SHIP: Long Post Re: R/H Yule Ball and JKR

[cassandraclaire at mail.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 13794

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., firoza10 at y... wrote:

F: Many of the H/H fans see Ron is an open book so it's obvious that 
he  likes Hermione, but Hermione is not so easy to read therfore 
doesn't  like Ron back. 

Nope. She is not easy to read therefore we do not know for CERTAIN 
that she likes Ron back.


F: We R/H fans agree that Hermione is not so easy to read  but the 
signs she likes Ron back are there, and have been covered in  detail 
before so I will not reiterate them now. Well, if Hermione is  not so 
easy to decipher, then how do you H/H fans deduce she likes   Harry 
instead? Aaahhh, subtext right <vbg>.

So it's all right if you R/H ers interpret the subtext to conclude 
that Hermione likes Ron, but not okay if we interpret the subtext to 
conclude that she likes Harry? Ron's feelings are quite clear in GoF; 
Hermione's are not. Her words and actions can be interpreted in 
various ways. This, IMHO, is part of what literary analysis is about.


> 
F: I only discovered this wonderful group after Christmas, so I am 
still  waiting to hear all about this 'subtext' that emphatically 
shows that  Hermione likes Harry not Ron.

Well, just now I went through the archives and gave up after finding 
more than forty posts on exactly this topic. I am very unclear how 
you managed to miss them, as there have been several after Christmas. 
Perhaps you might want to email Penny off-list as she may have 
collected the message numbers for the relationships FAQ.

F: Also, for FITD, if Ron likes Hermione,  Hermione likes Harry, and 
Harry likes Cho/no one/someone outside the  Trio (if I am correct and 
that is FITD) then how does that support  H/H? I always thought that 
it took two people to make a relationship  <g> so if Harry doesn't 
like Hermione back romantically how does FITD   support H/H? Aaaah, 
subtext right ;-) I think that H/H fans who  believe in FITD are 
saying then is that Harry may not like Hermione 
> on the surface, but he loves her in subtext, so eventually he will 
> like her back? 

No again. It's got nothing to do with subtext. Nobody has argued that 
Harry shows feelings for Hermione which are present in the subtext. I 
really suggest that perhaps you go back and read the messages posted 
before Christmas. Otherwise you're coming into the discussion late 
and therefore may be assuming that points were made that were, in 
fact, never made.


F: So, if 'subtext' means 'implied' or 'figurative language', where 
in Books I to IV is it implied or figuratively written that Hermione 
likes Harry and Harry likes Hermione romantically (we all agree that 
> H and H like each other as friends ;-))? 

Okay, taking the dictionary definition of subtext a tad too literally 
here, aren't we? Especially since, as I already pointed out, nobody 
has argued that Harry likes Hermione. It has repeatedly been argued 
that the subtext indicates that Hermione likes Harry, meaning that we 
are interpreting this from her actions as the text never comes out 
with the sentence HERMIONE LIKES HARRY. As for those actions, I am 
afraid I cannot be bothered to repeat them for the ninetieth time. 
They ARE in the archives. This is why the search function is so 
useful.


F: So how about the infamous Kiss at the end of Book IV, 'she did 
> something she had never done before, and kissed him on the cheek'. 
> H/H fans have pointed out the JKR has stressed this kiss by adding 
> the line 'she did something she had never done before'. Well, 
> according to the definition of subtext I found, that is not 
implied,  that is stated outright and we faithful Harry Potter fans 
know that 
> she has never kissed Harry on the cheek before. So, what is the 
> subtext in The Kiss? 

*clears throat* What? The fact that it is clearly stated in the text 
that Hermione has never kissed Harry before means that there isn't 
any subtext? Subtext is in part the intepretation put on ACTIONS in 
the text; the clause that Hermione has never done this before 
modifies/describes the action, but is not itself the action. The kiss 
is the action and is open to subtextual interpretations exactly like 
the subtextual interpretation you put on it in the following 
paragraph. Or did you not realize that's what you were doing?


F: "I read some posts earlier were I believe H/H 
> fans polled teenagers to get their take on the KISS and I also 
> believe that the results of THAT poll were unanimous that Hermione 
> and Harry liked each other, or at least that Hermione like Harry. 
> Well, I haven't been a teenager for quite some time (I am thirty 
and  proud of it ;-)) but I do remember vividly what it felt like to 
be  fourteen and IMO I would never kiss the boy I liked on the cheek 
> especially if I wasn't sure if he returned my feelings"

And if this isn't a subtextual interpretation of the kiss, I don't 
know what is. So Hermione having kissed Harry proves she doesn't like 
him, because if she did like him, she'd be far too paralyzed with 
fear to even go near him? Instead, she would probably just have 
fainted at his feet. Or perhaps she would have glared at him, since 
her repeated glaring at Ron seems to be interpreted as a sign of deep 
affection by R/H ers.  

> 
F: The point that I am trying to make of all my rambles is that 
> EVERYTHING that points to a particular ship can be interpreted 
> differently by the other ship based on personal experience. What we 
> R/H fans say is that what we interpret has been bourne out by JKR 
> herself <vbg>. 

I think you mean "borne out." "Bourne" is something quite different. 
Also, I disagree, but then, we knew that.

> 
> 
F: This definition and common sense tells us that between 
means 'jointly 
> engaging' and 'shared by'. Since the two people in JKR's statement 
> are Hermione and Ron (Harry is NOT mentioned, subtext or no subtext 
> <vbg>) they are 'jointly engaging' and 'sharing' in the 'something 
> going'. Now as an expert in subtext, I am sure that Penny agrees 
that  the subtext of 'something going on' is the implication that 
Hermione  and Ron have romantic feelings. 

I'd hesitate for a good long time before assuming that Penny would 
agree with that. 


F: Please do not launch forth an all out   attack on me for 
clarifying JKR's statement H/H fans, because all I  am pointing out 
is that there really is no other way to 
> interpret 'between' if the 'between' being referred to is the one 
in 
> the English language <g>! So if H/H fans can follow the logic of my 
> ramble so far, they will have to agree that JKR is saying that 
> Hermione DOES have romantic feelings (if we agree that 
> the 'something' being referred to here is 'romantic feelings' <g>) 
> for Ron, but Ron, typical boy, is clueless.


No. I don't agree at all. I'm sorry about that. First off, I'm rather 
shocked that so much weight is being put on something JKR said in 
chat. As has been stated here before, chat is not canon. Also, my 
personal guess would be that she did not have a dictionary with her 
at the time open to the page with the definition for "between." I 
also cannot believe that we are expected to change our entire view of 
the series based on an offhand comment she made in chat. Books are 
living things in the process of writing; they change and grow, and my 
personal opinion is that she gives such evasive answers partly 
because she has not yet made up her mind and doesn't want to get 
boxed into a corner. 
And I myself would never claim I was "clarifying" something for JKR 
(how unfortunate that she didn't take the time to clarify it herself, 
tsk tsk, good thing WE know what she REALLY meant) unless I'd talked 
to her about it personally. As far as I'm concerned, if I were an 
author, I might easily have said that there was something between Ron 
and Hermione even if all I meant was that Ron likes Hermione and 
Hermione had feelings of affection/guilt/confusion in return.
> 
> 
F: Well if the pre-GoF statements that Penny is referring to are the 
> ones were JKR stated that the Trio would 'fall in love with the 
wrong  people' or that they 'would date the wrong person' then that 
has been  bourne out in GoF since none of us seriously believe that 
Hermione is   going to actually fall in love with Krum, Ron with 
Padma/Fleur or  Harry with Parvati/Cho, the obvious 'wrong people' in 
GoF. 

Which could be extended to assume that Ron falling for Hermione meant 
he had fallen for the wrong person. Now there's an interpretation I 
could get behind, IF I thought there was a whole lot of point trying 
to interpret comments made in chat.

F: "Q: Is Harry Potter ever going to fall in love with Hermione or is 
he 
> going to fall in love with Ginny Weasley?  
> JKR: In Book IV Harry does decide he likes a girl, but it's not 
> Hermione or Ginny. However, he's only 14, so there's plenty of time 
> for him to change his mind. ;-)  
> 
> Now, in Book IV, it has been bourne out that Harry does decide he 
> likes a girl, and that girl everyone knows is Cho Chang. JKR also 
> says that he is only fourteen, so there's plenty of time for him to 
> change his mind, implying that he will fall out of love with Cho 
and   fall in love with either Hermione or Ginny, the only two girls 
> mentioned in the question. 

Even as a die-hard H/H shipper, there is no way on earth that I would 
interpret that comment as meaning that just because Harry doesn't 
fall for Hermione or Ginny in Book 4, but may change his mind about 
who he likes in the future, that that made Hermione a stronger 
candididate to be his Love Object. Especially considering that JKR 
was responding to a question that *specifically* mentioned Hermione 
and Ginny, rather as if they were Harry's only two options, which 
IMHO is pretty silly.



> 
F: In the Barnes and Noble chat, she says that there is 'something 
going  on between Ron and Hermione' meaning that Hermione DOES return 
Ron's  feelings (if you agree that the word 'between' means 'jointly 
> engaging in' <vbg>). 

I agree that the word between means jointly engaging in, and yet do 
not at all agree with this interpretation of her comment.  


F: In an audio interview prior to the release of 
> GoF, if you go to the last question, JKR says:
> 
> "Oh, I like this one. 'Do Harry and Hermione have a date?' No. 
Harry  and Hermione are very platonic. But I won't speak for anyone 
else,   nudge nudge wink wink."

*sigh* Yes, they are platonic in Book 4, which was what she was 
referring to in the chat. I don't think I see anyone disagreeing with 
that. Ron and Hermione are platonic all through Books 1-3. Does that, 
in your mind, mean they'll never be anything else?
Didn't think so.
> 
"That I take to 
> mean that the 'anyone else' she refers to is Ron and that is again 
> bourne out by his reactions in GoF (I believe the common consensus 
is  that Ron DOES like Hermione) and her 'something going on between' 
> comment later on. The 'anyone else' could refer to Krum, but in all 
> honesty it doesn't seem likely she would refer to a character that 
we   haven't met yet, since this interview occured before GoF. These 
are  the only common sense interpretations of this statement <g>.

To me, it doesn't seem like a common sense interpretation, it seems 
like a bizarre one. I didn't take the "anyone else" comment to mean 
Ron, I took it as a blanket reference to the hormones springing up 
all around in GoF. Ron's feelings for Fleur, Krum's for Hermione, 
Harry's for Cho, Cho's for Cedric, etc etc ad infinitum. I don't 
think she was being all that specific. And again, far too much weight 
put on offhand comments made in chat. Also, I cannot see why on earth 
she wouldn't reference a character we haven't met yet. Why not?


> 
F: "Going back to the Feb. 3, 2000 chat, since it is apparent that 
there 
> is 'something going on between' Ron AND Hermione as of Book IV, and 
> Harry and Hermione are very platonic as of Book IV, common sense 
> indicates that the only one left is Ginny (since Cedric's death 
rules   out Cho, and JKR has said that Ginny will play more of a role 
in Book   V <g>)." 

This just doesn't make any sense to me. It seems to be a chain of 
faulty reasoning. Cedric's death does not rule out Cho. The fact that 
Harry and Hermione are platonic in Book 4 doesn't rule out Hermione. 
Nor does anything JKR says rule out the possibility of the 
introduction of a new female character. This seems to be the 
arguement that Harry and Ginny will get together, not because they 
are comaptible, not because there's any evidence he likes her, but 
because she is the only living female character not ruled out by a 
comment made in chat.
Okay....


F: That is unless anyone thinks that Hermione can be in love 
> with TWO people at the same time

WHERE is this coming from? Who ever said she was in love with even 
one person?

F: or that JKR, the creator of all 
> things HP who made these statements, is shall we say, less than 
> truthful <g>? 

Good Lord, the poor woman, are we supposed to assume that the 
interpretations put on what she said in chat are gospel truth? The 
fact is that she said a beloved character would die in GoF, and that 
didn't really happen. Does that make her a liar?

f: Some words such as 'between' and 'platonic' 
> really have only one meaning <vbg>.

There are words, and their definitions. And then there is CONTEXT.

> 
F: So, regarding RELATIONSHIPS, JKR has been pretty straight forward 
and   hasn't really said anything that has not been bourne out in the 
books  so far.

She hasn't said much of anything at all.


F: But despair not 
> H/H fans, there are always fanfics :-)! 

Somehow I've managed to avoid despair. Possibly because I know that 
there will be unexpected twists in the future of the books, Ron might 
not even survive them, not to mention Harry and Hermione. If you 
think any outcome that doesn't feature R/H is by extension a soap 
opera, that's your business. I don't.
> 
"Nor do we think that R/H or H/G when they eventually 
> DO get together will break up and not last. That is not in keeping 
> with the tone of the HP books, however 'unrealistic' that may be 
and  despite all the fanfics out there <vbg>."

The fact is that we will probably never know, since the books will 
only take us to age 17 and I strongly doubt anyone will be getting 
married or that we will ever find out what happens to anyone's 
relationships. And dedicated H/H fan and ship debater that I am, I 
just can't read any farther. I think I've said what I had to say, and 
more besides. Peace out.

Cassandra
>