Interpretation of Characters , bad, bad Cho

[Dan Feeney]

No: HPFGUIDX 72496

Wendy St John:

> I think ultimately it is not a *fault* of JKR's writing, but a 
>*strength*. I
> think her characterisations are brilliant, so brilliant that it is 
hard to
> put many of her characters in a box - good or evil, mean or nice; 
smart or
> stupid. Hmnh. Sounds suspiciously like people in the real world! 
<G> I
> think part of the fun is that we aren't told how to respond to the
> characters. They are a wonderful mix of strengths and faults, and 
we each
> respond to these things based on our own experiences. Now, I won't 
say this
> applies to every character in the books - but do we really expect 
her to
> develop every single student at Hogwarts?

Yunno, Wendy, LoTR/Silmarillion fan fiction is indigestible to me, 
but HP isn't - it has to do with the proximity of the parallel world, 
and the expectations of that world, and the details. I don't think 
the operative context is quite the difference between open or closed -
 seems a far too general argument for me, but perhaps that's part of 
the "placing" within "literature" regarding HP at nimbus2003, which I 
regret not being able to attend, and not only cause I'm male. There's 
something else. I've mentioned it in other posts, but for some, just 
reading the book is like participating in Harry's emancipation. It 
would be too OT this particular post to get detailed here. At any 
rate, I thought I'd give an exercise, using Cho Chang as an example 
from canon. of "openness." Others may want to try something similar.

1. Bad, bad Cho Chang. Has a weak character. Chose to keep traitor 
friend, for whom there can be no excuse, no circumstances, cause none 
are given. (Pettigrew, the traitor. Cho should have been more aware, 
unlike JP and SB and RL regarding that rat in the first place anyway, 
or indeed Ron. But to keep her as friend afterwards! After she'd 
caused such devastation! Outed Dumbledore! Dump the traitor, I say. 
Speaking to her at all taints Cho deeply.) Liked HP but chose 
Diggory 'cause he was older and more acceptable, until HP got a 
deeper reputation. Good grief the girl wanted to know about Diggory's 
end! How selfish! He was only her boyfriend! No understanding of HP's 
horrible history. Accepted Harry,  ostensibly, on the train, for 
instance, but never said, like Luna, "I believe you!" Nope, bad Cho 
thought just being nice to HP and being interested in him was enough. 
Holy cats, how evil and manipulative! Kissed our Harry! My goodness 
the nerve of that girl. And to top it off, she's too emotional, 
crying all over the place, not like our Harry. And thank goodness too 
for that, cause he's our POV. No control, that so-called Ravenclaw 
girl. Bad, bad Cho.

2. In some ways, Cho Chang and her interactions with HP are the most 
telling signs of HP's detrimental effect on others, and reveal the 
true danger that he faces, Parsifal like, with his growing anger and 
resentment. (Parsifal - he will not concern himself with "the other" 
and their difficulty, on some level.) There is a reason for HP to be 
more open about what happened in the graveyard, a very good reason, 
but a reason that has nothing to do with him or his feelings or his 
adventure. Yet, it is his role by which he justifies not talking 
about it. HP doesn't demonstrate any generousity regarding this at 
all. When Cho talks to him on the train at the start of OOP, his 
response is relief that she doesn't seem to blame him - no 
understanding that outside of the whole question of blame, there is 
the fact that HP was the only person who witnessed his death she has 
access to. And then the startling conclusion that she harbours 
girlfriendy feelings for him. This is, I submit, a straight passive 
agressive setup, a power-struggle, where HP holds about 50 cards out 
of the deck. Why hasn't he, since he had noticed in GoF the streams 
of tears, offered to relate the the truth to her, as a matter of 
whatever it is people call honour? At Hogsmead, he belittles Cho's 
importance by placing openness with Skeeter, and by extension the 
whole witch wizard world, over openness with Cho. Why didn't he 
say "listen, Cho, I'm going to be telling the whole story later, but 
I want you to be first to hear?" (Oh my goodness, if he'd done that, 
he'd actually deserve her as a girlfriend, and probably would have!) 
Later, he appears to get himself under the smistletoe, even, in the 
RoR. Manipulative? I think so. Passive aggressive? Absolutely. HP 
does have some little hope at the end, however. A gift from Luna, who 
can at least can imagine motivations for others that aren't just 
projections of some incipient megalomania.

What this proves, I'm not sure. But I notice that both accounts are 
rather sarcastic, the first slightly moreso, and they actually defend 
the apparent opposite stance. Don't know why I chose that, except 
it's probably easier to dichotomize the arguments by doing so.


dan