Banter and other SHIP subjects (was TBAY/SHIP: Avast Maties! or: on the S.S. pumpkin pie)

[anguaorc <fausts@attglobal.net>]

No: HPFGUIDX 50518

Penny wrote:
> I also like the pattern that Derannimer picked up on.  I think 
you're right that Hermione says something serious to Ron or Ron and 
Harry or to someone else, and Ron responds with a smart-ass comment.  
I too think Ron is funny (sometimes, but not always).  But, he and 
Hermione are definitely *not* engaging in banter or verbal courtship 
of any kind, IMO. 

Me:
It works both ways though.  It *very* frequently happens that *Ron* 
says something serious to Hermione or to Hermione and Harry or to 
someone else, and *Hermione* responds with a smart-ass comment.  It 
is a RECIPROCAL relationship.  I would call it exchanging zingers.  

The return may not be immediate, as you and Derannimer seem to think 
is required for "bantering."  The "zinged" one holds his or her fire 
until they find the right opportunity, and then zings in return.

I had considered this as a subset of banter -- apparently you don't.

Derannimer's definition -- "reciprocal, playful, witty 
conversation; not taunting, and not malicious teasing" -- differs 
from the definition *I* find in my handy Webster's -- "to speak or 
address in a witty or teasing manner."  The *second* meaning 
of 'banter' listed in my dictionary -- "a goodnatured and usually 
witty and animated joking" -- is more like Derannimer's, though it 
*doesn't* say it has to be reciprocal.  I think that ALL of my 
examples fit the first definition (yes, I thought that Ron was trying 
to be funny with "really break your leg" and "it'll be gone by next 
Tuesday" and "bless you") and SOME of them -- especially those from 
GoF -- fit the second definition as well.

The exchanges between Ron and Hermione differ in a very important way 
from the exchanges between FredGeorge and Percy -- to the best of my 
memory, Percy *never* teases or zings Fred and George back.  That is 
COMPLETELY different from the Ron/Hermione dynamic -- where Hermione 
frequently teases, taunts, and otherwise revenges herself on Ron.  
Don't you remember the scene where she is winding him up about Grims 
being all superstition?  Don't you think she enjoys catching him out 
on Apparating inside Hogwarts, saying "fellytone," etc.?  I do!  She 
also enjoys giggling at him about spiders and scarlet women, just as 
he enjoys laughing at her McGonagall dementor.

Penny said (previously):
> If she intends Hermione to end up with Ron, she probably ought to 
cut 
> back a bit on the negative descriptive words she uses for their 
> interaction.  If she continues to stress words 
> like  "savagely," "impatiently," "sputtered 
> indignantly," "acidly," "coldly," "angrily," etc., she might give 
us 
> the impression that Ron and Hermione really don't interact very 
> positively during their "bantering."

You are 100% right about one thing.  Ron and Hermione's humorous 
exchanges have an *edge* to them.  There are hurt feelings and danger 
there.  They don't do bland, inoffensive "witty conversation" in the 
manner of Regis and Kathy Lee.  Thank God!

I'm sort of embarrassed to be so elementary here, but the process of 
writing a story requires that you create anxiety and tension in your 
reader through conflict, and then *release that tension* with a 
satisfying resolution.  The more intense the tension, usually, the 
more satisfying is its resolution.

JKR has *succeeded* in creating tension between Ron and Hermione.  
The reader is not happy with matters as they now stand.  Some readers 
(me) think it needs to be resolved with reconciliation, 
understanding, and romance.  Some readers (you) think it needs to be 
resolved with distance and reform (on Ron's part only, as far as I 
can tell).  But, you know, the first kind of resolution makes a much 
better story.

This kind of stuff -- bickering to love -- is a STAPLE of popular 
entertainment, and it's usually not "goodnatured."  It works for 
buddy pictures -- think of the Eddie Murphy/Nick Nolte flick "48 
Hours."  Those two guys FOUGHT (literally, physically) and said 
awful, unforgivable things to each other.  That made their eventual 
bonding MORE satisfying, not less.  And it works for romance 
pictures -- think of the Humphrey Bogart/Katharine Hepburn flick "The 
African Queen."  There was REAL tension there, real dislike, real 
conflict.  That makes for a much more powerful and enjoyable movie 
experience than if they'd simply quipped like Monica and Chandler 
on "Friends" or something.

JKR doesn't DO bland and inoffensive.  She does Percy vs. 
Fred/George.  She does, "You'll be next, Mudblood."  She does 
dropping Neville out the window and burning a hole in Ron's tongue.  
And I like it that way.  I like my edgy R/H.
  
Penny:
> Shifting to Angua on JKR's personal life:
> 
> <<<<<I'm queasy about even bringing up JKR's personal life, but 
I'll just 
> dip my toe into it.  As best I can tell, we know of five 
> relationships in JKR's life which might influence her decisions:
> 
> 1 - Her parents' marriage, which had "sparks" and arguments, and 
was 
> (mostly) happy.>>>>>>>
> 
> Source please?  On the "sparks" and "arguments"?  

Angua:
I will have to return to the library to get you an exact quote.  I am 
going from a very gushing JKR biography written for the children's 
market.  It mentions something like, "Anne and Peter had their 
problems and disagreements, like any newly-married couple might, but 
one thing they *did* agree on was the birth of their first child, 
Joanne."  My impression, reading through the soothing presentation 
meant for children, was that there were definite publicly-known 
problems early in their marriage -- not surprising, since they "fell 
at love at first sight" according to JKR, married quickly, and were 
only 19 and 20 when she was born.

Penny:
> On possible reasons why JKR might have chosen to not answer the 
question about Hermoine liking Ron with a more straight-forward 
answer, Angua conjectured:
> 
> <<<<1 - She might have thought the questioner had not yet read GoF 
(since 
> she didn't know the obvious) or that some of the chat participants 
> hadn't, and didn't want to spoil it.>>>>>>
> 
> Since this chat was sometime in 2001, isn't that a bit unlikely 
really?

Me:
It does seem ludicrous to us that anyone might not have read the book 
seven months after it came out, but of course millions of people 
*hadn't*.  The paperback hadn't even come out.  And JKR is usually 
very scrupulous about avoiding spoilers.  In the "very platonic 
friends" interview, which took place in 2000, she was very, very 
careful when answering a question about Quirrell, and PS/SS had been 
out for three years already.  So, no, I don't think it's unlikely.

Angua:
> <<<<Whatever the reason, my observation of JKR tells me that, 
however 
> cagey she might be, she tells the truth.  If she says the answer is 
> in GoF, she means that the answer is in GoF.>>>>>>

Penny:
> You might want to review some of the pre-GoF chats.  We were all 
fairly certain from those chats that Harry would actually date Cho 
Chang ..... and well, we all know how that turned out.  

Angua again:
I certainly wasn't!  Nothing she has ever said gave me that 
impression.  Perhaps I missed a chat -- please, give me a pointer to 
it.

Penny:
> Back to all this blushing, Angua said:
> 
> <<<<Sure, Krum could have said all this, Hermione blushed, and the 
blush 
> faded, before Harry got there.  But if JKR had wanted to show 
> Hermione blushing, there was an opportunity for Harry to see 
it.>>>>>>
> 
> At a distance.  :--)  Whatever.  Fact is, we don't *know* if 
Hermione did or did not blush when Krum asked her to visit him in 
Bulgaria.  I think you're reaching a bit on this one.

Angua:
Well, she was "too busy" to blush, wasn't she?  ;)

Penny:
> On the blushing when Harry asks her if she didn't want to go to 
Hogsmeade with Ron, Angua concedes, partially:
> 
> <<<<No, I believe that she blushed because Harry caught her in 
> subterfuge.  I'm just saying -- when R/H happens and we look back 
for 
> foreshadowing, we will see that JKR didn't miss a beat.  She put it 
> EVERYWHERE.  Even when it's just a sly reference, and doesn't 
really 
> mean anything.>>>>>>>>>

Penny:
> If she's blushing because Harry is caught her up in subterfuge, as 
you concede (thanks!), then there is NO R/H foreshadowing.  Her blush 
(and her intent) have nothing whatsoever to do with romantic interest 
in Ron.  You conceded as much.

Ahhh, Penny, Penny, Penny...  Haven't you ever heard of SUBTEXT?  The 
literal, surface meaning of the blush is that Hermione is embarrassed 
that Harry has caught her plotting to reunite him with Ron.  

The hidden, implied meaning, which the reader may be subconsciously 
influenced by, is that she secretly wants to go to Hogsmeade with 
Ron.  The REALLY alert reader might connect this with an ongoing 
motif of Ron/Hermione/Hogsmeade references, including the "time of 
their lives" observation, the time Hermione doesn't want Harry to 
join them in PoA (because of the Sirius danger), and the time 
Hermione doesn't want Harry to join them in GoF (because of the egg), 
and -- voila -- a subtext of romantic desire!  What, you thought you 
were the only ones allowed to do that? ;)


Angua, who needs to go away and have a life