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

[firoza10 at yahoo.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 13805

Well I seem to have opened up a hornets nest here :-) But not to 
worry, I will respond and THEN go back to delurking :-)

Cassandra wrote:
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.

Perhaps I missed something? If Ron's feelings are quite clear in GoF, 
how is that 'subtext'? So how can R/H-er's and myself included have 
interpreted the subtext to conlude that Ron likes Hermione and 
Hermione likes Ron if 'Ron's feelings are quite clear in GoF'? I 
believe that you misunderstood me :-) What I was saying is that IMO 
there is more evidence for a 'subtext' meaning between Ron and 
Hermione than there is for H/H, since I see the R/H interactions in 
GoF as subtle and implied, NOT 'clear' just as H/H fans see a subtext 
meaning. If Ron's feelings were as clear as you claim, then there 
really wouldn't be the 'Yule Ball' debate of late <g>. I have not 
said that it was 'okay' for us to interpret the subtext to conclude 
that Hermione likes Ron, but not for H/H fans to do say. I SAID that 
if we are to look at subtext, I (stress on the 'I') MO there is more 
evidence for an R/H subtext than an H/H one :-)

Cassandra wrote:
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.

My, my I am sorry if I have offended you in wanting clarification 
on 'subtext' :-) I have read as many posts as I could including the 
ones after Christmas, but my brain may not be too quick since I still 
wanted clarification. But that's ok, Penny has already replied to my 
post and clarified FITD and subtext for me, so I won't have to bother 
Penny off-list :-) And for any further clarification I will wait for 
the relationships FAQ to be posted, okay :-)?

Cassandra wrote:
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.

I am sorry if my perusal of the message boards (which BTW I did read 
especially the ones before Christmas ;-) and my grasp of what they 
contain is not up to par, but my original post was made taking into 
account what points were made, or at least MY take on them. There are 
many of them and some are not as clear as others, so I apologize if I 
picked up on the wrong points. Thank you for clarifying that FITD has 
nothing to do with 'subtext'. 

What I was trying to say was that if FITD means that Hermione likes 
Harry, then for H/H to happen Harry will eventually have to like 
Hermione, right? Since I don't think Harry will like Hermione back, 
FITD makes no sense to me, that's all, even if it makes sense to H/H 
fans :-)

Cassandra wrote:
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. 

It seems I cannot please :-) On the one hand I am being chastised for 
not 'reading' the archives properly and on the other hand using a 
dictionary definiton of subtext as taking things a 'tad too 
literally' <vbg>. Again, you have misunderstood me. So, I will try 
once again to clarify myself :-) As dense as I may seem to you <vbg>, 
I did pick up that 'nobody has argued that Harry likes Hermione'. 
That was my POINT. If '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', it can 
be argued in the same way that HERMIONE LIKES RON since the text 
never comes out with the sentence Hermione likes Ron ;-) All I was 
saying was that R/H fans see Hermione liking Ron and Ron liking 
Hermione, therefore WE do not see a subtext for Hermione liking 
Harry :-)

Cassandra wrote:
*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?

Well, that is why I gave the 'dictionary' meaning of subtext in my 
post, just so that readers would now where I was coming from ;-) But 
thank you for YOUR definition of subtext :-) What I said was that the 
KISS can be interpreted subtextually to mean Hermione has feelings 
for Harry, but NOT solely to mean that Hermione has feelings for 
Harry. The ACTION of kissing could be intrepreted two ways, as 
Hermione having romantic feelings for Harry or only friendship. So, 
yes I agree that the action of the kiss is OPEN to interpretation. 
That was my POINT <vbg>. The statement that 'she had done something 
she had never done before' WAS stressed in one of those earlier posts 
you have suggested I read ;-) so I was just coming back to that. The 
statement cannot be interpreted, but the action can :-)

Cassandra wrote:
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.  

Well, once again you have misunderstood me :-) I did not say that 
Hermione kissing Harry PROVES she doesn't like him, I SAID that was 
my OPINION and how I interpreted the KISS. I believe we have already 
established that it is okay to intrepret things differently, or am I 
wrong in that assumption as well <vbg>? As for Hermione glaring at 
Ron being interpreted as a sign of deep affection by R/H ers, the 
ACTION of the glare can be intrepreted as indicating that Ron gets 
under Hermione's skin, so yes, in essence the 'glare' can be thought 
of a sign of deep affection <vbg>.

Cassandra wrote:
I think you mean "borne out." "Bourne" is something quite different. 
Also, I disagree, but then, we knew that.
 
Thank you so much for correcting my spelling and giving a further 
definition of 'subtext' earlier on :-) I am glad that I was clear 
enough in my ramble for you to understand the meaning behind what I 
was saying :-) And of course, you disagree, this would not be a 
debate if you did <vbg>.

Cassandra wrote:
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.

Since you do not consider what JKR says in a chat as 'canon', that is 
fine, but my post was meant to just 'clarify' MY stance on why I 
believe JKR is headed towards R/H. I would never dream of claiming 
to 'clarify' something for JKR either, so again (surprise, surprise)
you have misundertood me :-) As for defining 'between', that was once 
again to clarify MY interpretation of that statement. Sorry, if I 
ruffled and feathers, but as I stressed in my original post, my 
comments were meant in to be taken light-heartedly and NOT in hopes 
of converting die-hard H/H shippers ;-)

Cassandra wrote:
*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.

Well, umm, that's what I said didn't I, that just because they were 
platonic now, didn't meant that they would remain so forever :-) You 
have taken my comment out of context, since the point I was trying to 
make was that SO FAR what JKR has said in the chats that I mentioned 
in my original post has been BORNE out in the books: she said Harry 
and Hermione will not date in Book IV and by golly they didn't did 
they and yes, H/H and R/H have been platonic from Books 1-3. So, so 
far JKR has followed canon :-)

Cassandra wrote:
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?

Well, once again my interpretation is different from yours, no 
surprise there!

Cassandra wrote:
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....

Since, you yourself don't hold much with offhand comments made in 
chats by JKR, I can see why you would see my 'reasoning' as faulty :-
) That's okay, like I said these are MY opinions :-)

Cassadra wrote:
WHERE is this coming from? Who ever said she was in love with even 
one person?
 
I was just following my 'faulty reasoning' :-) And, ummm, did you not 
just say that H/H fans interpret Hermione as having feelings for 
Harry, and does not 'having feelings' hopefully lead to love? 
If 'having feelings' will not lead to love, then you're right, who 
ever said she was in love with even ONE person, let alone two <vbg>.

Cassandra wrote:
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?

Well, beloved is open to interpretion <vbg>, since JKR said she cried 
when she wrote Cedric's death, so I interpret that as a beloved 
character FOR JKR dying in GoF, although not MY beloved character :-
). And I am not assuming 'that interpretatins put on what JKR said in 
chat are gospel truth'. What I AM saying is that what JKR has said in 
chats is helpful IN MY OPINION, in helping ME interpret the HP books, 
that is all :-) 

Cassandra wrote:
She hasn't said much of anything at all. 

Yup, that's why what she does say helps ME to interpret the HP 
books ;-)

Cassandra wrote:
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.

Yes, the books will only take us to age 17, but I am sure JKR will 
not leave us fans in a lurch, and still manage to hint the future. I 
am sorry if my post offends you <vbg> since you 'just can't read any 
further' but as I said in my original post it was not intended to 
offend, just to offer a differing viewpoint about why I am so 
adamantly R/H :-) Since I feel I have responded as much as I can to 
your post Cassandra, and you have said all that you had to say, I 
will wish you happy sailing and go back to lurking, as all this ship 
debate, as fun as it is, is very time consuming. Bon Voyage!

Firoza :-)