Hermione's Birthday; SHIP (FITD)

[Petra Pan]

No: HPFGUIDX 55351

Penny to Susanne, in part:
> No, FITD is not a certainty.  But,
> it sure seems she passed up a golden
> opportunity to shoot down H/H (or at
> least solidify R/H), IMHO.

Yours truly: 
> So, Penny, can you actually give a
> good reason for JKR to shoot down
> ANY ship?  She's surely not 'Dread
> Pirate Rowling.'  ;)
> 
> JKR is a spinner of tales, strictly
> speaking not merely a reporter of
> events.  Why would she delineate with
> clarity and finality the eventual
> fate of characters in a story that
> she has yet to finish?

Penny: 
> I think you misunderstood, Petra.  I
> wasn't saying that JKR *should* have
> shot down one of the ships.  If you
> haven't been in the thick of all the
> shipping debates, you might not
> realize that one of the principal
> arguments of the R/H shippers is that
> JKR said, in one chat, "Harry and
> Hermione are platonic friends."  She
> gave this answer to the question:
> "Do Harry and Hermione have a date?" 
> I think that particular question
> and answer are GoF-specific.  But,
> if the answer of "platonic" friends
> was meant to apply to the entire
> future for Harry and Hermione, then I
> imagine JKR would/could have used
> this particular interview on the CoS
> DVD to put that issue to rest once
> and for all.  

My question still stands: what I don't 
understand (in contrast to misunderstand) 
is the assertion that JKR *should* or 
want to put ANY issue to rest once and for 
all...with 43% of the whole still to come.

Penny:
> The R/H position is that
> JKR has indeed passed on H/H and shot
> down that ship long ago.

See, my question applies to this supposition 
too: why would JKR pass on any ship at this 
point in time?

Penny:
> However, If R/H is so obvious and if
> JKR's response of "they're platonic" is
> meant to apply to all time...

But why would JKR drop spoilers in this manner?

Penny:
> ...I can't imagine why she would pass up
> this chance to solidify her earlier response.  

Because JKR is not building a case for or 
against H/Hr or R/H.  (<eg> That'd be the 
shippers' job.)  Solidifying any position would 
be counterproductive for her purposes.

Though teasing fans into utter frenzy 
through the withholding of the satisfaction 
of curiosity would be reprehensible on the 
part of educators and the like, it is arguably 
the most powerful tool of a storyteller.

Just think of how Scheherazade bought herself 
a thousand and one nights.

To solidify ANY response at this time would 
be to PREMATURELY satisfy our curiosity.

Penny:
> If, however, that chat is GoF-specific
> (or at least isn't all-encompassing
> for the rest of eternity), then I can
> certainly see why she would not want
> to divulge too much information or
> tie up any loose ends prematurely. 
> Indeed, I can see that she would want
> her audience to wonder.

JKR would want her audience to wonder 
*regardless* of any shipping concerns.

Yours truly:
> Indulge me in my redundancy...so Penny, *can* 
> you actually articulate for our edification a 
> good reason that could compel JKR at this 
> point in time to shoot down the ships that 
> will not make it out of the docks?

Penny:
> No ..... see above.  I don't blame
> her in the least for holding her cards
> to her vest.  In fact, I think she
> has done just that, which is why I
> don't believe the "they're just
> platonic" quote is as revealing as the
> R/H shippers argue it is.

Neither do I but for reasons that compel ME 
to find anti-R/H arguments just as unconvincing.

Penny:
> I think that particular quote has limited
> scope.  And, I think this recent
> interview on the DVD trumps that "they
> are platonic" quote, because if the
> "they are platonic" quote was intended to
> be as broad as the R/H'ers would have us
> believe, then it's a no-brainer that JKR
> would have said, "certain feelings between
> ...er....two of the three."

I beg to differ: JKR would and should be as 
vague as she possibly can.  Unlike 
instructions and directions, fiction does 
not seek to explain it all as quickly as 
possible.  Foreplay. Is. Key. <wicked leer> 
How else do you get one helluva stormy climax?

Yours truly:
> And would you support her doing so if it means 
> that she's gonna sink your battleSHIP?

Penny:
> LOL!  Well, I'm not on a battleship, Petra.

Check your lapels and epaulettes, m'dear. <g>

Penny:
> But, in any case, I'll admit I thought she
> *was* going to sink my ship there for a
> second.  I could see where she was going to
> go with the whole "Chris foreshadowed"
> business, and I thought "Oh no, here we go." 
> But, then, elation set in.  <g>  
> 
> No, I would prefer that she not sink my ship
> or anyone else's.  I'd rather see this all
> play out in the books.

"Chris foreshadowed"?  <head a-scratching>

Katy, in part:
> So basically she acknowledged that
> the 4th book is "foreshadowing" (NOT
> HINTING) towards Hr/R and acknowledges
> that Columbus hinted at it in the
> 2nd film...both of which I picked up
> on. Why would she foreshadow something
> that was not going to come to pass?
 
Yours truly:
> Ah but in JKR's books how do you tell 
> the foreshadowing from the red herrings?  
> The only difference between foreshadowing 
> and red herring is that the former is 
> accurate and the latter is misleading.  
> Which is to say that until the big reveal, 
> a good mystery leaves the readers utterly 
> unable to tell which is which.

Penny:
> *nods*   Yep, I agree with Petra on this
> point.  <snip>

Oh I wouldn't agree with me if I were you. <eg> 
I consider most of the anti-R/H arguments to be 
just as dubious as most of the anti-H/Hr 
arguments.  Note that what I said above in 
reply to Katy applies not only to R/H; it 
applies to H/Hr too...and this:

What one ship read as foreshadowing is 
read as red herring by the other ships.

Petra: "Even tempests in teapots can wreck ships."
a
n  :)

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com