[HPforGrownups] The JKR interview on the DVD: SHIP AND Shipping Mentality

[Eileen]

No: HPFGUIDX 55446

There seems to be a good deal of confusion over my
post. A confusion that I must say I don't really
understand. Perhaps the problem is that my ways of
thinking don't follow the usual paths? :-) 

I wrote:
>The interview brought a smile to my face, since 
>it destroyed an H/Hr line of speculation from late
>2002.

Then I mentioned the context of the interview and went
on to explain what the line of speculation was.

>Now, when Columbus gave his infamous interview, 
>the overall response in the fandom was that 
>Columbus wasn't JKR, and if he shipped Ron and
>Hermione, that didn't mean JKR did. I know that a 
>few more subtle H/Hers didn't take that line, but 
>you must admit that was the widespread response. I 
>keep a close eye on the FAP shipping threads, 
>because, being me, I like to know what the fandom
>trends are. 

As noted above, this line of speculation was not
exactly followed by the luminaries of the Pumpkin Pie,
who didn't take Columbus and the CoS movie in the
first place as being R/Hr to the exclusion of H/Hr.
But those who did protested vociferously that Columbus
had got JKR completely wrong. So, in that context, I
hope my following comment made sense.

I wrote:
>So, what JKR said here is that she endorses 
>Columbus's view of the shipping. 

I probably should have qualified that. I don't
actually know what Columbus's views are, and
presumably they could be different than JKR's or
anyone else's. I meant that JKR endorsed Columbus's
portrayal of the shipping as consistent with her
portayal in GoF. It's not actually an R/Hr argument,
but it shoots down the H/Hr argument going the rounds
that Columbus was blatantly contradicting JKR's
wishes. 

i.e. I won't have to hear it anymore. On to more
mature arguments.

As for this argument being widespread, I'd be prepared
to give documentation taken from the Pumpkin Pie
threads and Deathmarch. While, it was widespread,
though, it was never taken into consideration by
serious people. I suppose on the opposite side, we
have the "R/Hr is proven because of the handshake! or
Harry was touching Hermione's hand!" people, now. No
sooner is one illogical argument shot down, than
another takes its place. 

People who ship by movies should have their heads
examined, anyway. 

Heidi wrote:
>Do you mean to say that you believe that a romance
>between Ron and Hermione exists within the pages of
>GoF? In other words, do you think that in the
>timeframe of GoF, but off the page, they are
snogging,
>holding hands, etc.?
>
>Because that's what I was refering to in my post. 

Who actually has ever argued any such thing? I don't
see anyone making such an argument, and I've kept a
close eye on the fandom shipping wars and discussions
for the last year.  

I assumed that when you referred to people who believe
the R/Hr romance is canon, you were indeed referring
to people who believe that the R/Hr romance is canon.
Such people do not have to believe that Hermione and
Ron are already snogging. 

Thinking through this, I think our problem must be
that we are defining romance differently. For you, I
suspect a book's romance only begins when both people
openly display reciprocal emotions? Whereas I think in
a literary sense it begins quite a bit before that. At
the Yule Ball, I believe, is where I'd say the R/Hr
romance begins. 

As for an actual intrepretation of what JKR said, I
didn't comment on that originally. But now that
everyone else is giving it their best shot, I didn't
see anything particularly interesting about it, to
tell the truth. 

The quote was "certain feelings between the three of
them,"

And, maybe because I am not a couplethinker, I yawned
and wished Rowling would talk about something more
interesting. You see, certain feelings between the
three of them didn't signify a love triangle, or a
menage a trois, or anything so boring. :-) It means,
precisely that. Sorting out the "certain feelings
between the three of them." Isn't that what GoF was
about? I think GoF ends with the adoption of R/Hr and
the rejection of H/Hr in favour of a non-romantic
relationship, a thematic process that is concretized
by the Rita Skeeter subplot and the infamous Kiss.
Does it amuse you to know that I read the Kiss as the
death-knell of an H/Hr possibility? This intrepration,
of course, is grounded in reading the evidence as
pointing towards R/Hr in the first place, but it fits
extremely well with JKR's interview. 

So, when Heidi wrote:
>But for those who believe that in early 2000, JKR
> made it clear to everyone 
> that there would never be any H/Hr romance, this
> interview should be a bit of 
> an issue/bone of consternation 

I wasn't exactly sure where she was coming from, since
I thought JKR had made herself very clear against H/Hr
AND I had no problem with the interview. 

Derannimer wrote:
>See, there's nothing wrong with saying you see 
>no evidence for a theory, as long as you acknowledge
>that someone else *does* see it, and that they aren't
>necessarily doing so from sheer intellectual 
>dishonesty. (See Angua's recent assertion that one
>could only be H/H from--paraphrase--a "stubborn
>romanticizing and eroticizing impulse.")

But surely a "stubborn romanticizing and eroticizing
impulse" isn't sheer intellectual dishonesty? :-)

>What there *is* something wrong with saying, and 
>what a lot of  R/Hers--though obviously not often 
>on *this* list--*are* saying, is: "I plain don't see
>any evidence for H/H and the only reason that 
>you do is that you are a wishfully thinking idiot." 

Which is very impolite to say. Even if it were true,
which I know isn't the case with you. 

However, to take this past shipping, there are times
when I think people are being wishfully thinking
idiots about all sorts of issues, but being polite, I
don't usually mention it. We can't know other people's
intentions, motivations, extenuations etc. Human
beings should refrain from judging other people, even
though they can judge acts, or in this case,
arguments. 

>Derannimer (who would like to point out that Eileen
>herself has never, to Derannimer's recollection, 
>once insulted H/H, or H/Hers)

Well, not in public, anyway. :-) What I yell at the
computer screen is another matter. 

Ebony wrote:
>And I think that this *must* settle the birthday 
>debate once and for all.

You think so? Let's not get hasty here! The birthday
debate has been going on for years. Will a little
detail like this stand in the way of it?

I am not at all comfortable with the idea of taking
information from merchandise, even if approved. There
is plenty of precedent for author-approved merchandise
which is completely wrong. 

I don't care much about the controversy myself, but I
am not about to take direction from a DVD. The books
are my canon and I'll take interviews into
consideration. 

Eileen

______________________________________________________________________ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca