Ginny VS Harry

[sienna291973]

No: HPFGUIDX 135114

"flyingmonkeypurple" wrote:
> I have read that alot of the people here don't like Ginny. They
> either did not like her before or they don't like her now for
> telling Hermoione for yelling at Harry. I think that had nothing
> to do with the fact that because Ginny can play Quiddithch. I know
> some of you thought thought what she said was offensive to women.

Alexandre:
> I have had a problem with Ginny in HBP, part of them came from her
> reaction toward Fleur and her sentence toward Hermione, and part 
from > her being nearly perfect(I mean great at Hexing great at 
quidditch,
> good look) with few flaws (beyond been full of herself. So I would
> like have seen a more human side. But she has next volume to redeem
> herself ;-). All I hope is some nice phrase toward Fleur and an
> understanding between them, and see a more faillible Ginny.

D:
> the supposedly 'kind & compassionate' qualities the great and fine
> Ginny supposed to have are *told* to us through other characters, 
hardselling like a radio advertisment, instead of showing. And 
readers are pound over the head constantly: to admire her as a tough 
cookie, to look up to as the strongest female role-model who would 
never cried or let a man to act with that gentlemen crap toward her; 
to desire her dazzling beauty; to be in awe by her goddess greatness 
and resemblence to Fred & George + Ron + Molly + Lily (etc.). That 
just irked me as a reader, because whenever Ginny appears on page 
what I see is this smug girl who mocked other women behind their 
back, who tell off a crying nurse in deep grief to *shut the hell up* 
at funeral, who is catty that no one can dare to admire another 
woman's beauty in front of her, who went up and arm against all those 
who dare to tell off their men, yet would never compete with them or 
jealous of them, despite she's a capable seeker herself, because a 
perfect girl would never steal nor threaten Harry's spotlight. A 
perfect girl is always so convenient like that! So ideal! A 
true 'equal' in a non-threatening, supporting way.

Now me:
I daresay that anything I post will be viewed with suspicion because 
I have been a staunch supporter of H/Hr for a long time now, but I 
think that there is a problem with Ginny's character development that 
goes far beyond shipping preferences.

I think in focusing on keeping Ginny under the radar, the author did 
her character a big diservice. Ginny's character development in OotP 
and HBP is, in my humble opinion, disjointed, contradictory and 
uneven. In her most recent interview, Rowling said that she wanted 
readers to slowly realise that Ginny was the perfect girl for Harry. 
She also said that the two characters had evolved together and 
were `equals' who were perfect for each other. With all due respect 
to Ms Rowling, but I beg to differ. 

When have we ever been privy to Ginny's evolution? We have always 
merely been told that this is so. When have we ever seen Harry and 
Ginny sharing their feelings on a significant emotional issue or 
working in partnership with each other? Their mutual connection to 
Voldemort is prime material for this, and yet it is never actually 
used by the author. 'Telling' might work in real life, but in 
literature it smacks of amateur writing.

Part of the reason why some fans were invested in Hermione and Harry 
as romantic partners were exactly these reasons – their equality in 
talent (demonstrated time and time again in their adventures 
together); their understanding of each other (demonstrated repeatedly 
by the two of them being on the same page, sometimes ahead of even 
Ron); the ability to work together in desperate situations and come 
to a compromise (nowhere demonstrated better than in the Sirius 
argument in OotP). Rowling, seemingly by complete coincidence, had 
developed their friendship in this manner.

It would not have been an impossible task for the author to give us 
these small hints as to Ginny's evolving connection with Harry 
instead even if Harry didn't process the information at the time. It 
would not have been a big stretch to allow Ginny rather than Hermione 
to be dragged along by her robes at the DoM, thus giving the reader a 
chance to see Ginny in action (have we ever actually seen her perform 
that bat-bogey hex? And, for heavens sake Jo, give the girl another 
spell). It would give us an opportunity to watch their `perfectness' 
for each other in its early, blossoming stages. Instead, the author 
just tells us – this is how it is and we're just meant to suspend 
disbelief and come along for the ride. (Am I really expected to be 
more invested in Ginny's bat-bogey hex – which I've never actually 
seen - than, say, Hermione's protean charm or Ron's chess skills? And 
Slughorn's invitation to Ginny to join him in his carriage is the 
worst possible contrivance).

I accept the anvil-like clues for Ron and Hermione's evolving 
romance, but there was nothing in canon pre-HBP to suggest that I 
should accept Ginny as Harry's equal.

That's why, in my opinion, Rowling was forced to overcompensate by 
demonstrating how `perfect' Ginny was in HBP (which came across as 
pretty much a Mary Sue). And this is not something that can be easily 
explained away by the Harry-lens we are forced to wear as readers. It 
is simply bad writing. It is the writer telling us how it is rather 
than showing us. I shouldn't have to rely on interviews with Rowling 
to understand the hero's relationship with his love interest.

I actually didn't mind Ginny's character from Books 1 to 4 and, with 
very little effort, Rowling could have foreshadowed her perfectness 
for the hero, while keeping his two best friends on equal but 
inferior footing. But she did not. (Eg. In HBP, Ginny suddenly 
understand Harry better than anyone. Where did this come from? Why? 
How? And why should I buy it as a reader?)

Also, as a side note, the constant comparisons between Ginny and Lily 
became a bit tiring. At the end of the day, both our boys will end up 
marrying their mothers. Eeek. ;)

Sienna
*Who thought JKR might have something different to say about the 
world.*