ship: JK chat, R/H vs. H/H

Wed Mar 7 18:47:11 UTC 2001

No: HPFGUIDX 13795

Hi, guys -

F = Firoza,

CC = Cassandra Claire

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.

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

I have to agree with this. I think that most R/Hr shippers will have to 
agree with this. Because, strictly speaking, Ron is Harry's best friend (and 
he's rather obvious) we know more about how he feels. Harry just seems to be 
around him more, which is probably why we see more of his emotions. However, 
you can look at Hermione's issues with Fleur as her showing some feelings 
for Ron. I have, however, heard H/H shippers mention that the scene where 
she glares when Fleur kisses them could, in fact, be her glaring at Harry, 
but JK writes it like that to confuse us.

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>.

CC: <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.>

Ron is very obvious, and Hermione is not. This probably comes from the fact 
that Ron has grown up in a large family where no one notices what you do 
unless you explode something (which the twins do, so come to think of it, 
that doesn't even get much reaction). Gah. You could turn these shipper 
debates into some cheesy soap opera - "Hermione's Heart". It doesn't really 
matter *who* she loves, Harry does not like her (yet), and Ron's too shy to 
do much of anything, so we don't have much to worry about. Anyway, what 
about the subtext that says Draco and Harry are ment to be?

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?

CC: <*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?>

*wince* The Kiss has no subtext. Put that on hold. The kiss is an out right 
mushy thing to do. Something JK did to keep us guessing. To let H/H shippers 
scream "I'm right!". Something to make R/Hr shippers shrug at. Plotwise, it 
is something to confuse Harry and frustrate Ron. No subtext is needed.

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.

I am forced to say that this was a highly dangerous thing to do. One rule in 
debating a logical point - *never* presume *anything*. Paraphrasing an 
off-the-cuff comment made by JK is in no way proof of anything. An issue 
between them could most definitly be unrequited love. Is that so far 
fetched? It certianly makes there be "something between them". Even more so 
when you look at the fact that Hermione has to be blind to not pick up on 
it. Ron will probably make some move in the next book, and Hermione will or 
will not respond, either way it will cause something to happen. And just 
because something is going one way, it doesn't mean it's going the other.

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.

It's been addressed, but this is very fuzzy logic. She says that he changes 
his mind. This doesn't mean she isn't saying that he'll date Lavender Brown 
later on. Reading too much into comments is, as I have said, a dangerous 
thing to do.

 >
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>)."

CC: 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....

Cassandra! This would have been a perfect time to whip out the comment you 
used on me in one of the last shipper debates when *I* used this kind of 
logic.... "I would hate for the books to end with Harry getting together 
with Ginny simply to further the Potter gene pool". Or something like that. 
It applies. Here, we have eleminated every possible female in the books 
using strange ideas to get us here, and assuming that JK was asking us to. 
Cedric's death puts a damper on the H/C thing, but it might pull them closer 
together. Just because H/H didn't happen in Book 4 doesn't mean it's ruled 
out. Gah. Besides, he's hooking up with Draco. You didn't cross him off the 
list.

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>?

CC: 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?

*bangs head* This isn't even interpreting it in a semi-acceptable light. Odd 
spin-offs at best. The beloved character thing is a prime example of how It 
Is All Up To Opinion. If you got attached to Cedric in his one pre-GoF 
scene, he was beloved. If not, bully for you. Maybe she was trying to throw 
us off. Maybe she thought we all liked him?

And now onto Penny's post:

I, for one, just do not understand the whole Betrayal!Ron thing. There are 
so very few good guys in the plot to begin with, and a select few of them 
are close to Harry. Close to him and his age? Two. Life would be very odd 
for him without Ron around. He was is his best friend, he was the first 
person to look beyond the scar, so to speak. He introduced him to Quiddich. 
They talk about sports. They will most likely talk about girls later. He 
needs that male friendship in his life. The only other boys are Seamus and 
Dean (and Neville), and they just aren't on his wave length. Harry isn't 
even really friends with them. When he and Ron got into their fight in GoF, 
*Ron* was the one to hang out with the other boys. And about that fight - 
Christ! They are teenage boys, not saints. Can't they get into an argument 
with out it meaning that one will sell the other's soul to the Dark Lord? 
Please.
  I agree with the idea that Harry will shove aside the love in his love 
(whoever that may be), because he doesn't want them hurt. To be quite 
honest, I see Harry more as a solitairy guy. He just seems to have too many 
issues to have a stable love life. But that's an argument I have said way 
too many times before.

Morsus "MC" Crustum

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com