SHIP: Responses to Firoza (and Cassie) on R/H and Such...

[Ebony AKA AngieJ]

No: HPFGUIDX 13824

Zipping up the wetsuit again...

Hi, Firoza!  Ebony here.  I've seen your posts over at the 
SugarQuill.  <vbg>  I may be a devoted H/H shipper, but you won't 
find one who loves the Weasley family more than I do.  I'd love to 
see more of your posts over here at HP4GU.

Let's sit and chat for a while... which do you prefer, tea, coffee, 
or hot chocolate?

Firoza wrote:
> Well I seem to have opened up a hornet's nest here :-) But not to 
> worry, I will respond and THEN go back to delurking :-)

Lurking, you mean?  <vbg>  Really, my shipmates are reasonable, fun 
people... just like many of my R/H friends.  No nasty insect stings 
intended, I'm sure.

Before I begin, let me issue a blanket disclaimer--I'm too tired for 
subtlety right now. My sixth graders and I had a Harry Potter-themed 
pizza party this afternoon as their House Cup Competition prize.  
While fun, it wore me out.  We played a lot of games, and talked a 
lot about the books... more to come later.  :) 

Cassie 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."

Firoza wrote in response:
"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."

Subtext... uh, something I can sink my teeth into.  I live on Subtext 
Island--grad school is corrupting me to the point where I can't read 
a novel without trying to get into the author's head, analyzing the 
historical and cultural context, and examining the intersecting 
traditions/genres/philosophies within which the author is writing.  :-
)

I've talked to a lot of people in online fandom, of all ages and ship 
preferences, including no-shippers.  The trend that I've personally  
noticed is that R/H fans mention GoF to support their position.  
Which makes sense--after not reading books 1-3 for a couple of months 
and going into GoF cold on July 8, I saw the R/H position as well.  

The only way I can explain why I'm H/H (and I'm asked all the time) 
is to use the entire canon we have thus far, and read it as a 
singular narrative.

GoF is not a standalone book.  It's the fourth part in a seventh 
volume series.  It can't be read most effectively in isolation any 
more than Wilder's "Farmer Boy" or Tolkien's "The Return of the King" 
can.  Serial novels of this nature are actually one continuous 
narrative in multiple parts.

The most intriguing thing in any potential romance subplot is this:  
JKR has held back from spelling out Hermione's feelings.  I've read 
*a lot* of serial fiction in which an author follows a remarkable 
character and their friends from youth to maturity... and I've rarely 
seen so much smoke and mirrors when it came to developing 
attractions.  

It would have been infinitely easy for Jo Rowling to indicate 
Hermione's feelings clearly, if they were indeed for Ron.  After all, 
there isn't much room for a fully developed, tangential romantic plot 
in her storyline... any pairings would have to tie directly into one 
of several non-romantic storylines.  

If Ron likes Hermione, and vice versa, and this is what our beloved 
author intended for her series, GoF would have been a good place to 
show both characters making tentative steps towards one another... 
nothing ambiguous.  If romance was not going to play a major role in 
the main storylines of the later books (as some of my no-ship buddies 
posit), or if Jo Rowling had a consistent R/H-during-canon pairing in 
mind... GoF would have read quite differently.

I believe that Rowling is "cloaking" Hermione's feelings for a 
reason.  If I'm correct, it wouldn't be the first time in which 
Hermione was hiding something that was integral to the main plot.  
Remember the Time-Turner?

If I could ask JKR one question before the fifth installment comes 
out next year, I'd ask her this:  "Are you a fan of Louisa May 
Alcott?"  Her answer would tell me a lot.

All writer know that plot=conflict.  If plot=the obvious or 
plot=peace, "we could have all stayed at home".  The best writers 
raises the stakes whenever they can, add dramatic tension here and 
there, are masters of subtlety and misdirection, and leave their 
readers hanging from scene to sequel.

Yet writers also have to deliver on the promises that they make.  If 
JKR is throwing up smoke and mirrors around potential R/H, and it's 
really all "much ado about nothing--Hermione really likes Ron", 
there's a contingent of close readers who will always remain 
unconvinced about that aspect of her story.  To set the table for 
your invited dinner guests and then not serve a well-anticipated meal 
is considered Very Bad Manners... and the analogy to fiction writing 
is obvious.

Cassie 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."

Check message #7708 (I think), Firoza--my classic "Freudian/Lacanian 
Support for H/H" may be the wildest subtext interp ever posted here 
at HP4GU.  Again, if you want to talk subtext, pick on me--most of 
the popular threads that are obvious I don't even think about 
debating.  Wand Order and Number of Students, IMO, are clear from 
surface-level text.

I'm looking forward to that relationships FAQ as well.  

Firoza wrote:
"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'."

FITD is based on text (I've found support for various parts of the 
theory in every book), subtext, and surveys of children and teens 
which are admittedly not scientific.  

I'm not sure who first coined the name for that theory or defined its 
terms (my gut says it's all Penny's fault, but I have this sneaking 
suspicion that I'm not innocent either).  But the first I ever heard 
of it was on July 11 last year... and I thought my students were 
crazy at the time.  

So FITD actually sprang from the minds of kids, Athena-like, who 
didn't have the benefit of fandom or fanfic... only the books and 
their own life experiences.  

It's as valid a hypothesis as any.   :)

Firoza wrote:
"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?"

In a world where terrible spells like the Imperius Curse exist?  
No.  :)  (I'm kidding, everyone.  Really.)

The thing that most intrigues me at this point is how the friendship 
amongst the Trio will be developed in future books.  An H/G friend 
(waves at Jim) and I have discussed this at length... and I've 
mentioned some of our conclusions on list before.  Though we 
sometimes differ as far as what trees are there, both of us see the 
same forest.

Firoza wrote:
"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  :-)"

Actually, the text never states RON LIKES HERMIONE, either.  ;-) 

Subtext contains an underlying meaning or message.  Surface text are 
questions that can be answered using the author's own 
words.  :::restrains herself from subjecting the list to her lesson 
on QARs and waves at the teachers on list:::

Cassie wrote:
"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..."

Amen, Cass.  Couldn't have said it better myself.

This is why I am bewildered when people take it personally when I 
debate ship positions that counter my own.  For me, it's not personal-
-it's just who I am. 

Cassie again:
"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/Hers."

OMG!  I haven't laughed so hard while reading a post in AGES!   You 
see, Cassie's expressing the confusion of every H/Her I've ever 
spoken to.  I know I think the *same thing* whenever the ship debate 
rolls around.  I identify strongly with Hermione, I put myself in her 
shoes... and the "I glare at him because I like him" argument is 
unconvincing to me.  The first thing I think to myself is, "well, 
Hermione glares at Draco as well, doesn't she?  So following your 
rhetoric, this means that she likes Ron, and Draco, and everyone 
who "gets under her skin"."  

On the other hand, who else has Hermione shown clear evidence of 
being somewhat attracted to in canon?  She *was* attracted to 
Lockheart (twelve year old girl's crush on a teacher--even Ron admits 
to it)--how did she react while she was around him?  She may not have 
been swept off her feet by Krum, but she liked him enough to go to 
the Yule Ball with him--did she glare at him all the time, too?  Or 
initially?

Cassie 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. <snip> 
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.  <snip some more good stuff> 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."

Not to mention the fact that JKR is notoriously evasive in interviews 
and in chats.  :)

I'll challenge anyone to do the following:  go to our site's 
archives, and the UHPFC message board archives *pre-GoF*.  It is 
obvious that JKR has said a lot of things in interviews and chats 
about GoF that did not exactly pan out the way her fans interpreted 
them in advance.

Also, as Cassie alludes to, writers are tricky people by nature.  
We're storytellers, yarn-spinners, and dream sellers.  As the old 
argument against fiction writing goes, "we tell lies for a living."  

Again, JKR's being evasive for a reason.  What she says in chat is 
not canon... it's planon.  :::winks at Neil for the coined word:::

Firoza wrote:
"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 ;-)"

Of course not... H/H is the Ship that Proselytizes, remember?  
Converting all dreamers to our version of this fairy tale.  Search 
the archives if you don't believe we've been accused of this.  Me?  
Guilty as charged.  <vbg>

What looks like ruffling of feathers is actually quite the opposite.  
Intelligent ship debates get me all fired up.  I love a good debate, 
and I love a worthy opponent even more.  So do many of my shipmates.  
This is why we don't cluster and only talk to one another all the 
time in places where disparate PoVs are not encouraged.  It gets 
boring talking about how right we are and how much Harry and Hermione 
are meant to be with other like-minded souls.  Not to mention "time 
consuming."  

But to each his own.

Please tell all my friends over at the SugarQuill that the H/H 
Special Agent bids them a fond hello, Firoza--I'll drop by one day 
soon to inquire about W.A.I.L.  :-)

And to the rest of you, thanks for hearing me out.

All the best,

Ebony AKA AngieJ