SHIP: Problems with the concept of G/H

[heiditandy]

No: HPFGUIDX 35094

Devi wrote: 
> Dear me, is it that much of an issue to you to see me 
exaggerate/brag 
> a bit?  
Erm. Didn't see it as braggadocia at all - just somewhat contrary to 
what the list's Rules say 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%
20Files/netiquetteTIPS.htm, "http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownu
ps/files/Admin%20Files/netiquetteTIPS.htm") - and I think we've 
pretty much closed the subject on this.

Devon wrote:
> 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.  

And I thought I'd made it clear in my prior post that I would find an 
engagement at that age to be equally Ewwwwwy. But again, that's just 
MHO. And I'm still unsure about how the epilogue is going to work, 
but I pretty much presume that it won't have anything in it that 
isn't at least clearly hinted by the end of Book VII. In other words, 
we might see, "And thanks to his wonderful efforts in support of 
Dumbledore and in protection of Harry, Sirius' case was reopened and 
he was acquitted." We won't see, "And despite the fact that they 
haven't had a one on one conversation since they left Moaning 
Myrtle's bathroom back in Harry's second year, he married Ginny 
Weasley because he wanted to get a wizarding family very very quickly 
and she was available." But based on canon as it is to date, unless 
JKR does something very expansive with Ginny, that's what such an 
epilogue would need to contain. 

And for those who would argue that "Ginny (Weasley) does have a 
bigger role in Book Five..." I have 2 questions:
1. Bigger than her role in Book 4, or in Book 2?
2. And if bigger than her role in Book 2, does that necessarily mean 
that her character will be developed more? IN JKR's world 
of "doublespeak", this could easily mean that yet again, Ginny sets a 
plot point in motion, or does something that furthers the overall 
plot of the story. Might she become more developed as a character? 
Sure, possibly, why not? But does JKR's statement 
(http://www.oregonlive.com/books/index.ssf?/books/00/10/al_11browl22.f
rame) absolutely mean that? Nope.
Devin wrote:
>  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.
And IMHO, I think she's not setting up a strong focus on the 
interpersonal romances, in contrast to the friendships. And in giving 
a romantic subplot to Harry as anything more than an ancillary issue 
runs the risk, for her, of lessening the focus on the friendships - 
the ones among the trio, and the intergenerational ones as well - and 
on the adventure and mystery that she's put into each book. Harry is 
about to go through hell - and as you said in your post, "He never 
was raised in an environment where he would learn how to comfort."

Actually, he was for about 15 months, but after that, he wasn't in an 
environment where he could learn how to *interact* in a familial way 
with *anyone*. While I do think that the first 15 months provided a 
good grounding for his resiliance in his day to day activities and in 
his *learning* how to have a friendship (although I do point out that 
Ron seems to be the first peer who ever *talked to him* like another 
human being, and he glommed onto that without ever really thinking 
about it - is that necessarily bad? No, and it's a natural way to 
make friends when you're 11 years old.) Harry still has a lot of 
growing to do before he's able to even consider a precursor-to-
marriage relationship. He needs, IMHO, to go on real dates and see 
what sort of person he relates to best - he needs to grow as a 
person - he needs to see what kind of companion brings out the best 
in him, etc. And if JKR makes Ginny into that kind of person over the 
course of the books, fine, whatever - but she hasn't done *anything* 
to do that to date, other than introduce Ginny as a female person who 
is at least 6 months younger than Harry. 

> 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.  
So two emotionally and mentally scarred people make a good pair 
because they can provide comfort to each other? I'm sorry, but I am 
clearly not following this progression. Then again, of course, I 
don't agree with you that JKR's world is "fictional" in the sense 
that you mean - where the unhealthiness of interpersonal 
relationships can be ignored or transmogrified into coupled bliss. 
Perhaps she will deviate from her history of creating realistic 
characters in this unreal world, but I doubt it.

> 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?  
Well, the former leaves out Diggory and Frank Bryce for that matter. 
The latter might leave out Diggory as well, as Voldemort spoke to 
Wormtail, not Diggory. But you're right - it all depends on how you 
define "encounter." Of course, I would guess that Draco hasn't heard 
the end of his flight from Voldemort (which I see as foreshadowing an 
eventual "fleeing" from Voldemort's side) but that's a topic for 
another post. 

> 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.  
I can certainly start debating that way too. I didn't do it in my 
prior reply, though, but instead deemed my criticism of your argument 
about comforting and soothing to cover <<a common bond in 
stamina, understanding, and kindness>>. I don't see how they have any 
significance in determining whether Harry and Ginny are properly 
matched in a romantic sense. Cedric didn't fall off his broomstick 
when the Dementors approached - he managed to fly well enough to 
catch the snitch in a rainstorm. Cho screamed when she saw fake 
dementors in a match and didn't catch it. Putting aside his current 
post-living state, are you arguing that his resistance to the 
Dementors, versus what was at least her concern around them, marks a 
difference in their stamina and thus is not an indicator of an 
ability to have a strong relationship?  Are  you saying that 
Hermione's kindness to Harry in Book IV before the first task, in 
contrast to Ron's complete unkindness and lack of understanding for 
Harry, presupposes no romance between them? 

Or am I getting this wrong? 

> 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.
Might. Certainly might. Never argued against it. If a 
characterization is created for Ginny that is good for Harry, then 
sure, why not? I just feel that the arguments you've made, claiming 
that there's canon evidence for inevitability of such a relationship, 
don't fully consider or appreciate the effort JKR has put into her 
realistic characterizations. Ginny has been through a lot, and I 
think that to disregard all of that to make her into some nurturing 
fangirl for Harry to "romance" because he wants a family-in-name ASAP 
doesn't fully fit with the story that I think JKR is trying to tell.

> 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.  
And 16 year old Riddle was as charming as anything. 
> Besides, wouldn't Dumbledore at least have 
> considered this possibility?  
Maybe he did. Do we know that he trusts Ginny? Molly didn't want her 
to go to the World Cup. Why? Overprotectiveness is understandable, 
given what she went through, but it doesn't bar the argument that 
there is something of Riddle left in her - possibly unfindable 
through wizarding means until Riddle wants it found. And it wouldn't 
be in the diary - I agree with you on that - it would be in Ginny 
now, not in the pages at all. Riddle said in teh Chamber that he 
could now leave the book's pages. What if he really did?


> 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.  
Actually, she threw it into a stall, and it just landed in the 
toilet. And what a stupid place to throw out a book! It's never going 
to get through the plumbing! What was she thinking? 
(Possible, theorizing) Answer: She wasn't. She was fulfilling the 
task Tom had set to her - leave the diary in the room where the 
entrance was. 
> 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'm not sure she would've been able to, even then - but sure, why 
not? I'll concede that even trying was brave.

You sound as if you think I hate Ginny. I don't - I think she's got 
potential to do...something. I just don't know what. My problem with 
putting her together with Harry is that all the arguments I've heard, 
purportedly based on "canon to date", are unreal if not unreasonable.

Ginny reminds me of the Cinderella in Into the Woods. She's sweet and 
good and lovable to everyone on the outside, but inside, she's 
angsting about being that way.

Cinderella: What's the good of being good
  If everyone is blind
  And you're always left behind?
  Never mind, Cinderella,
  Kind Cinderella--
  [accenting each word with a twist of a strand of hair]
  Nice good good kind good nice--

She still goes forward and wins and marries her prince, but realised 
later on that it was only to get out of her father's house, that she 
was seduced by a dream and not by reality, and that she needed to go 
off and do some growing up on her own. Ginny needs to grow into 
herself, and if she ends up in a romance with Harry in Book 5 or even 
in Book 6, she'll never do it. She's too much of a fangirl - even you 
said that to go to the Yule Ball with Harry would be a "dream date" - 
and if she doesn't get a chance to grow up in, IMHO, books five *and* 
six, there's no way that any romance with Harry could have a glimmer 
of realism. But if you want to create a predictive gloat, I'll give 
you mine: Ginny in Book 7 will bear little resemblance to the person 
you've characterised in your two posts so far today.

> "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.  
Well, possibly, but there would've been evidence tying her to the 
actions. And someone might've been able to get the diary to admit to 
it - who knows the limits of magic on something like that. There are 
ways of magic that even Hermione doesn't understand - if you can make 
an animagus reveal his human form, surely there's some way the 
grownups know of to at least force a diary to show that it writes 
back. 

> 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?  
Possibly, possibly not. But codeoendency might feel nice for some 
time, although it isn't healthy in the long run. But I've already 
said my piece on "healthy" (see above) and you've said yours, IIRC.

> Furthermore, I believe I've made 
> clear that I view the EMBARCATION of their ship on these grounds as 
> an interesting plot point.  
Oh, it could be. Again, sure, why not? Lots of things could be 
interesting plot points, and I certainly cannot suppose what sort of 
plot twists JKR has planned for us. But to some extent, it feels like 
you're contradicting yourself here - you said in your first post that 
you predict eventual marriage. Here you say, I think, that the start 
of a relationship would make an interesting plot point. I don't see 
these as coexisting, but I am sure you do. 

> 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.  
Well, no, not necessarily. What do we know about ages? We know that 
JKR has said that Snape is 36 (or possibly 37) - but it's unclear 
whether that's in PS or in GoF, or after. If it's in PS, then James 
was about 25 when Harry was born. If it's in the begining of GoF, 
then he was 22. It's easy to meet and marry within a year and have a 
baby 10 months later. Even if you take the 22-age, then they may've 
been 20 or even 21 when they were wed. That's young, to be sure, but 
it's not the same as 17 or even 18. Every year is...a year. Also, we 
do not have canon evidence at this point that Lily was the same year 
as James. IMHO, she wasn't, because the Brits have told me that it's 
unusual for a Head Boy and Head Girl to be from the same house, and 
JKR's told us they were both Gryffindors. 

Yes, Arthur and Molly were together at school but again, we don't 
know if they were the same year, or in what year their relationship 
started, or how. All matters of speculation, and not really enough to 
make a universal declaration. 

> 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.
Well, Muggles in the UK can drink at 16, the age of consent is 16, 
and many people leave school at 16 to go into a trade. It's not as 
unusual as it is in the states. Even in the US, you "come of age" at 
18. To a certain extent, "coming of age" is an amorphus concept, and 
I'm not willing to say emphatically that "it means this" or "it means 
that" until JKR defines it. 

heidi