SHIP Harry & Ginny?

[Kimberly]

No: HPFGUIDX 15526

Sounds like I misinterpreted pretty much Cassie's whole post.  Oops!  

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., cassandraclaire at m... wrote:
<snip of my part>
> I never said that a woman couldn't be nurturing and still be equal. 
> What I said was that if that was all she was and all she did, that > 
would bother me. <snip>

But Jim's post wasn't saying that's all she would do.  He wasn't 
focusing at that point on what all else Ginny may do, because that 
wasn't what his post was about.  That's why I thought your post was in 
reference to the nurturing aspect specifically, I guess.  

> Kimberly: Ginny has demonstrated no tendency to treat Harry 
> > like his mother.  I don't see the sin in being supportive of 
> someone  you love.  It doesn't mean you do nothing else... <snip>, 
>
Cassie:
> Granted, but we are not talking about people and relationships in 
> general, or anyone's personal experience, we are talking about Harry 
> and Ginny specifically. My arguement is not that there is anything 
> wrong with being supportive of someone you love. <snip for space>   
> Try not to look at it as a personal thing and purely in literary  
> terms: Harry is our protagonist, arguably the most developed 
> character in the books. It makes logical sense to me that if he is 
> to be intimately paired with someone else, that person should be a 
> well-developed character as well, otherwise we as readers will find  
> it jarring.

Point taken.  But I don't think anyone's argued that it should happen 
now.  I wasn't trying to say that, as-is, Ginny's right for Harry.  My 
argument is, in literary terms ;), that I find the small amount that I 
know about Ginny to indicate that she has potential to be a very 
strong woman.  In CoS, we get the 'Victim Ginny' that people don't 
really like, but her one really big mistake was trusting the diary.  
Normally that's not something you'd expect to result in mind control 
and attempted mass murder.  She did try more than once to fix things.  
She failed, but the effort shows some strenght of character to me.  I 
admit there's not much of her in PoA, but what there is in GoF is all 
positive.  I think there's going to be more development for her in 
this direction, and that in the course of the story, it will make 
sense for a relationship to happen.  I'm ready to be proven wrong (as 
I said, we H/Gers live mostly on hope), but I don't think it's out 
of the question.

I think you and I are closer to agreement than we thought, except that 
I'm actively looking forward to the possibility of Ginny becoming a 
great, strong character and being a good match for Harry, and you're 
skeptical that it will happen, and maybe wouldn't really care for it 
if it did?  Is that closer to right?

> I guess I really just don't aspire to being a boring wimp. I kind of 
> don't think Ginny does either. <snip>

Surely you got that I was trying to say that I don't think Ginny *is* 
a boring wimp?  Especially that bit further down where I said "I don't 
think Ginny is a boring wimp." :D  I can accept boring in the 
*specific* context that she doesn't get to be in on all the excitement 
(yet!), but she's done nothing wimpy.  She was defeated by a far 
stronger wizard.  That happens to pretty much everyone from time to 
time (well, I guess I've never been beaten by a stronger *wizard*, but 
defeat is universal), and if they survive, and carry on with life, I'd 
hesitate to call them wimps.  

But in truth my comment about wanting to be that kind of wimp came 
from my mistaken belief that you were saying that being nurturing and 
supportive would *make* her a boring wimp.  I was saying if that's 
your definition of wimp, then I'd quite like to be it, or words to 
that effect that make more sense.
 
> I don't recall ever having said that unconditional love is weak. 
> What I said is that Ginny is weak as a character, not even so much 
> personally as in terms of how she's been developed. Which is not 
> much. I also said that I object to the theory that Harry's romantic 
> partner should offer him the kind of love he's been missing all his 
> life, because the kind of love he's been missing is parental love, 
> and that is a different kind of love than the love a romantic 
> partner can give you. <snip> I do not believe that Ginny is not an 
> appropriate partner for Harry because she's offering him weak love 
> or something (and I'm weirded out to have my statements interpreted 
> that way) I think she is not an appropriate partner for him at the 
> moment because they are unequally developed characters. <snip>

Again that can be chalked up to my confusion over the nature of your 
statements.  The above about Ginny being a weakly developed character 
I'm fine with, but what I read originally:

<<It is a very bad idea for Harry to be getting the unconditional 
"parental" love he's missing in his life from his romantic partner. He 
needs someone strong for that; someone who will tell him when he's 
doing something stupid and dangerous, which he often does, someone who 
can help him, assist him, and be an equal partner to him.>> 

threw me for a loop.  I thought you were comparing unconditional 
love whith the things you listed after, and saying it was *not* those 
things.  So I reread it, and puzzled it for awhile, and came to the 
(erroneously) stunned conclusion that you were saying that if his 
romantic partner gave him unconditional love (which I don't see as 
being specific to a parental relationship at all, thus adding to my 
confusion), that would mean that they were not strong, outspoken, able 
to help him, and equal.  I didn't mean to weird you out, honest!  You 
can see it weirded me out when I thought that's what you were saying 
as well!  

Kimberly,
relieved to have been wrong