A plea for tolerance?

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Not sure quite what to call this - it's a comment I made on an earlier thread, where it was pretty deeply buried. I'm posting it as a separate comment because it's something I feel pretty strongly about.

Yes, I know - this is a sporking community. We are making fun of the Harry Potter books, and, at times, some of us can get quite irate in our discussions. But - please, please, can we refrain from getting irate towards J.K. Rowling?

Here's what I mean: I'm really not comfortable discussing the character of an actual human being just because I find her books frustrating. I'm a bit of a structuralist. The author is dead once a book has been published, and that cuts two ways. The author is no more privileged in his/her interpretation than any other reader, because the work belongs to the readers now. And there are limits to what we can extrapolate about an author's belief, personality, etc, based on the work s/he has written.

As angry as I get at the awful, mixed messages in these books, I think we must never forget that a real, vulnerable human being wrote them. It isn't right or fair to trash her while trashing the books. (Though I like to think we're not trashing them, but subjecting them to rigorous criticism!) And I'm really not comfortable with speculating about her family life and personality based on the words she's written. Though I do believe all real art is "true" in a deep sense, and reveals the heart of its creator, I still think the art has, and must have, its own validity. You see what I mean?

I hope to be a published author one day. Though I neither want nor expect Rowling's level of fame, I wouldn't like it if anyone psycho-analyzed me on the basis of my stories. I don't think any of us would - and many of us do some type of creative work. Would we like to be called "stupid cows" because a reader found our work stupid? The person is not the work.

So I think it's fine to discuss the image of God in Rowling's stories. I think it's fine to question the heavy use of Christian symbolism given the non-Christian content of the stories. Heck, I've done this myself, repeatedly! It's fine to discuss the mixed messages about race, bullying, authority figures, and so much more. But I'd rather not discuss the psychology and personal life of the woman who wrote the stories. J.K. Rowling is a woman trying to write, and raise a family, and live, in this real world. We shouldn't forget that, no matter how angry her books make us.

Comments

[jana-ch.livejournal.com]

Ginny Mark Two actually has three defining characteristics. Calling her the Girl Who Dates is punchy but insufficient. She is also the Girl Who Flies and the Girl Who Fights.

1) Dating, flirting, having a boyfriend, tossing around her flaming hair, and giving hard, blazing looks all go together into the “Sexy and Popular with Boys” category.

2) Flying and playing Quidditch belong to the “Strong and Athletic but Not a Tomboy Because (see Category 1: Popular with Boys)” category.

3) Bat-Bogey hexes, insulting Fleur and Hermione, attacking Zach Smith on a broom, throwing food at Percy, and generally copying the twins without their imagination or sense of humor belong to “Bold, Sassy, and Badass, Therefore Worthy To Be Harry’s Warrior Mate” category.

Annoni does, however, have a point. “Slut-shaming” is perhaps a bit strong, but saying Ginny engages in “serial dating”—whether you mean like serial killing or merely serial monogamy—definitely implies disapproval rather than mere description. Why shouldn’t Ginny have a number of different boyfriends? That’s normal. It’s called “playing the field.” As long as she doesn’t tell Michael they’re “going steady” and at the same time go out with Dean, it’s perfectly legitimate. It’s not legitimate if she doesn’t care about them at all and is only using them to catch Harry’s attention, but that’s not the only way to interpret what she’s doing. It could be she’s genuinely trying to get over Harry by seeing other guys, hoping she’ll like one of them better, but it doesn’t work.

Ginny is not a deep character. Like most (all?) secondary characters in the Potterverse, she has a few defining characteristics that get trotted out regularly so we’ll remember who she is. She’s not particularly admirable, but there are many far more contemptible characters in the series available for one’s literary hatred. Personally I find her Insulting-and-Attacking behavior far more questionable than her entirely ordinary “Popular Girl” social life.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Calling her the Girl Who Dates is punchy but insufficient.

Punchy and accurate, even if it doesn't cover *all* of her traits.

Annoni does, however, have a point. “Slut-shaming” is perhaps a bit strong -

Yes. Annoni skipped right past your point of "there's nothing wrong with serial dating, per se" and extended it to societal problems that simply aren't within the scope of my giving Ginny the title of The Girl Who Dates. Or that can be addressed without curbing my rights/freedom to address her so, even if that's the easiest way out for Annoni.

As I said, I don't think there's anything particularly admirable about dating boys just for the sake of dating. But going from there to 'slut shaming' involves an assumption that just isn't supported by my statement.

Ginny was - principally and among other things :-) - the Girl Who Dates, a character portrayed as covetable by boys and hence a desirable object to be won by the Boy Who Lived.

[jana-ch.livejournal.com]

"Dating for the sake of dating" is called socializing. "Hanging out with friends for the sake of hanging out with friends" is also called socializing. Neither one is a big deal, or a reason to criticize someone.

I think insulting, attacking, and being "spunky and athletic" are much more defining characteristics for Ginny that dating is. We see her doing those things, first hand, quite often, and we hardly ever actually see her dating. I'd rather define a character by what happens on-stage rather than off. "Show, not tell," remember? What is shown counts for more than what is merely told.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

"Dating for the sake of dating" is called socializing.

I disagree; I see it as more than (mere) 'socialising'.

"Hanging out with friends for the sake of hanging out with friends" is also called socializing.

That's more my definition.

But if you want to broaden (my definition of) 'socialising' to cover 'dating', that's fine. It just doesn't work for me, or my comments about Ginny.

I think insulting, attacking, and being "spunky and athletic" are much more defining characteristics for Ginny that dating is. We see her doing those things, first hand, quite often, and we hardly ever actually see her dating. I'd rather define a character by what happens on-stage rather than off. "Show, not tell," remember? What is shown counts for more than what is merely told.

Sure, and Rowling was a bad writer in that respect, telling rather than showing, if I recall correctly. Much better writing to 'show' rather than 'tell'. It makes the points more vivid, more memorable, more effective, etc.

But the answers - and the character traits - remain the same.

"Is Ginny a thug?". Why, yes. Because we see her being a thug.

"Is Ginny the Girl Who Dates?". Why, yes. Because we're told she (continually) dates, plus we *do* see examples of it - being with Michael, an intense kissing session with Dean, Ginny announcing her next target, etc. We're both told and shown.

But regardless of the mix, notwithstanding (y)our opinion as to how it could have been written *better*, it's still canon that Ginny is the Girl Who Dates.

[jana-ch.livejournal.com]

"Continually"? Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, three hundred and sixty-five days a year?

The best you can say is that she dates more than the average high school girl. At least, more than the average girl at the school I went to, in my generation back in the Dark Ages. These days, her social life might be commonplace.

In fact, there are few opportunities for actual "dates" at Hogwarts, whereas Ginny can be sassy and aggressive almost anywhere at any time. Ginny is the Girl Who Sasses. And dates when she can work it into her Sassing Schedule.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

"Continually"? Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, three hundred and sixty-five days a year?

*snort*

No, not technically ... although not in the way you criticise.

If I'm dating someone then my status is, indeed, 'Brad, the man who is dating', even if I take time out to go to work, have a shower or read HP fan fiction. Your rebuttal has no effect on that (and is pretty silly; you should have appended a smiley-face).

But no, Ginny wasn't *continually* in a state of dating. She took a couple of weeks off over 2.5 years, a small interstice between Dean and Harry. Rowling took care to make her available when she wrote Ginny jumping on top of target #4. Harry didn't kiss her while she was officially still with Dean. But it was a close thing. :-)

But those couple of weeks are negligible over 2.5 years. Grant me some poetic licence. :-)

(I think this was done over in the old Girl Who Dates discussion anyway.)