SHIP: Problems with the concept of G/H

[uilnslcoap]

No: HPFGUIDX 35083

*Devin rolls up his sleeves, prepared to stop any leaks he may find 
in the deck of his ship*



--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "heiditandy" <heidit at n...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uilnslcoap" <devin.smither at y...> wrote:
> > Now, onto my favorite pet topic of Ginny, the girl who will in 
> fact 
> > be at Harry's side, probably starting in Book VI (though it might 
> > start to show up in Book V) through Book VII if he dies, and 
after 
> > book VII married to him if he lives.  
> 
> Two things - one elfish, one completely personal:
> 1. Please don't say "in fact" unless you've managed to read either 
> Book 5 or JKR's private notebooks - please say IMHO, because that's 
> what it is. Or say "I Hope." Not "I know," as you don't.

Dear me, is it that much of an issue to you to see me exaggerate/brag 
a bit?  All right, I'll attempt to slacken off the old ego, but I 
still don't think it was a crime against humanity or anything.  I 
thought people would take it as sort of a mild joke.  Besides, then, 
when it turns out I'm wrong, you can laugh at my surety even more.  
This, I feel doesn't really need to be jumped on.  Everyone knows 
it's MHO because obviously I have NOT read Rowling's material.  It 
goes without saying.

> 2. Married? Can I borrow the Ewwww acronym for this? Can we get an 
> acronym which covers the issue of Why 16 Year Old Girls Should Not 
> Be Married Or Even Engaged Even in the WIzarding World - Ron's 
> birthday is March 1. Unless witches gestate for shorter periods of 
> time than Muggles, Ginny's birthday really can't be earlier than 
> February - you think it's a good idea for a girl who's barely 17, 
at 
> most, and more likely 16, to be married or engaged to a 17 year 
old, 
> just because when she was 11 she was posessed by the same Dark 
> wizard who tried to kill him when he was 15 months old? How is that 
> a basis for a relationship?

As Pippin already pointed out (thank you Pippin!), I'm presupposing 
an epilogue which JKR kindly notified us of.  Sorry I didn't make it 
more clear, but nowhere did I claim to have a marriage at 16/17 in my 
mind.  Certainly one would expect for studies (at the very least) to 
be finished before such a thing was undertaken.  No, no, epilogue 
marriage, not marriage in June of Book VII.  Now, how about (in terms 
of an actual set of things they can base a relationship on) common 
friends as a starter?  Admittedly, friendships among siblings isn't 
the best sign to point to, but Ginny also seems to get along well 
with Hermione when they are together.  Having common friends, I find 
in real life, is a common enough precursor to a romantic 
relationship.  You get along well with these mutual friends, and 
(although this isn't always true) you will probably, therefore, get 
on well, with each other.  Being the little (but not TOO little) 
sister of a best friend, I find in real life, is also a common enough 
precursor to a relationship.  I suppose that we'll just have to wait 
and see, but I think Rowling has set up some great romance fodder 
here, and I don't think she'll let my hopes/predictions down.

> 
> Perhaps my problem with this is that I am presupposing that the 
> posession ended completely when Harry stabbed the Diary. IN other 
> words, Ginny may still be affected by her memories, but she's not 
> still got a bit of Riddle in her. If there was, it would've been 
> something *he* left in there on purpose, in which case I find her 
to 
> be completely untrustworthy. 
> 
> Furthermore, the workings of curses, which in backfiring placed a 
> bit of Riddle into Harry when he was 15 months old (with a very 
> undeveloped brain compared to an 11 year old) seem to be very 
> different than the workings of the posession Riddle had over Ginny. 
> In rereading CoS, it sounds more like he used Imperio, and for only 
> very brief periods, when he needed her to do something. The pages 
> may've been treated - by him or by Lucius (aside: wouldn't it be 
> wonderful if it had been a potion created by Snape?) to compel 
> anyone who picked it up to read it, flip through the pages, try and 
> write in it. That's not the same as a curse which seems to rip out 
> someone's essence, which is what AK is.

Oh, you understandably mistook me here.  I suppose no ACTUAL remains 
of Riddle in Ginny (though I would completely understand if she 
worried such a thing were possible).  I merely believe that there is 
severe EMOTIONAL and MENTAL scarring created by both Voldemort in 
both H and G, with or without any possible magic lees swiriling 
around in the bottom of their brains.  I, unfortunately, find that 
similarly troubled pasts also lead to relationships in real life.  
Often, these aren't the most healthy.  Thankfully, I am discussing a
world of fiction where that probably will be touched on, but happily 
resolved if and when my pet theories become canon.

> 
> > My basic point of take-off for the H/G ship is in their common 
> bond 
> > in having encountered Riddle/Voldemort.  I note that it is not at 
> all 
> > the same thing to encounter Riddle as it is to encounter V.  Yet, 
> I 
> > say, the same person is certainly responsible for the worst 
> portions 
> > of each of their lives, and only they have come face-to-face with 
> > dear old R/V and lived to tell the tale recently.  
> Erm, no. 
> : points to Draco in the Forrest in Book 1. He saw Voldemort, 
> through Quirrell, drinking the blood of the unicorn - and he is 
> still alive and kicking. And of course a lot of death eaters saw 
him 
> as well, but I presume you're only including people who you presume 
> to be "good"?

Naturally, I am only discussing those I view as good.  I realized 
Draco had SEEN Voldemort, but I certainly don't consider that an 
"encounter" by any means.  You could also say that dear old 
Dumbledore met Voldy in Book I.  I'll expound on my definition of 
"encountered."  How about, in a proximity of within 20 feet, for more 
than 3 minutes total?  Will that satisfy you?  How about, someone who 
has actually had words spoken to them by Voldy/Riddle?  I think this 
is a rather silly thing to be debating, but I feel I should defend my 
view on every argument, no matter how semantic or petty.  One more 
thing, I view my point of take-off in their mutual encounter with 
Voldy in terms of PLOT.  This doesn't mean I view their entire 
relationship as founded on that.  It does provide a nice convenient 
place for them two of them together (ideologically) if and when 
Rowling plans such a thing to happen, I believe.  Ginny's a sweet 
girl, Harry's a nice guy.  Those are valuable qualities that I think 
each might find endearing in the other.
 
> Of course, there's also a whole school of thought that is convinced 
> that Ginny isn't really Ginny anymore, and has been mostly-Riddle 
> since the diary was destroyed. An interesting concept, IMHO, 
> although not one I'm sure I can accept as canonical - the 
likelihood 
> of JKR having Riddle "regrowing up" as a Weasley is just a little 
> too weird. But, maybe.

Don't buy this for an instant.  Have heard the theory, but I don't 
see a shred of canonical evidence to back it up.  She seems just as 
nice and sweet as ever.  Besides, wouldn't Dumbledore at least have 
considered this possibility?  Would he have let Harry give Lucius 
back the diary if he even thought with the smallest of his being that 
it was possible Riddle would be back?  Nope, wipe that theory off the 
boards.  Riddle's a memory, now not even preserved in a diary or a 
synapse of Ginny's brain.
 
> > I feel that their survival of these encounters 
> > shows a similar kind of fundamental strength, and a root in 
> > unbelievable stamina and kindness.  I was only more convinced of 
> this 
> > when I was reminded by Uncmark that Ginny both attempted to throw 
> > away the diary AND cough up the truth (under the duress of being 
> > controlled by the Darkest wizard of them all).  
> But what if she threw the diary away *because* she was controlled 
by 
> Riddle? Let me elaborate...
> Riddle says (p. 312, US edition) that "[f]or many months now, my 
new 
> target has been -- you." In other words, he'd set his eye on 
getting 
> to know Harry, getting access to Harry. Ginny had told him a lot 
> about Harry, and he wanted to meet him. 
 
 

The chronology we know is all from Riddle - Ginny stopped trusting 
> the diary and threw it away - and Harry, of course, picked it up. 
> This wouldn't've been very hard for Riddle to engineer when Ginny 
> started not trusting the diary - he could've told her to throw him 
> away, and then released his hold on her at a time and place where 
it 
> was possible that Harry Potter, who Riddle already knew to be 
> a "mystery solver" (Cos, p.313, US edition) would find him. But as 
I 
> said above, I only think that Riddle invoked Imperio, or a 
variation 
> of it, on Ginny when she was actually writing, and when the diary 
> was closed, she had more resistance to it. It would've been very 
> dangerous to have her under the compulsion to read it all the time 
- 
> too easy to get confiscated if she was using it in class. 

Fair enough, but I think your idea doesn't hold up in the end.  Ginny 
threw the diary away in a place where NO ONE was going to look for 
it.  In a toilet everyone knew didn't work, yet no one seemed to be 
troubled about fixing.  She snuck up to Harry's bedroom/dorm to get 
it back once she knew he had it.  Why didn't Riddle just kindly tell 
her under Imperio "Please put me in a place where you think Harry 
will find me" and then, after she accomplished just that, released 
his hold on her?  She could've put it among his things, in one of his 
drawers, anything, just as she snuck up there to get it back.  Seems 
silly of Riddle to ask her to put him in a toilet.  Happily, you seem 
to think that at least her attempt to tell what was going on until 
she was interrupted by Percy was brave.  I don't think she was 
constantly Imperioed, either, by any means, but it would still be 
VERY hard to do either of the things I view as brave that she did.  
Release a book that you seem to be magically drawn to, or try to 
explain what's been going on.  Really, what're you gonna say?  
"Sorry, I Petrified a bunch of people, killed some roosters, etc.  
Really, I think I must be going crazy.  Either that, or this book I 
found is doing something to me."  People would think you were nuts.  
In any case, I think her dropping of the diary was her own choice AND 
I think her attempt to explain was unbelievably brave.  I note also 
that you don't counter my belief that they have a common bond in 
stamina, understanding, and kindness (good bases for relationships if 
I ever heard any).  Thanks for that anyway.

 
> > I feel that for Harry's and Ginny's mutual 
> > benefit, their ship is best.  Only they will REALLY be able to 
> > comfort/soothe/understand each other when it comes to old Voldie.
> Why do you think Harry is capable of being comforting or soothing 
to 
> someone? He hasn't really done it in canon, although arguably his 
> entreaties to Ron to go out in search of Ginny are comforting in a 
> way - he's not especially good at empathy, IMHO. Furthermore, why 
> should a relationship be based on being able to comfort and soothe 
> your partner? Shouldn't it have a basis my matched temperments, 
> mutual interests, common goals?

Already discussed I think, mostly.  You're right, Harry probably 
isn't the best comforter in the world, but he's young.  He's got a 
lot of growing to do.  He never was raised in an environment where he 
would learn how to comfort.  Even mutual understanding is a kind of 
comfort, however, don't you agree?  Furthermore, I believe I've made 
clear that I view the EMBARCATION of their ship on these grounds as 
an interesting plot point.  I read these books for character and plot 
(not necessarily in that order) and I think it's just too interesting 
a plot point to date not to be touched upon to some degree later.  I 
fully believe their characters are also compatible, and Rowling 
(whose notebook I have NOT seen) will handle this just fine.
 
> > We need to see more development 
> > in her personally and character.  
> I agree completely - I do hope she grows as a character, but NOT to 
> be married off at 16ish! No offense to anyone who was married at 
> that age (and merely then dating the person you eventually married 
> doesn't count) but I think that especially where wizarding 
lifespans 
> seem to be about 75% longer than Muggle, this is a Bad Idea.
> 

One more thing, doesn't it seem to anyone else that in this world, 
marriages seem to happen pretty early and out of Hogwarts?  James and 
Lily were so YOUNG to be married and have a year-old child.  Arthur 
and Molly are a Hogwarts marriage.  I think Rowling has painted 
Hogwarts marriages in a positive light, but of course, in this world, 
you come of age at 17 despite the fact that you live an insanely long 
time.  Conflicts?  They'not mine, though, they're Ms. Rowling's.

So there, I think I have righted my ship to at least a degree.  Let 
the sails unfurl right alongside the HMS R/H and dear ol' LOLLIPOPS 
(even if they don't particularly want it there).  Fly, I say, let the 
canons roar!

Devin