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

[Penny & Bryce Linsenmayer]

No: HPFGUIDX 13827

Hi --

firoza10 at yahoo.com wrote:

> Ron's remarks were not personal but Hermione was aware that the
> sentiments behind the words were.

I take it your implication is that this means that Hermione must return
his feelings or she'd never have said what she said to him.  Sorry but I
disagree for the reasons I've stated previously.  I think she was in the
midst of a fight & giving him hell for blaming her for the fact that
she'd gone with someone else.

> What we R/H fans say is that what we interpret has been bourne out by
> JKR herself <vbg>.

Hmmmm .... an awfully confident pronouncement.

> I believe it was Penny that mentioned that the 'there's something
> going on between Ron and Hermione' comment of JKR's can be
> interpreted as Ron liking Hermione, but Hermione not returning the
> feelings. Moey pointed that the only thing one can interpret
> differently in this statement is the 'something', but the 'between'
> most definitely means: <snip>
>
> 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.

Morsus Crustum (and all her alias identities) wrote:

> 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.
>
I absolutely couldn't agree more with MC on this one.  That's exactly
what I think is *one* possible interpretation of her offhand comment in
chat.  It may not be the right one, but it *is* possible.  I think
Hermione does know how Ron feels.  But, how does she feel back?  That's
open to alot of debate obviously.  Like MC said, she either will or will
not respond to Ron the way he would like, and either way she goes,
there's "something going on between them."

> Please do not launch forth an all out attack on me for clarifying
> JKR's statement H/H fans,

You later wrote: "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 :-)."

I think if you read the quoted portion, you'll understand why we all
interpreted what you said as "clarifying" JKR for us all.

> 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.

Just because I can follow your argument does not mean that I *must*
agree with your conclusions.  In any case, as I noted above, I think
you're putting a strict interpretation on the word "between" and
ignoring the forest for the trees so to speak.

> Penny wrote:
> Well, she made alot of pre-GoF statements that had everyone utterly &
> completely convinced that Harry & Cho would date each other in GoF.
> She's quite good IMO at making public statements that appear to be
> clear but are, in reality, rather ambiguous.  I interpret what she
> said as being clear only that Ron doesn't know what's going on yet.
> There's
> more than one spin to be put on virtually everything JKR says --
> that's all I'm saying.  :--)
>
> 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. I don't
> remember any chat/interview, other than the one mentioned above,
> where JKR stated or implied that Harry would date Cho, so if you have
> a link or the name of this article where this was said, I would
> really love to read it please ;-)

Well, one might start with the book jacket to GoF.  "He wants to dream
about Cho Chang, his crush (and maybe do more than dream)."  I remember
reading that in line at the bookstore and thinking, "Ugh.  Well, at
least she'll be his "Ms. Wrong" presumably."

September 1999 B&N Chat: "I'm having so much fun writing Book 4 because
for the first time Harry, Ron and Hermione are starting to recognize
boys and girls as boys and girls.  Everyone is in love with the wrong
people.  Let no one say my books lack realism."  [If Ron's in love with
Hermione, is she the "wrong" person?  That's one spin to put on that
remark.]

There's an interview that I cannot find in my print-outs.  It's the one
where she says something about clever readers (or careful readers) of
Book 3 could figure who Harry's first love interest in Book 4 is.  So,
of course, all of us adults deduced it would be Cho because she made his
tummy flutter.  We then took all further hints about the kids "falling
in love" with the wrong people & having their hormones kick in to mean
that they would all *date* the wrong people.  Harry really doesn't do
much more than have the occasional image of Cho's smiling face in front
of him; his fantasies about her don't extend all that far.  He really
doesn't interact with her much; he doesn't even know if he'd like her
much if he actually spent time with her.

BTW, the reference to Book 4 not being the longest book is in the
Newsweek interview with JKR (10 July 2000 issue).

> JKR may be 'ambiguous' about things such as whether any of the Trio
> will die or who will actually die, but most everything else that I
> remember she has said in the chats and interviews I have read has
> been bourne out in the books so far.

In that same February chat that you quote below, she's asked how old
Dumbledore is (a specific question), and she answered then with "Wizards
have a longer life expectancy than Muggles!"  She answered the question
finally in an October chat but .... point is, she's not totally serious
about every chat response she gives out (and/or she can be ambiguous
when it suits her).

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

One of your shipmates asserted that this is possible I believe, and
actually, I agree with her.  Hermione could very well be confused.
She's *14* -- of course, she could be confused & have romantic feelings
for more than one person.

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

Sometimes you have to look at context though, as Cassie pointed out.

> Teenagers in real life may not form attachments as
> teenagers that last into adulthood, but HP is NOT the real world, so
> R/H lasting into adulthood is a real possibility <g>.

Well, there's the chat quote from Sept 1999 that I quoted above though
where JKR says "Let it not be said that my books lack realism."  So ...
uh .... do you interpret that to mean that she wants the romantic
relationships depicted therein to be realistic and multi-faceted (and
full of the conflicts & mysteries & problems that accompany romantic
entanglements in real life) or do you think she'll just go for the OBHWF
theory?  It could be dangerous to rely fully on chat statements .... it
might trap you into a position that's counter to what you want to
believe also.

> 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>.

Still don't understand why this would "not be in keeping with the tone
of the HP books."  Color me puzzled on that one.

> My statements are NOT meant to be taken issue of, they are
> as I have stressed my opinions only :-)
>
Well .... if you state an opinion on an internet *discussion* list,
you're opening yourself up to having that opinion be subjected to
questioning.  That's the point.  It's a discussion group so that there
can be back & forth debate.  You don't just express opinions & then say,
"But, I don't want to hear any arguments, and I don't want to have to
defend my views."  If that's your hope, then you're better off being
silent on a discussion group, because the whole point is to engage in a
conversation with one another.

> As for Ron getting killed in saving Harry, that is
> very possible (but heartbreaking scenario), but I still don't see
> Hermione turning to Harry for comfort, since I don't see any H/H
> subtext ;-) That too me would be like Harry playing second-fiddle to
> Ron
>
My envisioned scenario has Ron getting killed in a betrayal of Harry
*because* Hermione rejected him (Ron) in favor of Harry.  My scenario
does not involve Hermione turning to Harry as a second choice.

> So just to clarify, I think what Penny is saying, regarding FITD is:
>
> FITD detracts from R/H because Ron likes Hermione, but Hermione does
> not like Ron, and we all agree that you need 2 people in a
> relationship.
>
> FITD does not support H/H as TEENS, but it does support a *future*
> H/H pairing, since Harry does not like Hermione *as yet* but will
> return her feelings ENENTUALLY.
>
No on this last bit.  FITD does not currently support H/H, but it
*COULD* support H/H in the future at some point, since Harry *COULD*
return her feelings at some point.  [In other words, replace "does" with
"could" and replace "will" with "could"]

> 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.
>
> Firoza: 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 :-)
>
I think you misunderstood Cassie.  Subtext has to do with *Hermione* --
not Ron.  JKR has all but beat us over the head with the fact that Ron
likes Hermione.  There is no need to look for subtext going that
direction.  Where you have to look at the subtext is with Hermione's
interactions with each of Ron and Harry.  As I said, both sides are
looking at Hermione's statements, actions & the subtext of her
interactions with her friends to reach conclusions about her feelings.

> If Ron's feelings were as clear as you claim, then there really wouldn't be the 'Yule Ball' debate of late .
>
The Yule Ball debate does not have anything to do with Ron's feelings.
We're all agreed on that score.  The Yule Ball debate has to do with
what Hermione meant by her last remark to Ron before she headed upstairs
after the Yule Ball (and with what might or might not have been said by
both characters before Harry steps into the Common Room).

> Thank you for clarifying that FITD has nothing to do with 'subtext'.
>
That's not correct either.  What Cassie was saying is that there is no
subtext supporting the notion that Harry likes Hermione.  FITD does in
fact require some read of subtext -- unless you can find enough support
in overt surface-level interactions between Harry and Hermione to
support the 2nd prong: Hermione likes Harry.  IMO, to support that part
of FITD, one must look at the 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 :-)
>
<clears throat and takes a deep breath>.  Okay guys: FITD does *not*
mean H/H is an eventuality.  FITD has to do with the here & now.  FITD
posits that Hermione does not return Ron's romantic interest.
Accordingly, under FITD, there can be no R/H at the current time.  It
also posits that Harry does not like Hermione.  Accordingly, under FITD,
there can be no H/H at the current time.  Under FITD, it is possible
that (a) no combination of these 3 characters will *ever* end up as a
couple, and (b) any possible combination of the 3 characters *could* end
up as a couple in the future.  The "future" could be within the confines
of Book 5 or it could be post-Hogwarts.

H/H types tend to support FITD because (a) it looks like that is where
the canon is headed (our interpretation of all available evidence is
that Hermione likes Harry rather than Ron), and (b) if there is FITD,
there is no R/H and it leaves the possibility of H/H open & on the
table.

Penny
(who will make some effort to see that the Romance Pairings FAQ is one
of the first ones uploaded since there is a general call for
clarification of issues & arguments expounded in the past)



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]