Harry and Cedric (was Envy/Respect)

[eccleston at clara.co.uk]

No: HPFGUIDX 13194

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Jen Faulkner <jfaulkne at e...> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Hillman, Lee wrote:
> 
> 
> > I can certainly see how they could be interpreted in a slash 
context, but I
> > respectfully disagree. 
> 
> Not to quibble, but as I stated before, my reading here really is
> unrelated to slash.  (And believe me, I'm not surprised that people 
are
> going to disagree with me on this!)
> 
> > I agree. But for the reasons having to do with Cho, not for any 
latent
> > homosexual tendency. He's relieved because now the worry and the 
doubt are
> > over.
> 
> Possibly.  I think you can read his relief either way.  But the
> important point is that he does feel relief at the refusal, which
> contrasts with his intense reaction when finding out that it's 
Cedric
> she's going with.  I was merely trying to establish here that the
> refusal on its own did not create the intense emotion.
> 
> > Absolutely.  It's called jealousy. 
> 
> Oh, quite.  The rivalry between Harry and Cedric is the core of my
> reading.  I'm not making an argument, though one could, I think, 
that
> Harry's feelings for Cho are a result of transferring his feelings 
for
> Cedric onto her.  Instead, I'm focusing on the nature of the
> rival-relationship itself as tinged with eroticism.  But rivals 
*must*
> be jealous of one another.
> 
> > Not of Cho for going with Cedric, but Cedric for going with Cho.
> 
> But, I would argue, it's not so simple as that.  Harry is certainly
> jealous that Cedric, and not he, is going with Cho.  I wouldn't deny
> that.  However, (love) triangles are funny structures, because by 
their
> nature they set up a connection between the two rivals, mediated 
through
> the presence of the beloved.  And since Harry repeatedly casts 
Cedric in
> the role of desired object, I get a distinct sense from the text 
that
> Harry's desire is moving (though not consciously) towards both.  Nor
> would I say that Harry is necessarily jealous of Cho.  I see no
> evidence of that in the text; mostly he's emotionally uninvested in 
her
> following her refusal.  However, his emotional reactions to Cedric
> continue.  But I'm definitely not positing any sort of situation 
where
> his 'real feelings' are the inverse of what he believes he is 
feeling
> (reaction-formation).
> 
> > But of all people, to go with Cedric, who is already the object of
> > most of the school's admiration (and remember that the Slytherins 
started a
> > campaign to directly compare Cedric with Harry, casting Harry in 
the
> > undesirable spot), is a harder blow. Again, purely in terms of 
literary
> > criticism, I feel it's realistic that Harry fixates not on Cho 
herself, but
> > on the fact of Cedric. 
> 
> Yes, Harry has good reasons to be rivals with Cedric, in addition to
> their competition for Cho, which I interpret as strengthening my
> reading.
> 
> > As such, it's also reasonable that he sees Cedric as an object, as
> > indeed, so does the rest of the school.
> 
> When I say that H. 'sees Cedric as an object', I'm speaking 
specifically
> of H. casting Cedric as an object of others' *desire*.  I would 
question
> the reasonability of that outside of a context of H's own 
(unexpressed)
> desire, and I certainly don't remember anyone else in the text 
casting
> Cedric in that light.
> 
> > I interpreted this [H's comments on Ce.'s appearance] as a
> > hyperbolic commentary meant to communicate Harry's bitterness over
> > the rivalry. 
> 
> Hyperbolic?  In what sense?  Is there textual evidence elsewhere 
that
> Ce. is *not* good-looking?  He isn't, to my mind, exaggerating a
> negative characteristic of his rival, as he would be if, say, he had
> thought: "How can she go out with Cedric?  He's the ugliest person 
ever
> -- Swamp Thing's got it all over him!  His hair looks like straw 
and his
> nose is too big and he hulks when he walks!" :) He isn't 
questioning the
> fitness of Cho's choice at first -- he acknowledges openly Cedric's 
good
> (*desirable*) qualities: skill at Quidditch, good looks, 
popularity.  
> The basis on which he does question her choice is Cedric's 
intelligence,
> not his looks: "Now he suddenly realized Cedric was in fact a 
useless
> pretty boy who didn't have enough brains to fill an eggcup" (GoF 
398).  
> The hyperbole is in regard to Cedric's stupidity (though there may
> indeed be a co-extensive inflation of his good looks).  But his 
looks
> are among the givens about Cedric for Harry.
> 
> This passage, in my view, *is* a homoerotic one, because Harry is
> viewing Cedric (though it is troped through the guise of Cho's
> subjectivity) as an object of erotic desire.
> 
> > Correct again, but bear in mind that Cedric IS an object for the 
whole
> > school, not just Harry. 
> 
> Again, I'm not sure where in the text this perception is coming 
from.  I
> don't see any evidence that the whole school is treating Cedric as 
an
> object of desire?
> 
> > It is natural and not necessarily homoerotic to objectify the 
rival
> > in this case. 
> 
> I quite agree that it's natural to place the rival in the position 
of
> desired object.  However, I also see it as natural and unavoidable 
for
> the very act of viewing the rival as an object of desire to be by
> definition an erotic act.
> 
> > Slytherins support Cedric, Cho's dating Cedric, everybody loves
> > Cedric, so why shouldn't Fleur (the most sexually attractive girl 
in
> > the school at the moment) also be going after Cedric?
> 
> Indeed, there is no reason she shouldn't -- but neither did Ron say
> anything about Cedric.  Harry's forcing him into the scene described
> because of his own fixation.  This perception that Cedric is the 
most
> desirable/ed object comes from Harry, not from outside.
> 
> > It's bitterness, not sexual desire.
> 
> The two are not mutally exclusive (and bear in mind that the erotic 
and
> the sexual are distinct, though related).
> 
> > Also bear in mind that he's making a half-baked attempt to 
console Ron,
> > here, and thus the subject of the sentence is rightfully Fleur, 
not Cedric.
> 
> I'm not really sure what you mean by that?  Harry has almost 
completely
> elided Cedric's subjectivity, and in his conversation with Ron, he 
is
> (once again) positioning Cedric as desired object, mediated in this
> instance through Fleur's subjectivity rather than Cho's.  (And 
really,
> I'm not sure to what extent, if at all, his words can be said to 
have
> any type of consoling effect intended.)
> 
> > He throws in Cedric's name because he feels like he's being 
unfairly
> > compared to him, at every turn. 
> 
> That's certainly part of the reason, yes.  But the *context* in 
which he
> throws in Cedric's name is a homoerotic one, in that Harry is 
viewing
> Cedric as an object of (Cho's, Fleur's -- his) desire.
> 
> > Again, I think you _could_ interpret it that way, but to do so 
takes a lot
> > of work. I think the more obvious explanation is, in this case, 
the correct
> > one.
> 
> You know, it often seems in lit crit that exactly the opposite of
> Occam's razor applies: the more convoluted a reading, the more
> persuasive the argument for it. *g*  But really, I don't think this 
is a
> particularly labored reading of the passages in question -- I think 
it
> is easily defensible that Harry is viewing Cedric as an object of
> desire.  And to my mind, this reading is not in conflict with the 
more
> obvious one that Harry is jealous of Cedric, but a layering of it, a
> complication of it.
> 
> > Does Harry need a necessary reason? How about, Cedric's 
constantly being
> > held up this year as a paragon of good, an example to emulate? 
> 
> The context here, however, is not of a competition with Cedric's
> behavior, but using Cedric as a paradigm for an object of desire -- 
so,
> yes, I think Harry needs some sort of reason for doing so.  No one 
else
> is constantly holding up Cedric as a paragon of desirability.
> 
> > How about, Cedric's in direct competition with Harry, 
even "getting
> > the girl." How about, he's mad at Cedric? How about, he's trying 
to
> > find something to fault in Cedric to bolster his own waning
> > self-confidence? 
> 
> All *additional* reasons, yes, that don't negate the homoerotic 
ones.
> 
> > And in this case, I took the term "pretty boy" to be a derogatory
> > statement, not a complimentary one.
> 
> Indeed, I take it as such also.  In fact, I think the phrase is 
really a
> particularly telling word choice.  The term 'pretty boy' carries 
with
> it, I would say, an entire register of meaning to do with 
effeminacy and
> passivity that easily shades over into the homoerotic -- and is 
almost
> invariably cast as negative.  The term implies a (threat of) loss of
> masculinity because the person it is applied to is then 
automatically
> placed in the position of desired object, the 'feminine' position.  
By
> nature of its meaning, it implies a positive valuation of the 
person's
> looks (they are 'pretty'), but that very valuation is then, 
inevitably,
> a negative thing, because it brings with it effective castration.  A
> very negative term, but in the context I don't see how it can but be
> homoerotic.
> 
> --jen :)
> 

Shouldn't we remember that, despite JKR writing for a steadily 
evolving audience following her success, that these are childrens 
books? JKR is showing herself to be very sensitive to childrens 
issues in the UK e.g. one parent families. How would a child of, say 
12, read this?