More on Ginny -- Gender in the Potterverse -- FITD (SHIP at the end)

[Penny & Bryce]

No: HPFGUIDX 33194

Hi all --

Well, we certainly have gotten into some Ginny discussions.  See! 
Sometimes it's all in the timing.  My post on Molly-Ginny dynamics last 
summer garnered exactly one response IIRC.  We've had a whole 2 days of 
meaningful Ginny debate by contrast.

I am not a Ginny fan; however, I agree with Cindy.  It's not that I 
dislike her specifically, because frankly there's just nothing there to 
like or dislike so much IMO.  She *is*, IMO, a very flat & undeveloped 
character.  I do feel I have a much better sense of all the other 
individual Weasleys other than Ginny.  I remain open to liking Ginny in 
the later books...but frankly I am skeptical   This leads me to several 
wonderings --

1.  Because she is so undeveloped & flat, I do find it hard to believe 
that JKR could be using this convention that Pippin first cited of 
having her be Harry's fated true love since she was the first eligible 
girl he saw in the wizarding world.  I think if JKR was really going to 
have Ginny serve as Harry's eventual love interest, she would have 
(*should* have???) given her a *little* more development, more screen 
time ... a more gradual development of reader interest.  As it is, if 
she is to be Harry's love interest, JKR will have to move fast, 
relatively speaking.  As a reader, I would prefer to have a more gradual 
build-up in something like this.  Ron's burgeoning interest in Hermione 
is a perfect example of subtle, gradual & effective build-up.  I know 
JKR is talented at taking a mere mention in one book & making him/her 
into a fully fleshed-out & beloved character in a later one (Sirius 
Black!) but ... with someone like Ginny who *has* been around in full 
since CoS, I would have expected more build-up.  That's just me perhaps. 
But, that's the main reason I can't accept that Ginny is fated to be 
Harry's love interest.  If JKR was headed there all along, she hasn't 
laid the foundation too well IMHO.

On a related point, could Pippin (or anyone for that matter) give me 
some examples of novels where this convention (first girl boy sees is 
the one he is fated to be with) is used?  I *honestly* can't think of 
any, which is another stumbling block to my perception of the theory in 
general.  :--)

2.  I'd like to point out that I don't recall being critical of Ginny's 
crying.  Maybe someone else was & I just didn't notice this ...but I'm a 
bit baffled by the Ginny defenders who are offended because someone was 
critical of Ginny crying.  She's certainly justified in CoS.  Now, her 
running after the train laughing & crying in the Platform scene -- it's 
not the crying that bugs me.  This leads to ...

3.  I'm really more bothered by the *depiction/characterization* of 
Ginny by JKR than I am by her actual character if that makes any sense. 
  I think JKR is drawing her as a younger character than she actually is 
chronologically speaking.  When I first read SS, I would *never* have 
pegged her to be 9/10.  If you'd asked me, I would have said 6.  All the 
language is slanted towards painting her as a "little girl."  Harry 
thinks of her as the "little girl."  Her mother is holding her hand. 
When Ginny tries to say, "Can I go..," her mother *hushes* her & says 
"You're too young."  It has the flavor of a conversation they've had 
several times before, hence Molly's impatience with it all.  And, IMO, a 
9/10 yr old girl would be capable of understanding that she would be 
going to Hogwarts in another year's time but that she wasn't yet old 
enough to go.  A 6/7 yr old, OTOH, might have trouble making this 
distinction.  Then, there's the "ooh, can I go gawk at HP?" business, 
which is definitely groupie-like, though not necessarily limited to that 
of a 6/7 yr old.  But, on the whole, I just find her painted as being 
much younger than she's supposed to be.

I still think too that if you contrast how Ginny is depicted in each 
book with how Ron is depicted in the previous book, there are some 
glaring differences.  She is, IMHO, depicted much, much younger than 
just one year off from Ron.  OR, is it that she's a *girl*?  Is Ron 
treated differently by his mother because he's a boy?  Is he treated 
differently by JKR because he's a boy?  Which leads to...

4.  Excellent observations on gender in the Potterverse by Elizabeth & 
Julie.  I still think the salon.com article on this topic is way 
off-base because the author doesn't give JKR any credit for creating 
Hermione, who *is* a strong positive portrayal of a female character. 
And, I certainly give McGonagall a better grade for strong positive 
portrayal than Elizabeth does (I've written some longish posts on 
McGonagall in the past).  But, I do think some valid points are being 
raised about female characterization.  I hope JKR will correct some of 
this in the latter 3 volumes, and she's certainly got time & talent to 
do so.  She has in interviews been fairly defensive of her female 
characters though, so I'm not sure she's taking it too seriously.  She 
of course always cites Hermione, which is valid, esp. since the 
salon.com article did not interpret Hermione very positively, which was 
unfair & wrongheaded IMO.

Serenadust said:

>  This is one reason I gave up on fanfic.  I suspect the widespread
> hostility to Ginny/Cho and the other girls is that they are perceived
> as threatening to the H/H ship.  This is the only reason I can see
> for sticking poor Ginny with Malfoy so often in fanon (a fate worse
> than Death IMO).

Widespread hostility to Ginny in the fanfic fandom?  Huh?  I certainly 
agree with Julie's point that the fanon world is hostile to the minor 
female characters, including Cho, but Ginny?  My perception is that it 
is the H/H shippers who are in the minority, although probably not 
terribly far in the minority (perhaps 60/40 as far as inter-Trio ships 
go).  Maybe everyone perceives themselves to be in the minority as far 
as ships are concerned though.

Serenadust again:

> I think that JKR is perfectly capable of executing OBHWF in a way
> that most readers would be fine with (if that's where she wants to
> go). I think that people like this theory mainly because everyone
> ends up happy this way.  The other theories (FITD and HGG) require
> that Ron and Ginny end up dead/evil or punished in some way.  I still
> don't get the hostility toward the two of them.

FITD does not require that Ron and Ginny end up dead or evil!  It just 
simply posits that at this point in canon, it is possible/likely that 
none of the romantic interests are two-sided.  It does not mean that Ron 
must betray Harry over Hermione, only that it's possible.  It does not 
mean that Ron must die.  It doesn't even really address Ginny per se. 
In fact, since FITD posits that Harry is interested in someone *other 
than* Hermione (or no one), it is very possible for H/G to fit into the 
FITD theorem.  What FITD *does* stand for is the proposition that R/H is 
not a foregone conclusion, because it appears that Hermione is, at a 
minimum, ambiguous or conflicted in her romantic interest *at this 
time*!  She is not, in other words, head over heels in love with Ron & 
they are not fated to be a couple, remain a couple, get married & 
produce loads of kids with bushy red hair & large front teeth.  FITD 
does *not* stand for the proposition that Ron and Ginny will end up dead 
or evil (or that they should be).  It does not even mean no //R/H *ever* 
for that matter.

As for my personal feelings, I do think Ron is potentially a death, and 
I do think that if it comes about, it will be because of his jealousies 
in one form or another.  But, I by no means think that he must die or 
that his death is a definite thing.  It's hard to make definite 
predictions in the Potterverse!  :--)

Must end this here for now, but I may come back & add some more thoughts 
on the gender issues in the Potterverse.  Baby is screaming to go on a 
walk though so ...

Penny