Slughorn's favoritism/Ginny's developement (was Why did JKR not explore H/Hr

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 168772

> >Magpie: See, this is what I referred to in my  other post. I'm 
truly 
> surprised to see Slughorn defended this way given the way  he's 
introduced. The man 
> says flat-out that it's surprising that a Muggle-born  is so good 
when we know 
> it is canon that there's no difference in magical talent  between 
Wizards 
> based on blood purity. That's a bigoted myth. It's not just  
Hermione and Lily 
> that counter it either--where have we seen any evidence of  
difference in talent 
> if the person is Muggleborn? 
>  
> Nikkalmati
>  
> I see it as a myth that Slughorn believes the pureblood  claptrap. 

Magpie:
How is it a myth when Slughorn himself says he believes it in his 
first scene? He thought Lily had to be a Pureblood because she was 
so talented. It's just "funny that it sometimes works out" that a 
Muggleborn is best in the class. It's not funny, because there's no 
difference between Muggleborns and Purebloods in terms of talent.

Nikkalmati:
 The point 
> of comparison here is Muggles vs. Wizards, not  Purebloods vs. 
Muggleborn 
> wizards.  Muggles rarely have magical talent of  any kind.  Most 
wizard born 
> children have some magical talent.  Magic  is not evenly 
distributed throughout 
> the human race.  It is surprising to  find a Muggleborn with any 
magical talent. 
>  It is doubly surprising that  one has outstanding talent.    (BTW 
Appaloosas 
> can't jump worth a  darn, in most cases)

Magpie:
No, the point of comparison is between Muggleborns and Purebloods, 
as Slughorn and the DEs clearly say. Slughorn says: "Your mother was 
Muggle-born, of course. Couldn't believe it when I found out. 
Thought she must have been pure-blood, she was so good." Slughorn 
isn't talking about Muggles, he's talking about Muggleborn Witches 
and Wizards who, according to the theory of Pureblood superiority, 
should be inferior magicians, making it surprising that talented 
Lily was a Muggleborn. Only Slughorn is wrong. It is not surprising 
to find a Muggleborn witch or wizard with talent, nor is it doubly 
surprising to find one with exceptional talent. They're no more or 
less likely to have talent than a pure-blood or a half-blood.

Ken:

Right, the Harry filter isn't absolute. The Narrator does clue us in
on some things that Harry misses. I only meant to say that compared 
to the sledgehammer obvious way the things Harry does notice are 
driven home to the reader Ginny's growth is quite subtle. To me it is
impossible to miss even so but I get the sense that a lot of readers
here feel that the "new" Ginny was sprung on them unawares. I don't
see that at all.

Magpie:
I think it's not so much subtle but intentionally hidden--and 
Ginny's growth isn't subtle, it's completely sudden. JKR doesn't 
write her until OotP--an idea I think is validated in the text by 
needing all these characters to explain things. Ginny isn't even 
supposed to be changing and growing--barely any characters really do 
in this universe. She's supposed to have been this way all along and 
somehow always acted like a different person. Like if in the next 
book Neville suddenly turned out to have the personality of Sirius 
or Ernie Macmillan and he'd always been like that because Harry 
didn't pay attention to him.

Ken:

I guess I can see that it is ironic. I'm not sure that Ginny is
entirely what she was all along though. 

Magpie:
I believe according to JKR, yes she is. That's why everybody's 
catching Harry up in OotP. The only process she's going through is 
deciding to be herself now and not act like she's got a crush on 
Harry. Though she still feels the same way about him as always. This 
is "herself" that she was hidden before, behind a false personality.

Ken:
That is due in part because the change in the young woman can
happen that quickly. But it is also because it involves a perceptual
shift in the young man. He is locked into thinking of her one way and
this perception continues past the time when it is valid.

Magpie:
HP characters really don't change in this way. But regardless, there 
is no perceptual shift in Ginny. The narrator is the same as always, 
and Harry has always reported things that Ginny has done and said. 
My understanding of Ginny is based on my own perceptions and what I 
see her say and do. Harry and I are in the same boat in terms of 
looking at Ginny and seeing what's actually there. It's not like 
Ginny's always being the way she is in the last two books and Harry 
just used to find it annoying and now finds it hot. Harry recognizes 
the difference in front of him.

What the Harry filter does is add judgments on what he's literally 
seeing. It wouldn't change Ginny's behavior.  

Ken:
>From the very first time we see her it is obvious that she could be 
significant in Harry's life because, frankly, many men and boys are 
shy enough around women that they do often fall for the ones that 
notice them first.

Magpie:
But that's got nothing to do with her personality. It seems like a 
lot of what you're saying here is generic: girls develop this way, 
girls that age do this, Ginny could be significant to him. I never 
doubted she could be as significant as anybody else, but I don't 
think she's Generic Girl in either of her incarnations. Like all of 
JKR's characters, she has a quickly and memorably sketched 
personality--only in her case she's got 2. (So to me it's more like 
Harry didn't fall for the one who noticed him first--he fell for the 
one designed for him.)

> phoenixgod2000:
>
> >It is there, very subtly, all along.
>
> Really, where was the subtle hints that she liked Quiddich and was 
a
> good rider? if they were there, why did we need Hermione, the
> exposition Fairy to tell us she stole brooms out of the shed (yeah,
> 'cause that's realistic) to learn how to ride?
...
> There is not a single indication before book five Ginny is even the
> slightest bit sports inclined. She's horrified by the violence of 
the
> game at the Quiddich world cup and fell asleep during the group 
talk
> about the game afterwards.
>
>

Ken:

Is every aspect of any character's life foreshadowed? Did we have any
hint that Harry would be a natural broom rider? Is it just remotely
possible that a girl that grew up with several Quidditch mad brothers
might have picked up some of that? You're being unreasonable here.
This is not Ginny's story, it is Harry's. Ginny's character is not
developed in the detailed way that Harry's is but it doesn't need to
be to be plausible. I found Hermione's explanation completely
satisfying. I'm sorry but stealing brooms to learn how to ride is
realistic.She goes to the Quidditch World Cup doesn't she? I'd say 
that qualifies as more than the slightest bit interested. I find the
violence of that match a bit shocking myself. 

Magpie:
S/he's not being unreasonable at all, imo. This doesn't require it 
to be Ginny's story or detailed or have things "foreshadowed." Ginny 
is, according to the last two books, a certain person, in the way 
JKR shows her characters. The way she chooses to characterize Ginny 
at the QWC is a perfect example of artificially leaving out 
something that a book later is going to be a foundation of her 
personality. Sure in real life Harry might not know a girl he knows 
is as interested in Quidditch as she is (though frankly it's still 
pushing it given the circumstances), but this isn't real life, it's 
JKR who draws characters very clearly very quickly and very 
consistently. I believe she knows perfectly well she's cheating. She 
hid Ginny's true attitude and forcefulness and dynamic with her 
brothers to make it a surprise rather than always showing Ginny the 
same way she was in the last two books with Harry just not finding 
her interesting. There's not a hint of the first version in the 
second version, and not a hint of the second in the first. Harry's 
misjudged plenty of people in his time, but this is the only time 
he's gotten a personality this strangely wrong.

As I said, I can accept what JKR seems to have admitted that she was 
doing; I can't go farther than that. Especially when my own reading 
was so completely predictive. 

-m