Shipping and Other HP4GU Debates (long as usual)

[moongirlk at yahoo.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 11013

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Ebony Elizabeth Thomas" <ebonyink at h...> 
wrote:
> Hello, HP4GUers!
> 
> M.C. Pandora wrote as an aside embedded in another post:
> "(Similar to some 'converted' to Ron/Hermione and away from 
Harry/Cho
> by GoF -- people do like to be right, and re-evaluate the past in
> light of the present/future.)"
> 
> Exactly.  The above inspired my own brief foray into R/H land... as 
> skeptical as I was, I didn't want to debate with the Creator of the 
HP 
> Universe.  Can anyone else relate to M.C.'s quote?

I can't, really.  The first time I read the books, I began suspecting 
something special between Ron and Hermione in PoA, not GoF.  I admit 
I don't have conclusive evidence (I can satisfy myself, but I know 
I'll never satisfy everyone) that Hermione likes Ron, but the moment 
Hermione slapped Draco in PoA and all Ron could say was 'Hermione!' 
and then he reminded Harry and Hermione it was time for class (In a 
cute kind of role-reversal), I knew Ron was one smitten kitten.

When I went back and reread the first 4 books again, I noticed 
something else.  Ron's wit seems to be greatly sharpened by Hermione -
 after they become friends he becomes more funny, and he tends to be 
more 'on' around her.  And Harry himself implied that Ron was good 
for Hermione's humility when he talked of him beating her in chess, 
so they're good for each other.  I didn't change my mind about them 
after GoF - I never thought Harry and Hermione had any chemistry, and 
I always thought it was adorable the way Ginny embarrassed Harry with 
her adoration.  Although I don't think there's anything wrong with 
changing your mind in accordance with, as you said, the 'Creator of 
the HP Universe'.  And I think it would be unhealthy for me to choose 
a position on anything and stick to it despite what I might learn 
afterward.

> 
> I'm really beginning to think that firm ship preferences are 
directly 
> related to the way we read the books in general.  

Interesting theory - I'd like to see where this goes!  I'm game to 
try it out!

Everyone on list knows 
> that I'm loudly, obnoxiously, and unashamedly H/H.  I think I 
basically 
> agree with Penny on almost every issue in the fandom except that I 
think 
> Lily and James married young, and I still think Harry's a 
nickname.  
> :::grins at the listmom and H/H captain:::
> 
> Here's my stance on those issues.  What I'm wondering now is how 
other 
> H/Hers view the positions below, as opposed to those of other ships 
and 
> no-shippers.
> 
> 1)  I'm a SuperHarry advocate.  The only reason I haven't jumped 
into the 
> debate with canonical evidence is b/c I've been under the weather.  
I've 
> been scouring the books in search of evidence of this theory (the 
crazy idea 
> had to have come from *somewhere* in canon) and have unearthed a 
few 
> nuggets.  :-) I think I have enough on my hands with shipping, 
though.


Right off the bat I can't agree with you, which may speak well of 
your personality theory.  I am of a mind that Harry has the potential 
to be the next Dumbledore-caliber wizard, but I think if he were 
SuperHarry it would negate the main themes of the books, and be far 
more damaging to the integrity of the story than a happy-ever-after 
type ending.  But that's just the way I look at it - as many have 
said, people read the books very differently, and there's room for 
all theories :).

> 
> 2)  Although I dislike the Slytherins in canon, I believe that both 
Draco 
> and Snape are redeemable in both canon and fanon.  Even after 
Cassie's DD/DS 
> (which I love), I still distrusted Draco until I began writing 
TIP... during 
> the construction of the backstory and the writing, his character 
shocked me.
> 

Here I agree with you, at least as far as canon - fanon I have no 
opinion on.  Snape is clearly redeemable, and in fact doesn't really 
need redeeming (as he's a closet good guy), although he could 
certainly learn some manners and grooming.  As for Draco, he could 
well redeem himself, although it would kinda ruin the great rivalry 
fun at school, so I hope if he does it's not until much later in the 
books.

> 3)  I identify strongly with Percy.  I doubt very seriously that he 
will 
> become a Death Eater.

I don't identify with Percy much.  I see where he's coming from 
sometimes, but I can't say I really identify with him.  But I agree 
with you that he's not likely to become a DE.  I think he runs a 
strong risk of going the Fudge route, but even then I suspect he will 
eventually come around, when faced with the obvious choice between 
the ministry and his family.  
> 
> 4)  I think that there's more to Hermione than brains.  We still 
don't 
> *completely* know from canon why the Sorting Hat put her into 
Gryffindor.

Agreed here too.  Hermione has a lot of potential and we haven't seen 
all of the facets of her character.  Although I do think she has 
already shown that she is a true Gryffindor, I think she will 
continue to grow and will become the true moral compass of the trio.
> 
> 5)  Ron, at this point, *really* needs to be onstage for a 
significant 
> portion of Book 5 so that his character can be developed more.  

Yay!  I definitely agree with this one - the more Ron the better, so 
he can show the skeptics that he's not some closet evildoer.  I *do* 
believe he struggles with jealousy and insecurity, and that there 
will be some tense moments and turning points.  But I firmly believe, 
and I will find a hat to eat if I am proven wrong, that Ron will, in 
the end, prove himself to be just as loyal and self-sacrificing as he 
was in the chess game in SS/PS, on the grounds in PoA when he shoved 
Harry out of the way of the Grim/Sirius, and in the shreiking shack 
when he was determined to die in defense of his friend (kinda like 
Sirius).  These decisions were made quickly, instinctually, and as 
much as it would tear me up, I wouldn't be all that surprised if Ron 
*does* end up choosing to die for his friends.

In books 1-2 
> I grinned at him and said "typical boy"... in books 3 and 
especially 4 I 
> really believed he needed to "get a grip".  (No flames, please.  
The fact 
> that he's 14 at this point doesn't mean much to me--for the 
millionth time, 
> I spend two full hours a day with 13 and 14 year olds.  Not all 14 
year old 
> boys are like him.  Only some of them are.)

No flame here, you are entitled to your feelings, just as I am.  
Although I'd suggest that after 999.999 times, maybe the repetition 
of something for the millionth time isn't really gonna help much. ;)  
Sorry, I couldn't help it - my dad always used to tell my mother that 
when she'd say 'for the millionth time...'
> 
> 6)  I'm a small Hogwarts/wizarding world advocate.  Unlike 
shipping, I don't 
> care to debate the issue that much.

I can't get worked up enough about this one to have much of an 
opinion.

> 
> 7)  I have always thought the Wand Order issue was much ado about 
nothing.  
> Nice that it got our e-group the media recognition, though.

Agreed again - I can't get too worried about that one either.

> 
> 8)  I love post-Hogwarts fanfics.  I also like fanfics that attempt 
to 
> explain the scientific and cultural features of the magical world.  
While 
> shipping fluff and steamy romance fics are all well and good, my 
favorite 
> fics also deal with explaining important existential questions that 
JKR has 
> not dealt with thus far.  Even my own soap opera has a lot of 
theory-type 
> gobbledygook in the background and in the backstory/outline that 
has 
> *nothing to do with shipping*.  (That might explain 
Kathy's "UberFic" 
> theory--the most famous H/H subplot fics really focus on something 
besides 
> shipping entirely--H/H is not the cake itself in these fics, just 
the icing. 
>   <vbg>)

I can't agree or disagree here as I don't read fanfics.  I'm not 
interested at this point.  I probably will change my mind 
considerably after book 7 is over and I'm jonesing for more Harry & 
co - you may have noticed I change my mind rather often ;)

So I don't know what that reveals about your theory in my case, as it 
was rather a mixed bag.

> 
> Those are my positions.  I've noticed that H/Hers seem to agree 
with many of 
> the above.  In contrast, a recent visit to a very nice R/H site run 
by 
> grownups (hi, Zsenya!) revealed that most posters stood on the 
opposite side 
> of most of the above.
> 
> So there's a bit more to shipping than just drawing a queen and a 
king from 
> a deck of cards.  I'd say it reveals a lot about our personalities.

I kinda doubt anyone disagrees much with you there.

> 
> Kimberly wrote:
> >I know as a newbie no-shipper I'm not the best person to respond to
> >this, but as I came from and still have a certain affinity for the
> >R/H ship's general philosophy, I thought I'd try.
> 
> <vbg>  I've noticed that most of the no-shippers that participate 
in the 
> shipping debate (oxymoron, anyone?) don't usually travel on the SS 
H/H.  We 
> still love 'em, though.

I stand guilty of being totally wishy-washy, I admit it :)  That's a 
part of my nature - wonder where that fits into the 
shipper/personality theory?  Would be interesting to learn those 
things.  But for the no-shippers out there who are firm and unlike 
me, I must respectfully take exception <g>.  They certainly have just 
as much reason to participate in the discussion as anyone else.  Is 
there position less valid because they disagree with both of the 
bigger sides?  Debates often have more than 2 points of view.  I 
don't see an oxymoron there.

> 
> A side note--I really don't believe that there is a such thing as a 
> no-shipper.  I have too much gobbledygook in my head about the 
foundations 
> of Western cultural philosophy to subscribe to the existence of 
people 
> floating on inner tubes for the next two years at least... and am 
having 
> difficulty constructing a plausible scenario for land-lubbers.

I know this was probably aimed at me, as I have changed my mind about 
a dozen times this week and I deserve it ;), but I wonder how the 
real no-shippers feel now that they don't exist - are you saying 
they're being disengenuous, or that they just don't know their own 
minds?  With me it was #2, I assure you - it's hard to keep up with a 
mind that runs around as much as mine does.

> 
> >There might be something to what you're saying.  Kathy mentioned 
that
> >some R/Hers tell her they're uncomfortable posting here because the
> >atmosphere seems against it.  I have heard the same.  Maybe they
> >perceive that they have something to defend themselves against if
> >they post about it?
> 
> The R/Hers now have a very nice site where they can express their 
opinions 
> without much rebuttal... I love visiting but only posted an intro.  
The 
> message boards are very active, but I've seen few counter-arguments 
over 
> there.  I've also seen (sorry to bring this up, but I have to say 
it) HP4GU 
> shipping theories discussed over there and dissected.  All in all, 
it's nice 
> vacationing on foreign cruise ships.  :-)

What's wrong with discussing theories in multiple forums?  Some 
people post there that don't post here, and (yes, I do visit that 
board some as well), I have seen some very interesting insights.  Do 
go back soon and check out the rest of the board, as the vast 
majority of what I've found over there isn't about ships.

> 
> In contrast, there is no grown-up equivalent H/H site that I know 
of.  Here 
> at HP4GU, the H/Hers get heat from R/Hers, other ships, and no-
shippers.  
> The PoU list is not for ship discussions per se... Lori graciously 
allows a 
> couple of maritime posts there, but shipping back-and-forth in 
general (even 
> H/H) is OT.

If you're bummed that now they've got a seperate place and H/Hers 
don't, I'm sure there are those who can recommend great places that 
host free websites!

> 
> So I'll echo Penny here... it's not that the R/Hers are less vocal.

Not anymore, they're not, but it took quite a long time for anyone to 
publicly join Kathy.

> 
> >Maybe it's just that, being a lawyer, you're better at it that 
makes
> >the R/Hers feel that way, or maybe it's the terminology that has 
been
> >tossed around (disorders, destroyers, etc.).  I'm quite happy 
myself
> >that you've been steering away from them, because down here 
floating
> >without a ship in the waters of ambiguous anticipation it's kinda
> >scary to see two big ships face of in battle terms.
> 
> A few quick points of clarification:
> --I started the "destroyer" talk.  I'm the only one who used the 
term.  
> Penny's earlier post checked me effectively.  My apologies.  Chalk 
it up to 
> my man being in uniform... and my own weird and sometimes 
culturally-derived 
> sense of humor.  We'll be a cruise ship from now on.

I'm sorry if I offended you - I didn't mean to scold or anything, I 
promise! :)  I just really was uncomfortable with it, and I was 
thrilled to see the conversation turn to more lighthearted metaphors.

> --I also started the "disorder" talk.  Again, I apologize.  My 
shipmates had 
> nothing to do with it.  R/Hers will be simply "misguided" in the 
future.
> --Penny's being a lawyer has little to do with her defense of the 
H/H ship.  
> I'm not a lawyer, and everyone around these parts know that 
I'm "loquacious" 
> (to quote my dear friend the R/H captain).  There are other lawyers 
who do 
> not ship at all or sail on other vessels.  Let's be fair.

Again, I apologize too :) if you felt I was attacking - I think 
(hope!) Penny took my suggestion in the spirit it was intended - I 
may have been completely off-base, I was just tossing out ideas that 
might explain the phenomenon of R/Hers feelings, and Penny is a 
gifted debator.  I wasn't trying to be unfair or accusing - I really 
was trying to help.  Clearly I overstepped, and upset you - I 
apologize.

> --The shipping theory I'm responsible for is the Freud one, and you 
*know* 
> that gave everyone a good laugh last month... I've seen it 
mentioned here or 
> elsewhere, but no one ever mentions that most H/Hers laughed along 
with the 
> rest of the list at me.  <vbg>  I've also done field research into 
FITD, 
> along with Cassie and Heather.

I do know - I got a kick out of it, and I thank you for it.  My years 
studying French lit in grad school make it impossible for me to have 
much fun with literary theory anymore, but I did get a kick out of 
that one.  I didn't think it was a point of contention, really.

> 
> All right.  I think that's it.
> 
> Bear in mind that while the H/H Captain Penny is our listmom, there 
are 4-5 
> other moderators who are confirmed no-shippers and check the vocal 
H/H 
> element effectively (and with good humor!) with posts like Neil's 
recent 
> Titanic post.  That let me know in a subtle way that "destroyer" 
was not a 
> good term to use... and not to impress no-shippers into service a 
la the 
> British navy of 200 years ago.  LOL!

Again, I wasn't trying to say that someone was to blame, just that I 
observed that there was a widespread impression that I didn't think 
was intended or recognized and I thought addressing it would help.

> 
> >I hope I'm not stepping on any toes - I don't mean to speak for one
> >side or offend the other side.
> 
> Not at all, Kimberly--one of my favorite people on list is the R/H 
> captain... she and I both work with kids and are addicted to 
fanfiction.  So 
> much for the notion of a real war, when we're both "fraternizing 
with the 
> enemy" (Ron quote!  LOL!)  <g>

> Again, R/Her Rina has the right idea.  Let's keep the tone light... 
I'll do 
> my best to comply with that.

Me too - I hadn't realized I wasn't.  I will include a joke, in order 
to show my intent! ;)

Joke:
A man walked into a bar.  Ouch.
Note - I stink at jokes!

Happy Saturday, all!
kimberly