JKR and tears

[cholovescedric.livejournal.com]

Hi there everyone,

I used to be just ChoCedric, it has been a while since I've posted anything on this community, but I really needed to vent, and you guys are a great group of people to rant to, because I know you won't put me down, tell me that I'm just a big baby, or that my ideas are stupid.

I know I've said this on here before, but no matter how much time passes, I just can't seem to get over how JKR deals with emotion. It is often the case that when we are reading a book, we are told that it is good to think like the protagonist does, and it is definitely true in this case, what with JKR's comments about how the sun rises and sets on the saintlike Harry Potter.

As you all know by my username and by rants I've posted on this community before, this is particularly glaring to me in the example of Cho Chang. We are told to view her grief in a very negative light because a. she cries a lot, and b. she wants to know exactly what Cedric faced in his last moments. Because we, the readers, know what happened to him, we should just accept that others, those who knew and truly loved Cedric, don't need to have it explained to them. In the real world, if a teenage girl's boyfriend's corpse was dumped on a sports field with everyone ogling it and screaming, his blank, lifeless eyes staring into the sky, she would want to know why. And she'd hunt for answers, too. She wouldn't just wait until St. Albus Dumbledore the All-Knowing told her what had happened, and anyone who questioned St. Harry Potter, in the real world, would be considered reasonable people rather than evil incarnate.

I also honestly think that Rowling's whole issue with showing grief by crying is unfortunately something that many people in our society agree with, simply because of how Cho's behavior in OOtP was demonized by so many in the fandom. There are so many fans of Harry Potter that I talk to who say things like, "Oh, I couldn't stand Cho! She was such a bitch for crying all over poor Harry like that!" Those comments make me soooooo pissed! I think this is because so many in this day and age consider crying a weakness. God, could anything be more untrue? Granted, there's a time and a place to cry, but Cho was mainly doing it in bathrooms, and I think that's the perfect place! Yeah, maybe the outburst in Madame Puddifoot's was not quite the setting, but this was after months and months of her not knowing whether he'd suffered, whether he was in pain before he died, exactly what he'd been through. So I wholeheartedly understand why it happened.

When I mention that she and Cedric could have been very much in love (and I think this could definitely be the case, considering how lost and sad Cho was) I get rebuttals like, "But she's only a teenager! She doesn't even know what love is!" And that, too, is soooooo unbelievably untrue. I am 27 years old, and do you know how old I was when I dated my first serious boyfriend? I was 12! And we were very serious for many years. Believe me, if things hadn't worked out like they did, like the fact that he started drinking very heavily once he turned 21, and by heavily I mean so heavily that I was afraid he'd end up in hospital, I would be married to him today, if he'd continued to care for me as much as I cared for him, I loved him that much. He was everything to me. Even when our relationship started going to the dogs, I stuck it out for another 11 months because I wasn't ready to give up on him, I thought it was just a phase he was going through. And no, don't worry, he wasn't physically abusive. He just started getting very possessive and very jealous of who I hung out with, even if it was just with my sister, for Merlin's sake! But we'd had so much history together that I wasn't ready to let him go when things started to go downhill.

But that's enough about me. What I'm trying to say is that it's not unheard of for people who meet and fall in love very young to stay together. Granted, it's not unbelievably common, but it does happen. So the "you can't fall in love as a teenager!" thing just doesn't wash.

Please tell me any other thoughts you have on this! I know we've talked about this before, but do you guys agree that it's to do with the society we are growing up in that JKR considers tears really, really bad and seething, frothing rage really, really good? How do you think Harry would have reacted if Ginny's cold, lifeless body had been dropped in front of him?

Comments

[eviltracey.livejournal.com]

Rowling's view on death and mourning (not to mention trauma) in OOtP - as shown in how she characterized Cho - is totally messed up. And the reaction of the fans who called Cho a manipulative drama queen and a bitch is equally so. People have different ways - and timelines - of reacting, and who is JKR or these fans to say that there's a right way or a wrong way to do so? Also, if any of these fans had a loved one die violently, I doubt very much that they'd be as stoic as JKR says they should be.

And, if anything, Ron should have had some insight into the impact of losing a family member to Voldemort and minions - does Molly not mourn Gideon and Fabian?

[sunnyskywalker]

It's even worse than that, to me. Okay, grant for the sake of argument that maybe Cho and Cedric would have realized in a few months or years that their love was not as strong and amazing as they thought, more of a passing teenage fancy. So what? Would that make him dying not traumatic somehow?

I mean, suppose Ron had died and Harry grieved. Would it be fair to tell Harry that well, they were only teenage school friends and their friendship was based more on shallow things like living in the same dorm and liking sports, and they would have much deeper and truer friendships as adults, so really he should just get over it already? Oh hell no.

Here in Muggle-land, we send grief counselors to schools when a kid dies in some horrible and unforeseen manner, and not just for the kid's best friends and love interests. Because we recognize that even the kid's casual acquaintances might be freaked out and traumatized, and that this is a normal and expected thing.

So to me, the question of precisely how in love Cho and Cedric were is barely relevant. Her grieving and being confused and angry and scared and just about anything else is totally legitimate and understandable regardless. Cedric's friends and dorm-mates and Quidditch teammates might well be going through similar processes, just as fairly. And I don't see why this is such a hard concept to grasp!

[hwyla.livejournal.com]

I will add that it is canon that in Harry's 'world' teenagers who are the very same age as Cho are dating their life partners. She is in 6th year when she is crying on Harry, mourning Cedric. To say that it is ridiculous for her to be truly in love means then to say the same for 6th year Harry's love for Ginny. Ron/Hermione don't actually get together until bk7, but I would still say they love each other during 6th year and until JKRs recent turnabout we have been encouraged to see them as a true match.

I do think we need to also realize however, that traditionally the UK has treated crying as something to only be done in private. We see this in the books a few times - once Albus looks away as Harry cries - to give him privacy. And if I recall correctly, Harry is embarrassed to be present while Remus cries, because it is supposed to be a private emotion. Private - not necessarily weak.

It is interesting to also think about the fact that this was also a nation that took mourning to a point (in the victorian era) that it had very specific, prescribed modes of expression in public. Black wreathes on the door, black armbands on men, covered mirrors, locks of the deceased's hair woven etc. to the point that there were strict rules as to when a woman could switch from wearing black to wearing grey or lavender and an entire genre of jewelry specific to a time of mourning. Despite these public displays of mourning, they were still preferably to not supposed to be seen crying in public. It's seems to be all part of the traditional british 'stiff-upper lip'.

Of course the brits were not the only ones to do this - check out the scene in 'Gone With the Wind' where Scarlett raises a scandal by dancing at a ball before the required time has passed.

Needless to say, that doesn't mean no one ever cried or mourned. And it seems possible that this was also something of a class distinction. If you read books from before the 20th century (dealing with british characters) and a man is nearby when a woman 'of quality' starts to cry, he should pass her a handkerchief and then more or less turn his back on her and pretend he doesn't notice - pretty much as we see Albus do for Harry, so I'll assume the same would have been done for males.

[harpsi-fizz.livejournal.com]

The one emotion/reaction that gets portrayed in (nearly) always a positive way is righteous anger, no matter what the character does while angry. Harry's capslock screaming, Ginny's flying into the Quidditch announcer's stand, Ginny's snapping at Hermione ("Oh, don't start acting as though you understand Quidditch"), Ron getting angry, I'm sure I'm missing a few other times. Oh, Hermione's refusal to eat when she finds out that the food was made by house elves. Maybe that was a more neutral portrayal, now that I think about it. Ron did point out that it was silly, so I'm not sure. Oh! Hagrid's giving Dudley a pig tail because Vernon insulted Dumbledore, that's another good one.

I get rebuttals like, "But she's only a teenager! She doesn't even know what love is!"
This doesn't apply to Cho, but I read somewhere that the most honest kind of love is the "puppy love" that young children "fall into". Now, I'm going to botch the reason because I can't remember the source, but the reasoning was that at that age, there aren't any(?) As many?) conditions or ulterior motives, just impulsive, blunt emotion. Again, I don't have the source and I'm not saying everyone is like that or that adult love can't ever have that, that's the gist of the theory about the nature of puppy love in li'l kids.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Welcome back! You make good points. I do think there is something in the Zeitgeist that Rowling picks up on. We are very, very accepting of violence in entertainment, at least in the U.S. And, as others have said, there is the British tradition of the "stiff upper lip", and soldiering on, in spite of what one may be feeling. As such, young men may well find tears embarrassing, and even a sign of weakness. It isn't just Harry or Remus - Severus also turns away when Cissy is weeping, as if to give her privacy. You're just not supposed to cry in public.

But going into a tearing rage in public - well, in the British tradition, as i understand it, that's not done, either. But it is marginally more acceptable, I would think. Comments, anyone?

As to your last question, had Ginny's body been dropped in front of Harry, I think the boy would have been furious, and would have gone after her killer - if he could. Like Severus, Harry uses anger as a mask for grief. He's going through the books in a state of depression, especially in the later books when he's at the Dursleys.

Good post!