Wanted! Complex Female Adult Character: (was:Re: ESE!McGonagall...

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 164701

> >>Jen:
> <snip>
> I think it genuinely perplexes JKR to be accused of not having     
> strong female characters when I really believe she's saying that    
> women's strengths, long denigrated by society, are actually THE    
> most important part of the story:  'What do they mean? Lily? Luna? 
> Molly? Hermione? Trelawney?  All have contributed to the cause by   
> using skills society has traditionally deemed inferior simply      
> because they are traditonally tied to women's roles, and I'm saying 
> in some cases their strengths have actually done *more* than what   
> the males at the MOM or guys like Harry, Sirius, James or even     
> Dumbledore have been able to accomplish at certain critical        
> junctures. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
(I'm kind of jumping in here, because I'm not sure where else to get 
in on this thread. But I'm not sure I actually address your issues, 
Jen. Or, maybe I do.  Gah, isn't this the best way to start a post 
ever?)

I know for me a huge issue is that I rather dislike JKR's female 
characters.  Some of them I actively despise. I think Molly is a 
perfect example of the vileness of small-minded, stupid, shrill, 
emotional, little people who should never have been allowed so much 
power of young children.  That Arthur left Molly with so much control 
over their family home is one of his biggest flaws, IMO. (Unlike 
Dumbledore, Arthur has no excuse but personal weakness.)  This is a 
visceral reaction, and I know that it's not a popular one.  But there 
it is.

So rather than a need for a "strong" female character, I guess I'm 
just looking for a *likable* one.  Honestly, I don't think JKR is any 
good at writing females.  She either goes for the funny stereotype, 
like McGonogall, or the super!strong!wonder!chick like Ginny.  

I think JKR is good at the stereotype.  Just as she does with the 
Flitwicks and Slughorns, she creates very amusing and recognizable 
caricatures in Trelawny and McGonagall.  None of those characters are 
very deep necessarily, but they're well-drawn and amusing. 

It's when JKR decides to enter "strong female character" territory 
that she falls flat, IMO.  Instead of the hints of interest we get 
with say Sirius or Lupin or even Zach Smith, we get best quidditch 
player (practiced at night!) ever so pretty (but never tries to be!) 
sooo funny (mean is witty!) Ginny.  Or punk yet pathetic Tonks.

[At least, that's how it seems to be going.  I could be (I hope I am) 
wrong.  DH could change everything by making Ginny less perfect.  (I 
still think Molly is supposed to be at least a tiny bit annoying 
instead of stand in for perfect motherhood, so I let that bit go.)  
And if Hermione goes through some growth I'll probably end up okay 
with the series.  (And believe me, my fingers are crossed.)]

But I don't think books need to have strong female characters to be 
good.  In fact, I think it was going for "strong female" that tripped 
JKR up.  So it's not (for me, anyway) a political issue.  It's more 
of a... likability issue. 

> >>Phoenixgod:
> Betsy, I agree with you post completely!(I don't feel right, quick,
> say something nice about Snape or Draco)

Betsy Hp:
Um... so far I think both of them have (or had) okay moms? <g>

> >>Phoenixgod:
> But I would go even a step further. This is a story about a boy    
> without a father, and ultimately, how Harry deals with his         
> unresolved father and the other men in his life is far more        
> important than how he deals with the women in his life. At least in 
> my opinion.
> <snip of examples>
> And I have made the point before, but I'll make it again. rather   
> than worry about the women, I worry about what I think is the very 
> real lack of strong male/father characters in the story.

Betsy Hp:
See, this is where I think JKR's feminism may be biting her on the 
ass.  (I'm still thinking this through, so please feel free to change 
my mind, fellow listies. <g>)  I think JKR *is* interested in 
fatherhood, etc.  I think that's a big reason why Harry is a boy and 
why all of the characters that most touch his life are men, 
potentional father-figures that never quite get it right. (Dumbledore 
always seemed too detached to play anything other than a 
grandfatherly role, IMO.)

But even with their failures (and I agree, for the most part, with 
your list of examples, Phoenixgod) each man brings *something* 
noteworthy to the table.  Which is why fandom has so much fun 
dissecting the various male characters' strengths and weaknesses.  
They are all tragic heroes in their own ways.  So close to goodness 
and nobleness except for one tragic flaw that keeps tripping them 
up.  (Neediness on Lupin's part, emotionalism on Sirius's, etc.)

But I think JKR wasn't able to intellectually leave it at that and 
felt compelled to bring mothers into the fray.  Only for whatever 
reason JKR isn't able to naturally write about mothers in the same 
way she's able to write about fathers.  So it all becomes a bit 
forced.  Lily is a Saint, McGonogall is the perfect "strict teacher", 
etc.  But neither of them *really* touch Harry's life, because they 
just aren't real.  They're plaster stand-ins, especially when 
compared to the guys.

Honestly, I think in many ways Molly is the most real of 
JKR's "mother" creations.  She just happens to encapsulate some of 
the worst aspects of motherhood.  Interestingly enough, Molly has 
very little impact in Harry's life, I think.  And I think because it 
would highlight Molly's weaknesses too much, fandom doesn't discuss 
Arthur with the same vigor they bring to Sirius or Lupin 
discussions.  Instead we have the OBHWF phenomenon (One Big Happy 
Weasley Family), when really, the Weasleys never struck me as all 
that happy to begin with.  (Generally, happy families don't end up 
disowning a child.) 

Eh, I think I'm probably rambling a bit.  But I do think it comes 
down to JKR being willing to dig her hands into the muck of 
fatherhood, while keeping motherhood safely perched on a rose leaf: 
perfect and indefinable and therefore a tiny bit fake.

Betsy Hp