(SHIP) Ginny as Harry's "fate": literary arguments

[davewitley]

No: HPFGUIDX 33080

Pippin wrote:
> >   But I still hold for H/G as the ultimate resolution...that 
cameo at
> > the beginning of SS/PS is otherwise inexplicable. She's not in
> > the book to be the villain, like Quirrel, she's not there to give 
Harry
> > something like Ollivander, she's not a member of the Old Crowd
> > or a clue like Flamel. She's just the first eligible female Harry
> > sees...

Penny replied:

> Is she?  Didn't Harry pass through a Platform 9 3/4 that was 
crowded with students, presumably 50% of whom were female?  <g>  
Presumably Harry takes in her contributions to the dialogue *before* 
he gets on the Platform (although I can't resist noting that he 
doesn't even register her appearance in the movie).  But, as far as 
the first eligible female in the wizarding world that he really 
notices & interacts with, it's Hermione.  <g>
> 
> I can think of lots of reasons for Ginny's appearance in that 
scene; none of which involve her being his fated True Love.  (1) The 
Weasleys could hardly afford a child-minder for that shortish trek to 
King's Cross; Ginny would necessarily be with her mum.  She'd also 
want to see her brothers off; (2) it needs to be established that Ron 
is not the youngest Weasley; and (3) she needed to be introduced 
since she would otherwise be a late addition as the victim of Tom 
Riddle if she'd not been mentioned until CoS.


First, a newbie-style apology: I'm really about 15 digests behind, 
but I noticed this and couldn't resist - so, if I'm cutting across 
something already said, I'm sorry.  I just know that by the time I've 
read everything to date (I still try to read all posts) this will be 
a cold dish.  The sections quoted above are quite long, but I do 
refer to nearly everything in them.

What interests me about this exchange is the nature of the arguments 
deployed.  Pippin's argument is very clinical: each segment of text 
serves a purpose; what purpose does this cameo serve?  It is nothing 
to do with what is realistic for the Weasleys or whether Ginny is a 
suitable partner for Harry.  It is what I think of as a literary 
argument.  A more common kind of literary argument is, for example, 
the one that says Snape can't die until Book 7 because there is still 
a lot of mileage left in his character.  Notice that this kind of 
argument can't be used about real-life events, which rarely pan out 
in story-book form.  'IRL', Snape could die at any time.

Penny's reply uses a mixture of literary arguments and what I think 
of as 'story' or perhaps 'realism' arguments.  For example, the 
argument that the Weasleys could not afford a babysitter so Ginny had 
to be there.  This is the commonest kind of argument used on this 
list.  It assumes that the events described 'really happened' and 
seeks a causal explanation.  It is the only kind of argument 
available to someone 'inside' the story, and the only kind in real 
life.  A 'realism' argument (terminology, please, Luke?) for Snape 
living longer would be that as an accomplished wizard in the prime of 
life with known experience of the Dark Arts and a clear will to live 
he would be very difficult for Voldemort to kill.

My comment is that it is very difficult to mix these types of 
argument successfully.  So, for example, imagine JKR writing this 
scene (PLatform 9 3/4).  If it suits her purpose for Ginny to be 
present or absent, babysitters will not stop her.  They can be called 
up with an old family friend and dismissed with a sudden bout of flu 
at will.  Doing so may create downstream problems (for example, if 
Madam Pomfrey cures somebody's flu with a wave of her wand, or it is 
established for some other plot purpose that the Weasleys are very 
isolated); unfortunately, it is precisely these sorts of logical 
glitches that HP is full of.  I would say that it is very evident 
that JKR is very good at thinking up tactical explanations for 
contriving events, and less good at resolving the implications of 
some of these explanations for the wider strategic development of the 
story.  If people are interested I will try to do a list of examples -
 but just looking at message subjects here is all you really need do.

I believe that literary arguments *can* be mixed with 'realism' 
arguments, but it's jolly difficult to do.  So I think that it's 
possible to posit Harry's character development combining the 
literary theme of choice with the 'reality' view that he is a growing 
teenager, say.

On this basis, I'd say that Pippin isn't saying that Ginny is 
Harry's 'fated' love - just that in her view that it's JKR's 
intention to bring them together.  Its validity largely stands or 
falls by its conformance to literary convention, and whether JKR 
herself will follow the same convention.  I find it hard to comment 
on that.  The point about being the 'first eligible female Harry 
sees' is not so much to do with *Harry's* experience, but the 
reader's, given Harry is the POV character.  In Pippin's argument (as 
I understand it), Hermione appears at the wrong time; other girls 
Harry may have met (at primary school too) are not visible for the 
reader.

Establishing that Ron is not the youngest, and foreshadowing COS, 
are, however, literary arguments for Ginny appearing at some stage - 
I think that if Pippin wanted to press her point she would have to 
show that JKR could do those things in other ways better if she did 
not have an additional purpose in showing Ginny to the reader at 
Platform 9 3/4.  That is IMO quite difficult to do.

David