Welcome Guest - Register Today!

[muggleview]

Which is the whole point of showing how Ginny's characterization is inconsistent with what Rowling is telling us. Couldn't she have (re)written a few more moments where some of Ginny's rougher characterization is balanced with some equally positive ones rather than telling us she's this ideal person/witch/partner for Harry?
...
As for Harry's trademark spell, I actually can find parallels between that and Ginny if you consider the Harry Was Nothing Special view.

Apparently the discrepancies about Ginny's characterisation stem largely from the comparison of personal interpretation of the books and personal interpretation of author's comments outside the books, which are basically author's personal interpretation of the books, and also a bit of readers' personal expectation of the outcome of the books.
I don't think the author needs to defend her opinion, because majority of readers seems to agree with her in the polls. There will always be disagreements anyway. The author stated that she was content with her description of Ginny in the books and for her, it justifies why Harry found Ginny to be a worthy life companion. Of course, the books are not perfect and the author is not perfect. If both imperfections are combined (or multiplied in some cases, as in Ginny's), a seemingly bigger flaw than the real one would be observed.
As far as the author told us in the beginning, Harry was an average wizard boy who somehow was destined to defeat one of the most powerful wizards. Harry was indeed not "super" in ability, but he was special, because he was a chosen one to fulfill a prophecy. Jo even said that Voldemort (unwittingly) chose Harry to fulfill the prophecy, when he could have chosen Neville, instead.
Harry was a flawed character as well. He did not have a fabled good heart, but he had a good heart, as flawed as anyone "good" on the real earth.
To balance this, Jo Rowling created a female character with similar traits: not a "super" in ability, but special; not a saint, but a flawed character as well, in Ginny Weasley Potter.
Unbiased majority view would see Ginny as having a good heart, as flawed as anyone "good" on the real earth. As a witch, she had a notable power in magic, and thus can be called "powerful", without having to compare her level of power to anyone else.
What would make this girl an ideal partner for Harry Potter? Jo Rowling placed an argument in her books that it's because Ginny shared some positive achievements and negative blemishes comparable to Harry. The author has completed her series with most thing necessary written in it to support her argument. Of course, readers can disagree, because the readers have different personal views than the author. I'm sure the book editors would have their displeasure with the series as well.
Several things can be ascertain:
- Ginny's character is not independently written from Harry Potter's character.
- Ginny's character has been built with a balance to Harry's character in mind.
- Ginny's character, good or bad, mirrors Harry's flawed character.

[UnknownLocket]

I would have to disagree with you there only because of DH. If I had not read that book I would've totally agreed with you. However, if you remember at the beginning of DH, when harry is fleeing from the Death Eaters with hagrid. He uses expelliarmus and this alerts them that he is in fact the real HP. And then Lupin later states that it has become his trademark spell, because all of the Death Eaters saw him "defeat" (survive) LV by using it. So I would have to say he is more well known for expelliarmus. Or at least for the Death Eaters?

Well then, I stand corrected.

It just seemse like this thread is starting to make her out as a bad person. I don't think she's a bad person, you?

Ginny definately is not a bad person and I don't think any one is trying to say that. I just don't see her as great of a person as Rowling and others make her out to be, which is why a lot of her negative qualities are being pointed out to refute the positve opinions in this thread.

I'm not clear on how this shows "how innovative Ginny was in dire situations." She shows success in casting the (same) spell, not innovation.

Bat Bogey Hex was presented as a unique spell of Ginny, not a standard spell or something that people can learn from books. That's something innovative. It is also a very powerful spell, judging from the victims and the observers. Hermione may learn many spells from books, but she has yet to invent one trademark on her own.

Yes and no. Performing the bat-bogey hex I suppose can be described as something innovative, but it still doesn't refute the claim that Ginny has proven to be insufficient in duels, which goes back to how innovative she is in dire situations.

True, Hermione doesn't have her own trademark spell but she has shown to be successful in casting spells and fighting in duels. I don't see how having her own trademark is necessary. She is still a very talented witch and it would be such a long stretch to say the same for Ginny.

We don't see Ginny exhibiting the same behaviour every time someone bullies her friends. We don't get to see that in the books. But the few times that we do see Ginny in the book responding to the bullies, (as noble as her intentions are) they have an antagonistic streak to them. I attribute that to her being young and brash, certainly not that she's bad, but her actions are not something I could defend.

Which is the whole point of showing how Ginny's characterization is inconsistent with what Rowling is telling us. Couldn't she have (re)written a few more moments where some of Ginny's rougher characterization is balanced with some equally positive ones rather than telling us she's this ideal person/witch/partner for Harry?

I don't think Ginny's bat-bogey hexing skills shows enough to definitely conclude that she is as accomplished a witch as stated by Rowling, but we really aren't shown much more of Ginny's skill. I'm more than happy accept a more positive conclusion that is supported from the text, but what little that is stated in the text doesn't really paint the same idyllic view that Rowling tells us.

I feel exactly the same way.

[Corpus_Agnelli]

Apparently the discrepancies about Ginny's characterisation stem largely from the comparison of personal interpretation of the books and personal interpretation of author's comments outside the books, which are basically author's personal interpretation of the books, and also a bit of readers' personal expectation of the outcome of the books.
I don't think the author needs to defend her opinion, because majority of readers seems to agree with her in the polls. There will always be disagreements anyway. The author stated that she was content with her description of Ginny in the books and for her, it justifies why Harry found Ginny to be a worthy life companion.

Yes, thank you for acknowledging that, on both sides of the fence, we're all personally interpreting the books, including the author.

I doubt the author doesn't feel the need to defend herself because she is surrounded by a comfortable majority who agrees with her. Even if she were in the minority, she is probably confident enough to think and do whatever she pleases - one of the perks of being the creator.

And that she is content with Ginny's characterization is fine for her. For some, it's not. That's what the discussion is about.

The "Harry" bit was OT and just something I read which paralleled what others brought up regarding Ginny's trademark spell.

Several things can be ascertain:
- Ginny's character is not independently written from Harry Potter's character.
- Ginny's character has been built with a balance to Harry's character in mind.
- Ginny's character, good or bad, mirrors Harry's flawed character.

Then I think we are basing our discussion of Ginny's characterization on different terms. I am scrutinizing Ginny's characterization independently of Harry, based on her presented actions and speech from the text. (Actually, what I'm really doing is reading what other's have meticulously presented and have formed my own judgments...best to let the learned do all the work )

That certainly does not invalidate the terms you've outlined, but it is no wonder that we're bringing up very different ideas - we're supporting very different things regardless of our opinions. Since this thread isn't a strictly debating thread, I guess there's really no need to outline these kinds of parameters. Though, it does make it easier to understand where everyone has been coming from, at least for me.

[muggleview]

True, Hermione doesn't have her own trademark spell but she has shown to be successful in casting spells and fighting in duels. I don't see how having her own trademark is necessary. She is still a very talented witch and it would be such a long stretch to say the same for Ginny.

Hermione is undisputedly the most talented witch in her year. It shouldn't mean that all other witches in Hermione's year or beyond are not talented. There are highly talented and less talented students, although still below the Hermione's talent. Ginny is a talented witch. The author never stated that Ginny is "the most talented", but based on what Jo wrote, Ginny can be said to be a talented witch. The argument point is given, among others, from the perspective of her twin brothers, who undoubtedly can be said "very talented". If Ginny can amaze her "very talented" twin brothers, then she must have been "more talented" than average "talented". Still, Ginny is never to meant be the "culmination of the best witch of all time". Ginny is a special witch on her own right, not to compare with any other witches.
As a witch, Ginny has talents beyond just magic, namely also in Quidditch. In this game, she can even play successfully as a chaser and a seeker, something even the great Harry Potter never did. I won't go into the author's post-series remarks about her future career in the professional team, because that's outside the scope of the series. Ginny's high talent in Quidditch is purely deducted from the series. She apparently also has talents to be a good actress and comedian, based on the books. She has talents to communicate with pets. Pigwidgeon and Crookshanks listened to her, although she was not their owner. She has talents to be a leader, as one of "resistance" leaders at Hogwarts in DH, during the tenure of Severus Snape as Hogwarts Headmaster. She has a special talent to handle Harry Potter.

Several things can be ascertain:
- Ginny's character is not independently written from Harry Potter's character.
- Ginny's character has been built with a balance to Harry's character in mind.
- Ginny's character, good or bad, mirrors Harry's flawed character.

That certainly does not invalidate the terms you've outlined, but it is no wonder that we're bringing up very different ideas - we're supporting very different things regardless of our opinions. Since this thread isn't a strictly debating thread, I guess there's really no need to outline these kinds of parameters. Though, it does make it easier to understand where everyone has been coming from, at least for me.

Those are not "terms". Those points are my conclusions on how the author wrote Ginny's characterisation.
Someone pointed out that it's easy to make a comparison table of Harry and Ginny, for example: birth: the boy who lived, whose parents defied the dark lord thrice (Harry), the only Weasley girl in several generation (Ginny); academic: average (Harry), not extraordinary (Ginny); magical: patronus (Harry), bat bogey hex (Ginny); Quidditch: first first-year Seeker (Harry), good seeker and chaser (Ginny), both won the cups for their team; connection to dark lord: the forehead sign (Harry), possession (Ginny), etc. It is possible that the author used a similar table, as she often stated for other plots in the series. The close comparison indicates that Ginny's character development was planned in relation to Harry's characterisation. Ginny's traits were to balance Harry's. The suitability of these two characters has been embedded carefully throughout the series.

[Corpus_Agnelli]

That certainly does not invalidate the terms you've outlined, but it is no wonder that we're bringing up very different ideas - we're supporting very different things regardless of our opinions..

Those are not "terms". Those points are my conclusions on how the author wrote Ginny's characterisation.

Yes, and based on those conclusions, I am able to see how you defend Ginny's characterization. So in effect, they appear to be the terms (or perhaps conditions is the better word) on which your positive supporting arguements of Ginny are coming from.
If it isn't, then it isn't - that's how I see it, but it does help me understand where your discussion is coming from. That's all I was trying to say.

Under these conditions, my recent comments aren't all that useful in defense of or against Ginny's characterization, and I'd have to re-craft them to follow your particular discussion.

Because, it would certainly be interesting to discuss your three points in relation to how the author wrote Ginny's characterization. (At least, it would be interesting to read. I'm happy to let others do the brain work )

[Radcliffefreek]

Yes you are right that Lupin said that but you have to regard what Unknown Locket wants to tell you.
As far as I understood it (and I agree with her completley) she says that Ginny uses always just this one certain spell if she hexes at all and thus this became her trademark. But Lupin explains to us why Harry was recognized by the death eaters when they were fleeding. By using the spell expelliarmus he reminded them on this unusal reaction towards a man who just tried to kill him. All he obviously intended was to disarm him. And this move was what made expelliarmus to harry's trademark not the fact that he uses this nonstop or just casts this one spell.

ok.... I got what you are trying to say... I cannot remember much of duels of Ginny to say what spells or counter hexes she used against others...so, I can now agree with you.

However, as others mentioned, Ginny only did these at Zacharias Smith, not to each and everyone who was 'bullying' her friends. Unfortunately, the generalisation of Ginny's behaviour using words such as "everytime" or "everyone" has been repeated over and over as a negative smear campaign for Ginny's character.

You're right. We don't see Ginny exhibiting the same behaviour every time someone bullies her friends. We don't get to see that in the books. But the few times that we do see Ginny in the book responding to the bullies, (as noble as her intentions are) they have an antagonistic streak to them. I attribute that to her being young and brash, certainly not that she's bad, but her actions are not something I could defend.

Which is the whole point of showing how Ginny's characterization is inconsistent with what Rowling is telling us. Couldn't she have (re)written a few more moments where some of Ginny's rougher characterization is balanced with some equally positive ones rather than telling us she's this ideal person/witch/partner for Harry?

I don't think Ginny's bat-bogey hexing skills shows enough to definitely conclude that she is as accomplished a witch as stated by Rowling, but we really aren't shown much more of Ginny's skill. I'm more than happy accept a more positive conclusion that is supported from the text, but what little that is stated in the text doesn't really paint the same idyllic view that Rowling tells us.

As for Harry's trademark spell, I actually can find parallels between that and Ginny if you consider the Harry Was Nothing Special view.

True, I cannot see that how Ginny's character is made strong only by the use of Bat-Bogey Hex... But all the same, it doesnt make Ginny's character bad or evil (as others said this already) But I dont see why JK Rowling should have mentioned some sences which would balance Ginny's rough acts... because people still belived Ginny to be good at heart.

Apparently the discrepancies about Ginny's characterisation stem largely from the comparison of personal interpretation of the books and personal interpretation of author's comments outside the books, which are basically author's personal interpretation of the books, and also a bit of readers' personal expectation of the outcome of the books.
I don't think the author needs to defend her opinion, because majority of readers seems to agree with her in the polls. There will always be disagreements anyway. The author stated that she was content with her description of Ginny in the books and for her, it justifies why Harry found Ginny to be a worthy life companion. Of course, the books are not perfect and the author is not perfect. If both imperfections are combined (or multiplied in some cases, as in Ginny's), a seemingly bigger flaw than the real one would be observed.
As far as the author told us in the beginning, Harry was an average wizard boy who somehow was destined to defeat one of the most powerful wizards. Harry was indeed not "super" in ability, but he was special, because he was a chosen one to fulfill a prophecy. Jo even said that Voldemort (unwittingly) chose Harry to fulfill the prophecy, when he could have chosen Neville, instead.
Harry was a flawed character as well. He did not have a fabled good heart, but he had a good heart, as flawed as anyone "good" on the real earth.
To balance this, Jo Rowling created a female character with similar traits: not a "super" in ability, but special; not a saint, but a flawed character as well, in Ginny Weasley Potter.
Unbiased majority view would see Ginny as having a good heart, as flawed as anyone "good" on the real earth. As a witch, she had a notable power in magic, and thus can be called "powerful", without having to compare her level of power to anyone else.
What would make this girl an ideal partner for Harry Potter? Jo Rowling placed an argument in her books that it's because Ginny shared some positive achievements and negative blemishes comparable to Harry. The author has completed her series with most thing necessary written in it to support her argument. Of course, readers can disagree, because the readers have different personal views than the author. I'm sure the book editors would have their displeasure with the series as well.
Several things can be ascertain:
- Ginny's character is not independently written from Harry Potter's character.
- Ginny's character has been built with a balance to Harry's character in mind.
- Ginny's character, good or bad, mirrors Harry's flawed character.

I think Ginny's character should have been built independently from Harry's bacause it's like Harry's character is less flawed by raising Ginny's character a bit.... And that's the reason why I cant help but search for a reason as to why Harry chose Ginny as his life partner.. I mean its okay that she was good at heart and all but what made Harry to fall in for her?

(muggleview)
Hermione is undisputedly the most talented witch in her year. It shouldn't mean that all other witches in Hermione's year or beyond are not talented. There are highly talented and less talented students, although still below the Hermione's talent. Ginny is a talented witch. The author never stated that Ginny is "the most talented", but based on what Jo wrote, Ginny can be said to be a talented witch. The argument point is given, among others, from the perspective of her twin brothers, who undoubtedly can be said "very talented". If Ginny can amaze her "very talented" twin brothers, then she must have been "more talented" than average "talented". Still, Ginny is never to meant be the "culmination of the best witch of all time". Ginny is a special witch on her own right, not to compare with any other witches.
As a witch, Ginny has talents beyond just magic, namely also in Quidditch. In this game, she can even play successfully as a chaser and a seeker, something even the great Harry Potter never did. I won't go into the author's post-series remarks about her future career in the professional team, because that's outside the scope of the series. Ginny's high talent in Quidditch is purely deducted from the series. She apparently also has talents to be a good actress and comedian, based on the books. She has talents to communicate with pets. Pigwidgeon and Crookshanks listened to her, although she was not their owner. She has talents to be a leader, as one of "resistance" leaders at Hogwarts in DH, during the tenure of Severus Snape as Hogwarts Headmaster. She has a special talent to handle Harry Potter.

I agree, Ginny can be called "Talented". She was fantastic in HBP in the Quidditch matches, and I am sure noone can refuse it. But again, I dont see how she had "Special talent to handle Harry Potter"

[muggleview]

... it would certainly be interesting to discuss your three points in relation to how the author wrote Ginny's characterization. (At least, it would be interesting to read. I'm happy to let others do the brain work )

Ginny's characterisation is definitely something interesting to read. This thread is a proof :-)

I don't think Ginny's bat-bogey hexing skills shows enough to definitely conclude that she is as accomplished a witch as stated by Rowling, but we really aren't shown much more of Ginny's skill. I'm more than happy accept a more positive conclusion that is supported from the text, but what little that is stated in the text doesn't really paint the same idyllic view that Rowling tells us.

That hex is just one skill. In OotP, Ginny was also shown handy with spells, such as when Harry and Neville were covered with plant juice in the train, Ginny readily casted something to remove it from two seniors who didn't know what to do.
Jo only stated what she thought she wrote in the books. We are free to interpret how we want. The author's statement is still helpful to understand the underlying thoughts.

.... And that's the reason why I cant help but search for a reason as to why Harry chose Ginny as his life partner.. I mean its okay that she was good at heart and all but what made Harry to fall in for her?

You are asking one of the greatest mysteries in human psychology: why a certain person falls in love with another. I don't have a good answer for my own case. I only know that I fell and I'm happy that I fell...until today.
Presumably, Ginny attracted Harry's attention since book 1, when he couldn't get his eyes off her until the King's Cross station couldn't be seen anymore from the train departing for Hogwarts.

I agree, Ginny can be called "Talented". She was fantastic in HBP in the Quidditch matches, and I am sure noone can refuse it. But again, I dont see how she had "Special talent to handle Harry Potter"

In OotP and later, Ginny was presented as someone who could "coolly" calm Harry down or to get pretty much whatever she asked for from Harry. The other characters mostly backed down when Harry was angry. Other than that, Harry was completely under her charm. That's another sort of "handling". :-)

[Radcliffefreek]

In OotP and later, Ginny was presented as someone who could "coolly" calm Harry down or to get pretty much whatever she asked for from Harry. The other characters mostly backed down when Harry was angry. Other than that, Harry was completely under her charm. That's another sort of "handling". :-)

LOL that's funny!

But on the serious note, I still cannot see how she could clam Harry down..maybe I should read HBP again..

[Dumbledore's Widow]

In OotP and later, Ginny was presented as someone who could "coolly" calm Harry down or to get pretty much whatever she asked for from Harry. The other characters mostly backed down when Harry was angry. Other than that, Harry was completely under her charm. That's another sort of "handling". :-)

I disagree. I don't recall anywhere in OotP OR in books 6 -7 that Ginny "coolly" calmed Harry down. In OotP during the library scene, she did remind him of her woes in the CoS. She also said it in an chastising, eye brow lifting sort of way too. Like, "don't be such a cry baby, I was in your shoes before ... remember?"

Under her charm? I don't think so. She was under Harry's monster's charm, that's for sure. That thing kept rearing it's ugly head all of the time in HBP making Harry nuts. But, I understand where people would say that she got to Harry, after all, it was just Rowling's way of writing the little romance between them.

[muggleview]

...I still cannot see how she could clam Harry down..maybe I should read HBP again..

I disagree. I don't recall anywhere in OotP OR in books 6 -7 that Ginny "coolly" calmed Harry down. In OotP during the library scene, she did remind him of her woes in the CoS. She also said it in an chastising, eye brow lifting sort of way too. Like, "don't be such a cry baby, I was in your shoes before ... remember?"

I suggest you reread the books again. It's fun anyway.
Ginny reminded Harry of her woes in CoS in 12 Grimmauld Place, not in the library. It happened right after Hermione arrived and tricked Harry to get out of Buckbeak's room to face her, Ron and Ginny in the bedroom.
Ginny's statement that Dumbledore's Widow quoted could have been from a fanfic, because it's definitely not in the OotP.

Under her charm? I don't think so. She was under Harry's monster's charm, that's for sure. That thing kept rearing it's ugly head all of the time in HBP making Harry nuts. But, I understand where people would say that she got to Harry, after all, it was just Rowling's way of writing the little romance between them.

Ginny could be said to be "under Harry's charm" until GoF (book 4). However, the "monster charm" was never applied to Ginny. It was only in Harry's mind. And as most women seemingly know, "men is less romantic than women".
Anyway, romance is not abundant in Harry's mind. He put his tasks above romance.
In the beginning, Harry only needed to remember that Ginny had been very taken to him, to summarise his "romance" with her. Later, as Ginny emerged out of her childhood phase, Harry started to pay more attention to her physical and emotional appearances.

Discussing with my "better-looking" half, I realised that most of the time girls have been used to read romantic novels with women's viewpoint , even if the main character is a male. That's definitely different from reading books written by a man from man's point-of-view, like James Bond series and Star Wars series. George Lucas has been critised for not able to deliver good "romantic dialogues" in his movies, especially between Anakin and Padme. For me, what was presented in the Star Wars prequel was more than enough. I looked for more actions, not affections. My girl wanted more showing of romance to justify Anakin's fear and pain of losing her. I was astonished to notice the parallel between this and Ginny's vivid description (or lack thereof, according to some readers) in Harry's mind. Jo Rowling has taken a drastic step to forgo the usual female authors' style to put "female viewpoint in male protagonist", but tried her best to think the way a teenage boy would think. I admire her careful and almost realistic incarnation inside Harry Potter's mind, despite never been a teenage boy herself. (Well, she was a middle school teacher, so that definitely helped).

[Dumbledore's Widow]

Ginny's statement that Dumbledore's Widow quoted could have been from a fanfic, because it's definitely not in the OotP.

No. It's from the HP books. I haven't read HP fan fics in a couple of years. Lost interest. (I much prefer to read fan fics re: Mulder/Scully from The X-Files.)

Back to that scene ... and I don't have the books with me to double check this ... but, as I recall it's the scene where Ginny and Harry are alone, I believe in the library, she is giving him some chocolate covered egg, and he goes into some "oh pitiful me" about no one knowing what he's been through (with Voldemort) and Ginny reminds him that she most certainly does know what he's going through, since she had been essentially possessed by him in CoS.

I'll have to go down to the basement and find the box I packed the HP books in last Fall to pull out the 5th book. It won't be so bad re-reading OotP, as it was my favorite book.

Just don't ever suggest that I re-read HBP!

[UnknownLocket]

In OotP and later, Ginny was presented as someone who could "coolly" calm Harry down or to get pretty much whatever she asked for from Harry. The other characters mostly backed down when Harry was angry. Other than that, Harry was completely under her charm. That's another sort of "handling". :-)

Oh no, I'm also going to have to disagree with this statement. Ginny has not been presented as someone who can calm Harry down and Harry definately is not under her 'charm'. In OotP, it is true that the other characters have backed down when Harry was angry, but in HBP and DH, we see Hermione boldly stepping forward more often and Harry instead backing down and with holding his temper, all in a effort not to hurt her feelings. How considerate of him, don't you think? Since usually he's used to always having his two knuts heard.

[Radcliffefreek]

In OotP and later, Ginny was presented as someone who could "coolly" calm Harry down or to get pretty much whatever she asked for from Harry. The other characters mostly backed down when Harry was angry. Other than that, Harry was completely under her charm. That's another sort of "handling". :-)

I disagree. I don't recall anywhere in OotP OR in books 6 -7 that Ginny "coolly" calmed Harry down. In OotP during the library scene, she did remind him of her woes in the CoS. She also said it in an chastising, eye brow lifting sort of way too. Like, "don't be such a cry baby, I was in your shoes before ... remember?"

Under her charm? I don't think so. She was under Harry's monster's charm, that's for sure. That thing kept rearing it's ugly head all of the time in HBP making Harry nuts. But, I understand where people would say that she got to Harry, after all, it was just Rowling's way of writing the little romance between them.

same thing I meant earlier....

...I still cannot see how she could clam Harry down..maybe I should read HBP again..

I disagree. I don't recall anywhere in OotP OR in books 6 -7 that Ginny "coolly" calmed Harry down. In OotP during the library scene, she did remind him of her woes in the CoS. She also said it in an chastising, eye brow lifting sort of way too. Like, "don't be such a cry baby, I was in your shoes before ... remember?"

I suggest you reread the books again. It's fun anyway.
Ginny reminded Harry of her woes in CoS in 12 Grimmauld Place, not in the library. It happened right after Hermione arrived and tricked Harry to get out of Buckbeak's room to face her, Ron and Ginny in the bedroom.
Ginny's statement that Dumbledore's Widow quoted could have been from a fanfic, because it's definitely not in the OotP.

Under her charm? I don't think so. She was under Harry's monster's charm, that's for sure. That thing kept rearing it's ugly head all of the time in HBP making Harry nuts. But, I understand where people would say that she got to Harry, after all, it was just Rowling's way of writing the little romance between them.

Ginny could be said to be "under Harry's charm" until GoF (book 4). However, the "monster charm" was never applied to Ginny. It was only in Harry's mind. And as most women seemingly know, "men is less romantic than women".
Anyway, romance is not abundant in Harry's mind. He put his tasks above romance.
In the beginning, Harry only needed to remember that Ginny had been very taken to him, to summarise his "romance" with her. Later, as Ginny emerged out of her childhood phase, Harry started to pay more attention to her physical and emotional appearances.

Discussing with my "better-looking" half, I realised that most of the time girls have been used to read romantic novels with women's viewpoint , even if the main character is a male. That's definitely different from reading books written by a man from man's point-of-view, like James Bond series and Star Wars series. George Lucas has been critised for not able to deliver good "romantic dialogues" in his movies, especially between Anakin and Padme. For me, what was presented in the Star Wars prequel was more than enough. I looked for more actions, not affections. My girl wanted more showing of romance to justify Anakin's fear and pain of losing her. I was astonished to notice the parallel between this and Ginny's vivid description (or lack thereof, according to some readers) in Harry's mind. Jo Rowling has taken a drastic step to forgo the usual female authors' style to put "female viewpoint in male protagonist", but tried her best to think the way a teenage boy would think. I admire her careful and almost realistic incarnation inside Harry Potter's mind, despite never been a teenage boy herself. (Well, she was a middle school teacher, so that definitely helped).

wow! this whole discussion is endding into romance thing... I agree with you on JK's teenage boy point of view..

[muggleview]

Harry watched the girl and her mother disappear as the train rounded the
corner.

This is from the first book, as y'all fondly remember. That seemingly became the pattern of Ginny's characterisation in the series. She was developed behind the scene, until it's time for Harry to seriously notice her as a candidate for life partner.
There were some girls around Harry's life, but the description of personal physical and emotional attributes is devoted more on Ginny than the others. That enabled people to judge whether Ginny is good or bad, likeable or not. In reality, she is all that. As a flawed character, Ginny is not a saint, but also not of the devil. Jo stressed that the choices in one's life will determine the quality of that person. Whereas Voldemort chose the "wrong" path and Harry chose the "right" path in general, Ginny was brought to face the choice, and finally chose the "right" path (in CoS). Thus, Ginny also was one of those in the major theme of the series who had to choose her way of life, just like Dumbledore, Grindewald, Peter Pettigrew, Severus Snape, and Ron Weasley.

[Dumbledore's Widow]

Harry watched the girl and her mother disappear as the train rounded the
corner.

This is from the first book, as y'all fondly remember. That seemingly became the pattern of Ginny's characterisation in the series. She was developed behind the scene, until it's time for Harry to seriously notice her as a candidate for life partner.
There were some girls around Harry's life, but the description of personal physical and emotional attributes is devoted more on Ginny than the others. That enabled people to judge whether Ginny is good or bad, likeable or not. In reality, she is all that. As a flawed character, Ginny is not a saint, but also not of the devil. Jo stressed that the choices in one's life will determine the quality of that person. Whereas Voldemort chose the "wrong" path and Harry chose the "right" path in general, Ginny was brought to face the choice, and finally chose the "right" path (in CoS). Thus, Ginny also was one of those in the major theme of the series who had to choose her way of life, just like Dumbledore, Grindewald, Peter Pettigrew, Severus Snape, and Ron Weasley.

Harry watch the girl and her mother ...

Sorry, I just don't see it the way you describe it. All I saw was a little girl, nothing more. Certainly nothing foreshadowing. Nothing like that at all. Just a little girl.

There were some girls around Harry's life, but the description of personal physical and emotional attributes is devoted more on Ginny than the others.
Ginny was a secondary character, just like the other girls around Harry's life ... I'm assuming you mean girls like - Cho, Luna and the Pavarti twins. Ginny came to the forefront in HBP and this is where we find out that Ginny is the one that is going to get together with Harry. But, it wasn't there before HBP.

Ginny also was one of those in the major theme of the series who had to choose her way of life.
I just don't give Ginny the importance that you are giving her. She's no different than any of the other secondary characters. However, I do see Hermione ~ because she is a main character, and an integral part of the Trio ~ as having chosen her path in life. This became more obvious from the choices she made in DH.