot of headcanons that directly contradict actual canon, such as the story of the “Snapewives.” Maybe Alan Rickman was too attractive and charismatic in the movies and that altered people’s perceptions of a character who was written to be rather repulsive on the page.
It goes without saying that most people who dislike Snape do not dislike him because they see him as a queer POC, but because they see him as a guy so bitter about being rejected by a woman that he joined a racist terrorist group and proceeded to bully and abuse said woman’s son, even after he’d joined the good guys’ side of the conflict. If he was somehow supposed to be queer or POC, then that would just make him an offensive representation. Not to mention the old “Trans Snape Week” campaign is certainly extra groan-worthy in retrospect now that J.K. Rowling’s feelings about trans people have been revealed. In that respect, it’s even more likely Snape isn’t coded as part of the LGBTQ+ community.
Personal headcanons that contradict canon are perfectly fine to have and can be a great inspiration for fan fiction and other transformative works. However, fans need to remember headcanons are personal and should not be treated like canon information. Fandom will be a much healthier place once people can understand the difference between what’s coding and what’s headcanon.
About The Author
