On "Little Women", strength and maturity

[pigwidgeon37]

No: HPFGUIDX 33213

Penny wrote:

>>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.<<

Uh, the only example I could offer, though not from literature, would 
be Konrad Lorenz' grey geese and their mechanism of imprinting: They 
stubbornly follow the first moving object they set eyes on after 
hatching- whether it is their mother, a human or a wooden horse 
dragged by a child. Not very poetic, but it leaves the possibility 
that Harry will become a grey goose animagus.

Still Penny:

  >>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.<<

Yes, you're right, she seems younger than she actually is. But then 
she is the youngest of seven children and might be very well aware 
that "playing baby" with her mum is a winning strategy, because it 
meets her mother's desires: For years on end, Molly Weasley has seen 
her children leave the house, first for school, then for work, and at 
the beginning of PS/SS she has exactly one year left with her "baby 
girl" before she will have to spend her days in an empty house for 
the greater part of the year. Therefore, the "baby" illusion is 
created by both of them, by Molly because it gives her something to 
hold on to and to protect, and by Ginny because the baby is 
definitely treated with more indulgence than her older siblings. Her 
first year at Hogwarts will shatter her illusions thoroughly and I 
think that by GoF (having been left out in PoA) she has grown up a 
lot: Take for example the short scene with Ron and Harry in the 
Common Room, after Ron asked Fleur to be his date for the Yule Ball: 
No giggling, no fussing around, she tries to talk her brother out of 
his embarrassment. When I read the scene, I had the distinct 
impression that there is a very sound brother-sister relationship 
between Ginny and Ron. When Harry asks her about Hermione's date, she 
reacts in a very mature way for a 13 YO: If she really was the 
immature little girl, she'd blurt it all out to the boys, to make 
herself more important, but she doesn't, instead she tells them to go 
and ask their friend if they want to know.



Cindy wrote:

>>While I would welcome more and better female characters, I 
think we do have to acknowledge JKR's limited successes in 
incorporating women into the books so far.  The list of successes is 
a short list, but it is a list nonetheless:

1.  Rita Skeeter.  She is a brilliant characterization IMHO, as JKR 
really has her ooze insincerity.  She is very important, and she is 
an example of a character who could easily have been male but is 
female.

2.  Mrs. Lestrange.  Again, it appears that Mrs. Lestrange rather 
than Mr. Lestrange wears the pants in the family.  It could have 
easily gone the other way.

3.  Madam Maxime.  Again, she is a character who could have been a 
man.  She will probably be important in future books.

4.  Winky.  She could have easily been a male.

5.  Trelawney.  Like her or not, believe in her or not, you have to 
admit that she gets plenty of attention in two books and is 
reasonably well-developed.>>

Of course the women on your list are strong females, but all of them 
are either downright bad or at least flawed:
Skeeter- well, I don't think I've got to elaborate
Lestrange- Death Eater, nuff said
Maxime- not even strong enough to stand up for her own identity
Winky- loyal, but not strong, drowns her sorrows in Butterbeer
Trelawney- probably an old fraud

Frankly, I'd rather prefer a complete absence of strong women to an 
unspoken, yet inherent equation "strong women = bad women". And as 
for the rest of them: McGonagall seems to be a strong woman and a 
powerful witch, but is given the looks of an old spinster. Fleur 
Delacour is beautiful, but commits major errors in every Triwizard 
task- so does Krum, but he is a first-class seeker, whereas Fleur 
doesn't have any other outstanding quality. So it all seems to come 
down to either "strong and intelligent, but bad/plain", 
or "beautiful, but shallow and not top level" which is a bit cliché-
ed. 

I would gratefully let myself convince of the contrary, though, so 
I'd like to see your arguments.

Susanna/pigwidgeon37