SHIP: Romantic Comedy & Author Intent; Ginny

[Penny Linsenmayer]

No: HPFGUIDX 50955

Hi --

I said: > With respect to my assertion that JKR may not have heard the 
term "cute meet" before or intended her PS/SS interactions to 
work that way, Pippin said:
> 
Pippin replied: > <<<<<We'd have to suppose she's never read The Taming of the  Shrew, either. Hollywood did not invent the romantic comedy. 
> Elizabethan dramatists did, in 1590 or so.>>>>>>>>
> 
I then said: > That still doesn't address the issue of her *intent.*  I still say she may not have intended the effect that you see.  <<<

Pippin now says: 

<<<Maybe not. But romantic comedies are as formally constructed 
as murder mysteries. Whether a particular reader happens to be 
familiar with the art of story construction or not, it's reasonable
for a critic to expect the writer to understand the form they are 
using.>>>>>>>>>>

So.  I set out to write a murder mystery, and I write what I think *is* a murder mystery.  Derannimer buys it and interprets it to be romantic comedy.  Is it reasonable for Derannimer to complain that I'm not following accepted conventions of romantic comedy writing, when in fact I never intended to write a romantic comedy at all?  

You see, I think what's happening here is that I subscribe very much to an active reader response theory.  The text, IMO, can mean something totally different to you than it does to me.  So, where you see romantic comedy, I see none.  But, I don't see how you can argue that *your* interpretation squares with Rowling's intent ....... or whether that would even matter.  

<<<<<<Book One opens with a murder, and we, as readers, expect that 
any saga that opens with a murder will concern  the quest to see 
justice done.  In the same way, if a girl happens across a boy's 
path while searching for a toad (instead of a handsome prince 
<g>), it's reasonable to expect some comic/romantic involvement 
later.>>>>>>>>>

But, this is all with hindsight.  When you first read PS/SS, you had no idea that the Weasleys would be important until later in the story.  You definitely didn't know but what Hermione would be a very minor character, never to appear much again.  Where's Piers Polkiss after all?  Lee Jordan appears very early on the Platform, and he's not a particularly developed character.  I think you're imposing hindsight on your interpretation.  At the time, I certainly didn't expect comic/romantic involvement.  I still don't.  

<<<<What strikes a chord with the readers and makes them want the 
characters to connect is the sense that they are emotionally 
incomplete when apart. This sense is created for both Ginny and 
Hermione in their opening scenes with Harry and Ron. It isn't 
created for any of the other female characters. In fact that's one of 
the biggest complaints people have about the books.  Having created this incompleteness, the story should resolve it, or it will always seem unfinished.>>>>>>>>>>

Well, I'm afraid I really can't agree with this.  That may well be true for some readers, but not this one.  I've found Ginny irritating from the get-go, and I never once considered that she was Harry's potential romantic partner.  Briefly, after I read CoS, I thought that might be a possibility, but I immediately read PoA after that and quickly decided that no, Ginny couldn't possibly hold that role since JKR shunted her even more in the background in PoA.  That's one thing I definitely can't see as a "convention" (holding the hero's love interest into a completely background undeveloped role for a sustained period of time).  Makes no sense to me.  We see Ron's burgeoning interest in Hermione, which is crafted very skillfully into the narrative, IMO.  That is decidedly not true with Ginny.  So, I think JKR would have to break with some tradition and conventionality if she intends to thrust Ginny into that role in a way that won't leave the readers feeling that it was contrived and forced or perhaps even an after-thought.  I absolutely don't see Ginny as equivalent to the Trio, and I wouldn't say that Ginny is a developed female character.  McGonagall is far more developed, and it's McGonagall that critics cite as evidence that Hermione isn't the *only* developed female character in the series.  The critics don't seem to find Ginny the least bit compelling, and I agree.   

And, well, my feelings about Ron and Hermione's interactions are well-known.  So, I have absolutely no desire to see those 4 characters eventually connect in the pairings you suggest.  :--)

Penny  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]