[SHIP] LONG: In Defense of Ginny (was Re: The Sleeping Woman/Generational Parallels)

[Christine Peterson]

No: HPFGUIDX 37508

*takes deep breath and tries hard not to panic*
As this is my first post here, let me warn you that I can be very blunt and
sarcastic when the topic is near and dear to my heart, as it is at the moment.
No offense is intended and I will try to be as polite as possible, but I also do
believe in being honest, even if others are not pleased with my opinions. If you
don't like listening to someone who isn't afraid to take a stand, then you know
where the "delete" key is (or the scroll button if you're on digest mode).

I am _cautiously_ in support of the possibility of a future romantic
relationship between Harry and Ginny: I don't currently see enough canon
evidence that such a relationship is written in stone, but I do see canon
situations that, if assembled correctly and given enough attention and new
situations to grow on, could become the basis of a friendship between the two
and possibly more. The books are essentially told from Harry's perspective, and
as of the end of GoF, Harry _still_ barely knows Ginny. Therefore, we the
readers _still_ barely know Ginny. For those reasons, I've been rather unnerved
by some of the anti-H/G sentiments that have been expressed on the list in the
slightly over four months that I've lurked here. I'm not saying that the
anti-H/G shippers are wrong, but I _am_ saying that Ginny and her presence as a
character with a legitimate place in the story shouldn't be dismissed out of
hand based on the insufficient evidence we have thus far. Give her a chance. She
may just end up surprising us all.

Now, getting to the main purpose of my post...
First off: David, you've got some very intriguing ideas with this theory of
yours. I'm not sure I agree with everything in it, but it's pretty well thought
out and it's become a nice starting point for some reasonable speculation based
on what we've read so far. Well done! ^_^

I'm going to offer my commentary on what's been said by everyone who has weighed
in on this topic thus far, so it's going to be monstrously long. Sit down, crack
open a bottle of butterbeer, and enjoy the ride...

David wrote:
> -             There is dissatisfaction among some listies with the way women
> are presented in general in HP.

*snorts* I certainly haven't been dissatisfied. Since the books are told from
the point of view of a boy, well, they're going be somewhat boy-oriented rather
than girl-oriented. To the dissatisfied ones, I say: Patience, young
grasshopper. *laughs*

David continued:
> (I have wondered if JKR's room of desire, the one she would visit, given an
> hour at Hogwarts, is the chamber.  It would be a typical piece of misdirection
> for her to describe it as 'mentioned' in Book 4, and it is a place plausibly
> with magical properties that Harry hasn't discovered yet.  We have certainly
> not been given any reason for its name - what secrets?  Everyone knew about
> the monster.)

*THUD* Ooooh. I like it. I like it a _lot_. I have no idea why, but I do.
*grins* And isn't it funny that the Chamber is where Ginny had her own "final
confrontation" with LV (in any form)? This bears more thought, so I'll stick it
on the back burner to simmer for a while and move on...
 
David continues some more:
> Poor Devin got a lot of flack for pairing Ginny with Harry a few weeks ago
> because she is the only other character to have had a serious run-in with
> Voldemort.  I believe he is on to something, though.

*nods* As do I. Even if nothing romantic comes of it, there is the undeniable
fact that Ginny has had an experience that gives her an understanding of Harry
on a level that no one else has (at least, for the moment). Hermione hasn't been
there, nor Ron... _maybe_ Dumbledore has, in his own experiences with
Grindelwald, but as we don't know the specifics of that case, I'll leave it here
for the time being.

David continues even more:
> Postulating a romantic relationship may be a little premature, rather I see
> Ginny as symbolising the feminine complement to the predominantly masculine
> development we have so far seen.

Laura wrote:
> Being female, young, and American, I sort of automatically bristle at the
> connotations and stereotypes associated with the words "masculine" and
> "feminine"

I am female, young, and American as well, but I am not at all offended by
David's statement as you seem to be, Laura. On the contrary, I think you could
be reading too much into it. I do not believe that David's intent was to be
sexist, but rather to attempt to highlight the fact that we _have_ gotten a very
male-oriented viewpoint thus far in the books (after all, the main character is
male, each of the books' titles begins with his name, and as I said before, the
stories are told from his perspective, but I digress...). We've seen Harry's
mind, but we've only just begun to see the depths of his heart, whether in a
strictly romantic sense or in a more general emotional sense. I think this idea
ties in very nicely with the "Is Harry a Stoic?" thread from this past January.
In a very real sense, Harry's been programmed to have the stereotypical "stiff
upper lip" by his experiences. It's only now that he's beginning to learn--from
Mrs. Weasley, from Hermione, and yes, even from Ginny--that it's _all_right_ to
just let go sometimes.

Laura continues:
> What is wrong with Hermione as a feminine portrayal, anyway?

Nothing at all. I like Hermione (I see quite a bit of her in me, in fact), but
at the same time, I'm not convinced from canon that she and Harry are meant to
be.

Laura continues even more:
> Furthermore, she's not "sleeping" as Ginny is.  Her character is multi-faceted
> and a major part of the story.  Not only that, but she is, as a person,
> fiercely intelligent, strong, hardworking, loyal, and absolutely ruthless when
> need be.  Again, I ask:  What more do you people *want* in a heroine, anyway?

*shakes head* Laura, I think you've missed David's point here. If I'm
interpreting his idea correctly, he is talking about a part of Harry's psyche
that is "asleep," as it were, that is only now beginning to awaken and its
existence consciously recognized by Harry. David is further proposing that this
sleeping portion of Harry's psyche could be represented, at least in part, by
Harry's perceptions of his mother and of Ginny. The way I see it, the
significance of choosing them rather than Hermione as representatives is that
Lily and Ginny are two people that he himself barely knows, and yet both have an
emotional connection to him that is blocked in some way (Lily has been dead for
years, and Ginny is both in a younger class year and is his best friend's little
sister, so he hasn't really had much opportunity to associate with her without
near-constant interruption). Contrast this with Hermione, whom Harry knows much
better than he knows his mother or Ginny. Hermione is _not_ an unknown to Harry,
therefore he has no reason to subconsciously attribute her (as a known entity)
to the unknown part of himself. The "aura of mystery" (for lack of a better
term) around Lily and Ginny resonates on some level with the "mystery" inside
Harry, but he doesn't sense any similar "mystery" with Hermione _because_ he
knows her as well as he does. Whether the "sleeping mystery" is Harry's feminine
side to balance out his masculine side (in a sort of yin-yang dichotomy) as
David suggests or suppressed/disguised sexuality, as Pippin has pointed out (and
Pippin, that was a bloody brilliant post, btw), is open to interpretation.
Frankly, I think it could well be a combination of the two. What can I say, I
like complexity. ^_^ And speaking of Pippin...

Pippin wrote:
> Ginny, on the other hand, does not assume a maternal role 
> toward Harry (nor does she carry the ubiquitous M). I agree that 
> her immaturity and neediness are echoes of Harry's own and 
> that we will see her grow out of them just as Harry has.

Oh, it's nice how we can think alike... I said something similar in regards to
Laura's comments on having crushes at a young age. (see below a ways)

Pippin continues:
>  As Harry grows into adulthood, his need for a surrogate mother 
> may diminish and he may come to desire a romantic rather than 
> nurturing relationship with a female friend. The Oedipal need to 
> separate his yearning for a mother from his sexual desires 
> might actually drive him away from Hermione at that point, 
> although her  kiss at the end of GoF may signal her desire to 
> have things otherwise.

Jo Serenadust wrote:
> Maybe this is why a romantic relationship between Harry and Hermione has
> always seemed to be so violently *wrong* somehow.  It seems that a mature
> Harry would not be able to romantically connect with such a
> maternal/domineering type.  I've never been one to believe that males *really*
> want to marry their mothers ;-).

You both just totally hit this nail on the head! Jo, your comment that a mature
Harry may not be suited to a "maternal/domineering type" very nicely ties in
with the "Is Harry a Stoic?" issue that I brought up earlier. It's possible that
Hermione's assured assertiveness might very well eat Harry's quiet introspection
alive. Not a pleasant thought.

Pippin writes further:
> One of the lessons of the Potter books is that, unless you have the brains of
> the Sorting Hat, it is unwise to slot people into rigid categories as a result
> of your first impression.

*cheers and whistles* Thank you, thank you, thank you! May I borrow that quote
for a sig line? ^_^

Laura wrote:
> On a side note, I would like to add that although I am not particularly happy
> with it, I do believe that if JKR intends to pair people off in the future
> books, the pairs will most likely be H/G and R/Hr.  I don't like it, but from
> the way Jo's writing at this point, that's my prediction.

David wrote:
> May I ask what is the basis for this prediction?  I ask because 
> sometimes avid shippers get accused of a degree of wishful thinking, 
> so it's refreshing to hear someone make a prediction they don't like.

I'll second that! Laura, you've piqued my interest! *grins*

Laura continues:
> Hmm..well, we already know how JKR chooses to display her own (girlhood)
> femininity.  She has stated several times that Hermione is an dramatization of
> herself at that age. (I just don't understand why you aren't satisfied with
> this to the point that you go through the trouble of creating elaborate
> theories to find a substitute for Hermione)

I'm perfectly satisfied with Hermione-as-JKR. Heck, I'm writing a story right
now in which one of the main characters is modeled on myself. What I don't yet
understand is what Hermione-as-JKR has to do with Hermione being a better
romantic/emotional match for Harry than Ginny or anyone else.

David wrote:
> The fact that Ginny is said to talk a lot until Harry's presence subdues her
> is an intriguing indication.

Laura wrote:
> You don't think that maybe (just maybe) you might be reading a little bit to
> much into a little girl's reaction to a boy she has a crush on?

Not at all. Read on...

Laura continues:
> I mean, when I was that age, I barely had the guts to *look* at a boy I found
> attractive for more than a few milliseconds -- and I'm certainly not a shy
> person.  Even among older people (men and women), becoming tongue-tied,
> embarrassed, nervous, etc. is perfectly normal when one is around someone one
> is infatuated with.  It's a perfect common reaction, IMO -- especially when
> you're young (like Ginny) and haven't had much experience with the pretty
> intense emotions having the "fuzzies" instills in you.

Not only is it the way that Ginny acts around Harry (though it appears that she
may have gotten over it halfway through GoF), it's the same way that Harry
reacts to Cho in PoA and GoF. It may be that we are meant to see such facets of
Harry and his personality reflected in those who are close to him or wish to be
close to him (as Pippin inferred earlier). We just don't have enough context in
canon to determine this one way or the other. Yet. *sighs* I want Book 5 NOW,
darnit...

columbiatexan wrote:
> I'm actually really hoping Ginny doesn't end up with Harry, because I don't
> think they'll ever be on an equal footing

Why? Could you please explain how you reached this conclusion despite the
obvious lack of canon evidence?

columbiatexan continues:
> and, barring some major change in the next 3 books, Ginny's so far not had a
> chance to really get to know Harry for who he is and fall in love with that
> person.

Yet by the same token, _Harry_ has not yet had a chance to really get to know
_Ginny_ for who _she_ is and fall in love with that person either. Funny how
looking at the same argument from opposite directions cancels itself out.
*wicked grin*

*looks at the empty inbox* Oh my, is that it? I guess so, for now. *grins
wickedly at the sight of everyone staring at her with glazed eyes* Why yes, I do
like a good filibuster. How ever did you know? *cackles*

In closing, I hope that what I've said has made some of you think just a little
bit harder and try to open yourselves to possibilities that you might not have
agreed with 24 hours ago. Hey, it could happen. ^_^

And just to be contrary, this could all turn out to be a moot discussion if
Harry winds up dead by the end of Book 7. Not that I necessarily believe that
Harry's a goner, but I do acknowledge that the possibility exists. *smirks*

*steps down from soapbox, dusts it off for the next poster, and Disapparates
before there's a chance to _really_ panic*

Christine
--
Graduate of the Vorlon Empire Academy for the Philosophically Inclined