Ron's Jealousy of Harry; Neuroses of Ron & Hermione (Long)

[Penny & Bryce Linsenmayer]

No: HPFGUIDX 16965

Hello --

Yep (still here!) ....

Demelza wrote:

> >You fence your views around with lots of "potentials"
> and "possiblys," but you rely on the view that >Hermione is currently
> pathological in order to say that Ron isn't jealous.  I still don't
> see any motive for >her to be lying (yes, she has reasons to be
> ticked at Ron, but why would this make her say he's jealous?  I >just
> don't get it), nor any reason to think that she is way off base.
>
> No I don't. I've never said that because Hermione has obsessive
> traits, she is also a liar.

No, you didn't say that *because* Hermione has obsessive traits, she is
also a liar.  But, I think what Amy & I both read was that in your view,
if there is no explicit textual evidence that Ron was undeniably jealous
of Harry's fame & celebrity status *prior to* the GoF fight scene, then
we as readers must assume that Hermione was "incorrect."  If she is
indeed "incorrect," then I interpreted that you would assume she was
being untruthful, deceitful OR "speaking out of turn" (because she was
hasty, conclusory or just ignorant).  Perhaps I've mis-interpreted your
past posts on this topic?  I have seen no textual evidence to assume
that Hermione is in general untruthful, deceitful or prone to making
hasty ill-considered statements.  So, I would need some specific reason
to assume that she has a *motive* to be less than truthful or
deliberately deceitful in this case of telling Harry that Ron is jealous
of Harry's fame.  I don't mind questioning motives at all -- but I fail
to see what motive Hermione would have for telling Harry this.  This
doesn't mean that it isn't possible.  I just can't think of any
plausible motives.

> As I explained in another message, my system of analysis is
> scientifically based; that is, it is extrapolated from evidence-based
> science, where evidence is necessary to support a theory. If there is
> no supporting evidence, then you cannot consider the hypothesis to be
> true. However once evidence is supplied, then the hypothesis can be
> considered true.

Again, it's my opinion that this system of analysis is not necessarily
*always* the best methodology to use in analyzing a work of literature.
Hoping Ebony or someone more knowledgeable about literary theory will
pipe up right about now.  It's been 13+ years since I studied English
lit theory in college.  Perhaps I'm just rusty.  More on this ....

> Unless I'm not understanding this example properly, what
> you and Amy are saying is if a friend tells you that your next-door
> neighbor is child-molesterer and doesn't show you any evidence
> supporting that claim, you would believe your friend on the basis
> that it was your friend who told you.

No, my friend's statement would be *some* evidence that my next-door
neighbor is a child-molestor.  It would not be conclusive evidence.
But, depending on my relationship with my friend and past experience
with his/her judgment & trustworthiness, I might be inclined to assume
he/she was telling the truth until proven otherwise.  In Amy's example,
it was something mundane such as a person's like or dislike of cats.
That might not be important enough to warrant further investigation.
But, whether my next-door neighbor is a child-molestor is probably worth
a second opinion or more solid, factual evidence.  I'd search out
alternate proof.  In the case of the Ron/Harry fight, I think Harry
could have confronted Ron on this issue.  But, it'd be asking alot of
boys that age to talk about touchy-feely stuff like that.

However, the original point was that Amy was taking your logic &
breaking it out step-by-step.  (1) There is no evidence to support
Hermione's assertion that Ron is jealous of Harry's fame; and (2)
Hermione is therefore incorrect.  I agree with Amy: I don't follow that
logic.

> That's why you lose objectivity in your analysis of Hermione. You
> identify with her and maybe you closely identify with her. There's
> nothing wrong with that, because I'm a reformed Hermione,. myself,
> and I know how easy it is to rationally explain her actions because
> defending her is like defending myself or defending my best friend.
> But I choose not to lose my objectivity, because keeping my
> objectivity is the only way I can see Hermione as J. K. Rowling
> intends her to be portrayed.

Again, I object to the use of terms like "objectivity" and "authors'
intent" when talking about a work of literature.  There are definitely
some sentences, paragraphs, sequences or scenes that are
straight-forward in a work of literature, but in my experience, more
often than not, a sentence or scene is subject to a myriad of different
interpretations.  I also believe that one cannot definitively discern
the author's intent from the words on the printed page alone.  If you
want *evidence* of the author's intent in the case of a living author,
you must go directly to the source (the author) and ask him/her a direct
question.  It gets more tricky and considerably less reliable when
you're dealing with a deceased author.  In that case, you must hope that
their intent is easily discernible from drafts, notes, letters and other
similar primary sources.

In the case of Hermione, we would obviously argue different authorial
intent with respect to her portrayal.  You can cloak your arguments in
terms of "objectivity," but you cannot avoid bringing your own
subjective judgment & experiences to the table when you look at
Hermione's character & actions.  IMO.  I don't think it's possible to
divorce yourself from your own biases in the case of interpreting these
characters.  Then again, I don't think Steve's Lexicon site is
completely 100% unbiased either.  <g>

> I think that ignoring the author's intent results in a less than
> "accurate" analysis.  Take for example Hermione giggling at Ron's
> arachnophobia. Objectively, Hermione is being insensitive.

Or, she's a 12 yr old girl with a case of the giggles.  Did JKR intend
that readers would think "case of the giggles" or "insensitive girl"?
We can obviously disagree on this.  There is no one right answer.  We
could ask JKR what *her* intent was, but she might say, "Well, when I
wrote it I was really trying to convey that Hermione was insensitive,
but I now that you mention it, it does rather read as though she's just
a pre-teen girl with the giggles.  I like that better."  My point is
that there is no single, objective rationale or motive or interpretation
to be put on everything that gets included in a work of fiction.

I write non-fiction professionally.  In that case, your style of
analysis does make sense.  But, I disagree that it's appropriate or even
useful to approach fiction with this analysis.

> However, if I introduce my bias into the analysis of Hermione's
> behavior I can say "serves Ron right for all the comments he's made
> about her" and I lose light of the fact that Hermione can be
> insensitive and isn't the prefect little angel I want her to be. I
> think it goes to how one wishes to interpret J. K. Rowling's writings
> and how one utilizes the "canon" to analyze her work.

We all interject our bias into our analysis.  I guess you think that
you're capable of reaching a completely unbiased objective analysis of
the HP books.  Me?  I'm human, and I figure I definitely have bias in my
interpretation of any fictional character or event played out in a
fictional universe.    In my mind, this is similar to the discussion
that Steve & I were having last week.  I still strongly believe that I'm
influenced by the opinions & thoughts of people on this group.  I'm just
as influenced by these discussions as I am by reading fanfiction.  The
overall effect of discussing the books on this group, reading fanfiction
& bringing my own bias and life experiences to the table creates a
fluid, ever-changing grasp of the material under discussion.  If my
views about the HP books were static (and if the books and events
therein were subject to one immutable interpretation by simply
interjecting "objectivity"), then why in the world would we have this
group?  What would be the point?

> I do think you would agree with me that the books follow a specific
> sequence of events. That is they follow a time continuum.

Yes

> As I explained in an earlier message, what is known to the characters
> at
> any given point in the books is limited to past knowledge and present
> knowledge, similar to reality.  Meaning that a character in Ch 2.
> cannot use something in chapter 22 to formulate an opinion on
> something during the course of chapter 2.

True enough; the character cannot do this.  The author can
unintentionally do this though.

> To say that Ron is jealous of Harry in, for example, Ch 26 and that's
> what Hermione in Ch 18 used to determine he was jealous is an ex post
> facto argument, which is generally believed to be illogical.

Except that we are not privy to everything that goes on in the head of
every character.  Just because there is no specific textual evidence
that Ron was jealous of Harry's fame *and* that Hermione knew this, does
not mean that Ron wasn't jealous or that Hermione didn't know this.  We
are not inside the head of either Ron or Hermione.  We are not with them
100% of the time.  Everything will not be spelled out in clear, definite
terms.  Not IMO anyway.

> No she might not have a minutely detailed outline. However, as with
> most writers, she is probably cognizant of storyline continuity and
> knows the pitfalls of not maintaining it. And even if she isn't
> particularly cognizant of continuity, her editors should be because
> the lack of continuity interferes with the general plausibility of
> the work.

Well, we've already established that the editors are clearly asleep at
the wheel (ergo, the Wand Order Error).  <g>  I'm sure JKR is aware of
storyline continuity.  But, I don't think she'd think to herself, "I
don't know if I've made it crystal clear that Ron is specifically
jealous of Harry's fame, and you know what, I'm not sure I've made it
clear that Hermione is aware of this fact, therefore, it isn't plausible
for Hermione to say this to Harry.  I better re-think this scene or
insert something specific into an earlier chapter of GoF."  I think
she'd realize that she'd laid sufficient groundwork for Ron's jealousy
that it wouldn't be jarring (surprising or implausible) to her readers.

> I was one of those oddities who double majored in college, receiving
> bachelor degrees in science and liberal arts (art history to be
> exact). Art isn't as "subjective" as popular belief holds. There are
> steps used to 'analyse' a work of art, and one of those steps is
> understanding the social environment during the time the artist
> created the work and understanding the intent of the artist.

Well, sure -- I agree with that much.  Social context and author intent
are important components of literary analysis.  But, we don't as much
about JKR's intent (especially with respect to specific scenes in GoF)
as we do about the intentions of Dickens or Austen or other authors who
left concrete evidence of their intent with respect to their various
works.  JKR is being purposefully very vague about her intentions in her
public statements.  Discerning her intent in future years will likely a
fun task for scholars .... but it's not something we can engage in very
effectively at the moment.

> Authors pick and choose descriptive words and phrases, actions,
> etc. as a way to 'paint their picture' of that character. For
> example, Rowling describes Dean Thomas as a "black boy taller than
> Ron" (US ed of PS/SS Ch 7). A reader might want to picture Dean as a
> short, white boy with blond hair. That's the reader's prerogative;
> but, that isn't _ J. K. Rowling's _ vision of Dean. To use the short,
> blond Dean as the basis for a critical analysis of the physical
> appearances of _ J. K. Rowling's _characters gives a biased analysis
> that would be less than accurate, plausible and convincing.

That is all true enough.  But, a physical description of a character is
unambiguous; you can clearly discern that JKR intends for us to see Dean
Thomas as a tall black boy with a passion for soccer.  That's not open
to varying interpretations.  The nature of Ron's jealousy is, however,
susceptible to more than one interpretation.

> I think  has posted some evidence to support that.

There's evidence that can be argued that Hermione has no real friends
other than Ron & Harry.  There's other evidence that supports the notion
that Hermione at least has acquaintances (if not reasonably close
friendships) with others.  There is no right ("objective") answer to
this question.  If straight-faced arguments can be arrayed for different
viewpoints, then we aren't dealing with some factual objective piece of
information.  Whether Hermione has other friends is subject to more than
one interpretation.

> You and Amy argue that Hermione is a good judge of character.
> If that's true, then she would have at least anticipated Harry's
> reaction. According to your arguments, Hermione was insightful enough
> to recognize Harry's shock after the Goblet regurgitated his name;
> she's insightful enough to recognize Ron's jealousy of Harry. So all
> of the sudden, she loses her insight when she tells Harry that Ron is
> jealous of him and isn't able to anticipate Harry's reaction?? Using
> the argument for Hermione's good judge of character, her motive
> during the Ron-Harry fight is even more suspect than it was before
> applying that.

That is very interesting!  Of course, in the heat of the conversation
with Harry, she might not have thought through the implications of
blurting out that Ron was jealous of Harry.  She was reacting to Harry's
inability to see Ron's problems.  But, you do have an intriguing point
here ....

> Let me clarify this because it seems there's a little confusion with
> terminology here. A 'behavior' is simply that; a behavior. For
> example, memorizing all your school books by heart is a behavior.
> Organizing all your notes is a behavior. Doing schoolwork during
> summer vacation, when none has been assigned is a behavior. Singing
> in the shower is a behavior. Once a behavior interferes with day-to-
> day functioning, that behavior becomes abnormal. However, even if the
> behavior doesn't interfere with day-to-day functioning, it does not
> mean the behavior does not exist.

I agree.  However, the diagnostic criteria that you set out in your
message specifically says "preoccupation with details, rules, lists,
order, organization, or schedules TO THE EXTENT that the major point of
the activity is lost."  In Hermione's case, she may rely on study
schedules & organization & perhaps unnecessary effort, but all of this
organization & attention to detail does not result in the major point of
the activity being lost.  My point is that her reason for doing all this
is to achieve high marks.  She does achieve high marks.  Her methodology
for getting there may seem excessive to you, but it gets her where she
needs/wants to be.  So, the Behavior #1 (or Diagnostic Criteria #1) is
not met.

> Well, I'm beginning to see this problem . Even if I use evidence-
> based analysis and point out examples in the books of obsessive
> behavior, I don't think it will be taken as "evidence" or
> even "possible evidence", because you don't necessarily weigh
> Rowling's intent (the quoted material) in your analysis of the
> characters.

I don't dispute that Hermione is obsessed with creating study schedules
and engaging in memorization that seems to be unnecessary (although
again, we're not in Hermione's head; we're hearing Harry's POV).  Sure,
she undeniably appears to study way more than is necessary to achieve
her objectives.  But, as far as the Diagnostic Criteria of OCD are
concerned, her obsession with order, schedules and rules does not
interfere with the point of her activity.  We do have a reasonably
objective measure of that: we hear from more than one character that
Hermione achieves high marks.

As for intent, see above.  I don't believe you are capable of discerning
JKR's intent (neither am I).  You're capable of postulating possible
intentions.  But, your opinions may not square with mine or with Amy's.
There's no right answer.  This is not a math problem.  We can speculate
about JKR's intentions with respect to a wide gamut of things in the
books, but all we're doing is speculating.  It's certainly not
scientific.

> I can see Hermione's ambitions being a risk factor too.  Like I said,
> I'm a recovering Hermione. I'm not nearly as anal-retentive now, as I
> used to be at her age. I was a straight-A student through high
> school, scored 1600 on the SATs, graduated at the top of my class,
> etc.

Ah ... so you are bringing some bias into your analysis of Hermione?
Seems so to me.  Much like I dislike the teenage version of me who had
more than a few Ginny-like characteristics.  Consequently, I'm not too
sympathetic to Ginny.  I am unduly harsh in my judgment of her, and I
recognize that.  I was Hermione on the inside and Ginny on the
outside.

> So yes, I can see Hermione's ambitions being a risk factor for
> temptation by the Dark Side.

Oh, sure they are.  It's just my opinion that Ron's are going to be
*easier* for the Dark Side to manipulate.  That's just a subjective
opinion though.

Penny


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]