Just to recap, this thread is to discuss Ginny's characterisation. That is, how she was written by JKR. Is she likeable as a character? Is she a strong female character. Basically anything about her character that you wish to discuss. I must however stipulate the rules for this discussion.

As oftens happens with threads where opposing opinions are to be discussed, you will come across someone who's opinion of Ginny is completely at odds with your own. Please remember that we are all entitled to our own ideas and beliefs about these characters and not everyone can agree all the time. So for this reason I am going to remind you of the following rule in particular.



Above all else, have fun with it!

I think she is. It could be that I'm a little biased, because Ginny reminds me a lot of my favorite character in English literature overall: Elizabeth Bennet.

Ginny is really gutsy, and she gives Harry unquestionable support and loyalty from the moment she learns that Voldemort returned (or so we can surmise). She seems to have an unexpected understanding of Harry, and therefore she is able to bring hope to him in a way that Ron and Hermione can't (like when she helps Harry after he learns he might have been possessed by Voldemort, or the chocolate egg scene in the library).

Ginny has a sense of family duty, and a strong belief in loyalty to your friends. She is furious when Percy abandons the family, but in HBP, when Percy briefly turns up at Christmas, she gets up for a better look, indicating that she wants him to return because then the family will be stable and whole again. She supports her friends and defends them, as seen when she doesn't allow Neville to call himself a nobody, when she snaps at Kreacher not to call Hermione a Mudblood, and when she tells Ron not to call Luna "Loony Lovegood."

When she finds out that Sirius is in danger, she persuades Harry to let her help even though she knows perfectly well that she could get killed.


She is witty, and she has quite a sense of humor, which she probably got a lot of from Fred and George. And notice that throughout the books, Harry's humor is pretty sarcastic, but when he's around Ginny his humor turns more playful. Harry and Ginny banter, and I've always enjoyed banter.

With all this in mind, I am sure that Rowling intended Ginny to be a positive character, and I see her that way. She's actually one of my favorite characters in HP.

To sum up, Ginny is witty but supportive, independent but understanding, and gutsy but sensible.

Bolding mine.
I would have to disagree with your statemenet of Ginny being able to understand Harry. In my opinion, she doesn't know him at all, only in the one sense where it involves being possessed. But besides that, she clearly only has an obsession over Harry and can't bring him any more hope than Ron and Hermione can. The only person besides Ron or Hermione who can understand Harry on any level is Luna. Ginny, on the other hand, is completely oblivious towards what's going on in Harry's life and when Harry doesn't confide in her about things, how can she ever understand.


Once again, bolding mine.
All that that proves, regarding the Luna situation, is that Ginny is two-faced. She herself called Luna "loony" and to reprimand someone else for using the same term she had used just a moment ago is being hypocritical.


I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to make here.


Ginny, to me, isn't very funny. She has a cruel sense of humor. Fred and George are playful and most of the things they say are funny and not mean-spirited. They are pranksters afterall but Ginny, on the other hand, is just a bully. She makes fun of people with the intention of trying to hurt their feelings and mainly does it behind their backs too. For example, Fleur Delacour, also known as Phlem as Ginny likes to call her.

Harry does have a sarcastic sense of humor and when he is around Ginny, it turns even more sour. I really begin to dislike his character when he is with her because he adopts the same attitude that she has and laughs at other people's troubles.


I'm sure that Rowling intended for Ginny's character to be a positive one too, but I believe that she has written Ginny very hastily that it comes off the wrong way. Not only can her sense of humor be misinterpreted but her character has experienced a very drastic, and might I add, superficial change. She is suddenly hotter and gutsier and is said to be more powerful than she actually appears in the books. She is super! Ginny as we like to call her and only after all those changes is she finally able to grab the man who has been the center of her fan girl obsession for years. That to me, sends off a negative impression to girls that they have to change themselves in order to gain a crush's attention. Why couldn't Ginny just break out of the shell that was holding back her personality and yet still remain conservative and not appear so "loose"? All of a sudden boys were turning heads to catch a second glance at her which makes me wonder what exactly Rowling had in mind of portraying there.


In my opinion, Ginny is two-faced, hypocritical, annoying, mean-spirited, superficial, and a bully.

I do believe Ginny is a sort of determinded character, and i don't really have much of a problem with her. Over the year's, i'm amazedat how much she's developed really. From the exctied (And at some poitns, annoying) 10-year-old we see in PS, to the constantly fighting 16-year-old in DH.

I dono't see her as a bad character, more of a ... controversial character. I don't see Ginny in a Mary-Sue-ish type way, but everyone's intiteled to their opinions.



I reakon this is showing Ginny's determination to fight for what's right. Like, she knew she could get killed, like what E.Austen said but went along and fought anyway, because that was the right thing to do.



I believe Ginny really does understand Harry a bit more than what we can see, which when you think baout it, the series isn't evolving around her-we could've seen a lot about Ginny that took place behind the scenes.

When harry breaks up with her at Dumbledore's funeral, he notes that she wouldn't stop him because she'd expect nothing less. This is think shows great understanding, really, and bravery on her behalf to get into the relationship she's wanted for ages, knowing that it it may well have to end some day soon. Because Harry realized that she would've expected nothing less of him.

Did that make sense? Sorry if it didn't.

Overall really, i think Ginny's a good character. She fights to the finish, and refuses to just stay in the RoR during the final battle. That takes courage to fight, and loyaty to her family, to not be able to just sit at home while everyone else is off fighting.

Wait-i've thought of something else! I Dh, we see Ginny consoling a little girl. This i reakon, shows that Ginny can be a softie, and isn't all heartless.

Ginny. Well, I could go on forever about her. Where do I start? In the first few books I actually liked Ginny. She was cute, wasn't really paid attention to and she just did her own thing. By the time the fifth book came around, I was getting bored with her. She was suddenly this really big character who was suddenly bold and, as you said, UnknownLocket, a bully in a way.

QUOTE

Ginny, to me, isn't very funny. She has a cruel sense of humor. Fred and George are playful and most of the things they say are funny and not mean-spirited. They are pranksters afterall but Ginny, on the other hand, is just a bully. She makes fun of people with the intention of trying to hurt their feelings and mainly does it behind their backs too. For example, Fleur Delacour, also known as Phlem as Ginny likes to call her.

Harry does have a sarcastic sense of humor and when he is around Ginny, it turns even more sour. I really begin to dislike his character when he is with her because he adopts the same attitude that she has and laughs at other people's troubles.

I love Fred and George. Besides Luna, they are my favorite characters. They are always funny and they are never really mean. I was annoyed about the way she treated Fleur. I think it was really rude. Her being mean to Fleur wasn't about to stop Bill from marrying her. Duh! She really got under my skin with that whole situation. Same thing with the Harry/Ginny situation. He seemed to follow her lead.

In the fifth book, when she takes a seat with Harry and Neville she called Luna "Loony". That really bugged me, cause then later on she contradicted Ron for calling her "Loony". It made no sense to me.

QUOTE

I'm sure that Rowling intended for Ginny's character to be a positive one too, but I believe that she has written Ginny very hastily that it comes off the wrong way. Not only can her sense of humor be misinterpreted but her character has experienced a very drastic, and might I add, superficial change. She is suddenly hotter and gutsier and is said to be more powerful than she actually appears in the books. She is super! Ginny as we like to call her and only after all those changes is she finally able to grab the man who has been the center of her fan girl obsession for years. That to me, sends off a negative impression to girls that they have to change themselves in order to gain a crush's attention. Why couldn't Ginny just break out of the shell that was holding back her personality and yet still remain conservative and not appear so "loose"? All of a sudden boys were turning heads to catch a second glance at her which makes me wonder what exactly Rowling had in mind of portraying there.

I am totally with you there. I'm so glad someone else feels the same way about Ginny.

Of course she understands Harry. In Order of the Phoenix, when she, Ron, Hermione, Fred, and George tell Harry what the papers have been saying about him, Ginny is the one who stops him and calms him down when he starts off in a tirade: "We know, Harry."

Later, it is Ginny who brings hope to Harry when he thinks he's being possessed by Voldemort. By telling him her experience, Harry feels a lot better, and notice that Ginny is the one throughout that scene who seems to be the most determined to get Harry to open up and stop being so stupid.

Then, when Harry is feeling down about what he saw in Snape's memories about his parents, who does he confide in? He confides in Ginny, where he couldn't confide in Ron and Hermione, and once again, it is Ginny who makes him feel better. And why couldn't he confide in Ron and Hermione? Well, you saw Hermione's reaction when she found out that Harry needed to talk to Sirius. She snapped at him for being ridiculous, pointed out that it was impossible, and then tried to talk him out of it. (hardly makes Harry feel any better, does it?) Harry knew that this would be how Hermione would react. Ginny, on the other hand, jumps to the task and enlists the help of Fred and George, and they pull it off.

And she does defend her friends. Ginny only called Luna "Loony" once. It was in the fifth book, and you could say that Ginny grew up by the time we got to the sixth book, because we see signs of Ginny defending Luna from teasing and ridicule several times in HBP. People grow, people change.

She isn't two-faced. She isn't hypocritical. She grew up.

She was rude to Fleur because, no matter how you look at it, Fleur's treatment of Ginny wasn't exactly ideal. "It's the way she talks to me, you'd think I was about three." And judging by Fleur's behavior, and Hermione's taking Ginny's side: "I know, [Fleur]'s so full of herself," Ginny wasn't exaggerating. Fleur is full of herself, and from what we see in HBP, she doesn't treat Ginny like an equal. Ginny is really independant, so of course she resented this. I would. I'm not saying that Ginny's making fun of Fleur is right, but it is perfectly explainable and somewhat justifiable.

...

If you read between the lines, you can see roots in Harry's and Ginny's relationship clear back into Book 1. You heard me, clear back into Sorcerer's Stone. I thought it worked remarkably well.

I may regret asking, but I just am quite curious to know why you would say such a thing!

They were only babies, with Harry being 11 years old and Ginny 10. It s clear that Ginny had a mega crush on Harry, but Harry felt zilche for her. That is until book 6 when he's a bonafide, testosterone ridden, full fledged horny teenager.

I didn't say they were in love. I'm saying there were roots. Everything must have a background, and this is story. Some of you are talking about these fictional characters like they're real people. They're not. There is such a thing as foreshadowing, you know. Take a literature class.

And read some JKR interviews if you want to know what I'm talking about. Some of what I'm talking about is mentioned in the TLC/Mugglenet interview.

Thanks for answering. Didn't mean to upset you.

I plan to talk to a friend who is majoring in English Literature about
forshadowing. But, personally I just can't fathom any such thing happening in the first Harry Potter novel, when the characters are mere children.

Ginny is being discussed again!

I also don’t find Ginny witty. I haven’t found where she demonstrates a "quick and inventive verbal humour" (oxford dictionary). I agree that Ginny’s sense of humour (for lack of a better term) is mean-spirited and immature. Ginny appears to exacerbate Harry’s less likeable traits.
What was intended by the author and what was actually written appear to be at odds. It’s baffling that JKR can write secondary characters well, such as Luna, while her characterization of Ginny is written so appallingly poorly. Perhaps the intention was to merely have Ginny be Harry’s prize at the end of his quest, his trophy-wife.


That's fine if that's your opinion. By your own admission it is not based on canon nor is it present in the texts, which is why I don't share it.
There isn't any of course about it. Ginny doesn't show any understanding of Harry beyond what is displayed by anyone else in that scene. Case in point, Hermione stated that she understands Harry and explains what the Fudge and the Ministry is attempting to do, prior to Ginny saying that "we", as in all of them, know.
" 'I don’t want anyone to worship-' Harry began hotly.
'I know you don't,' said Hermione quickly, looking frightened. 'I know, Harry…'
'I didn't ask – I didn't want – Voldemort killed my parents!' Harry spluttered. 'I got famous because Voldemort murdered my family but couldn't kill me! Who wants to be famous for that? Don't they think I'd rather it'd never –“
'We know, Harry, Ginny said earnestly." (OotP chapter 4 p. 71 Raincoast)

In comparison, Luna shares an understanding with Harry that no one else does. Luna shares an understanding about hearing voices beyond the veil and is the only one able to offer Harry comfort about Sirius. 'In that room with the archway. They were lurking out of sight, that’s all. You heard them'…as he watched her go he found that the terrible weight in his stomach seemed to have lessened slightly." (OotP chapter 38 p. 761)
In DH, at the wedding, Luna knows Harry even when he's Polyjuiced into someone else. In DH, Luna when speaking at the burial of Dobby is able to articulate what Harry meant but was unable to say. Sorry I can't provide direct quotes I have no idea where my copy of DH is.
It was not until Hermione arrived one and a half days later that Harry "opened up" both literally and figuratively. Until that point Harry had been avoiding everyone. 'I know you’re in there,' said Hermione’s voice. 'Will you please come out I want to talk to you' " (OotP chapter 23 p. 440)
'Oh, don’t lie, Harry,' she [Hermione] said impatiently. 'Ron and Ginny say you've been hiding from everyone since you got back from St. Mungo's' (OotP chapter 23 p.441) Also, since CoS, Harry hasn’t been interested enough to discuss Voldemort’s possession of Ginny with her; he was so disinterested that he had forgotten she had been possessed. 'I forgot,' he [Harry] said.(OotP chapter 23 p.442)

Ginny wasn’t that young when she dismissively introduces the character Luna Lovegood to Harry, Neville, and the reader as "… there’s only Loony Lovegood in here" (OotP chapter 10 p. 168). She defends Luna twice not "several times", once from her brother and once as reported by Luna.
Ginny is willing to exclude her "friends" when it suits her purposes. When the Thestrals start showing up, Ginny tries to inflict herself on Harry, Hermione and Ron, because she wants to go to the MoM with them, while pointedly excluding both Neville and Luna. In comparison, Luna includes everyone.
" 'Well, we need three,' said Hermione, who was still looking a little shaken, but determined just the same.
'Four, Hermione,' said Ginny, scowling.
'I think there are six of us, actually,' said Luna calmly, counting." (OotP chapter 33 p. 672)
If the scene that is being referred to is Platform 9 3/4 and the train leaving for Hogwart’s, the following quote

"Harry watched the girl [Ginny] and her mother disappear as the train rounded the corner. Houses flashed past the window. Harry felt a great leap of excitement. He didn’t know what he was going to – but it had to better than what he was leaving behind." (PS chapter 6 p. 74

rather than forshadowing Harry/Ginny, for me it reads that Ginny is part of what Harry is leaving behind, and is quite excited about leaving. Dumbledore's Widow has a great quote from Phillip Pullman, author of His Dark Materials trilogy "The democracy of reading means that as soon as a book is published you lose control of how it's interpreted anyhow, and so you should. To tell someone else how to read your book is to fall into the temptation of fundamentalism." Also literary critic Northrup Frye states that authors have no more authority in interpreting their characters than anyone else. So I doubt I will be reading JKR interviews anytime soon

Harry never did confide in Ginny. He just told her that he really wanted to speak to Sirius and I'm pretty sure that if it were Ron and Hermione who he had ran into in the library, he would have told them just the same or probably have given more information as to why he was depressed. It is not as if Harry purposely went out looking for Ginny. She just showed up and with some chocolate from Mrs. Weasly. Ginny had tried to talk to Harry and understand what he was feeling, but Harry was very relunctant to tell her anything. Ginny had thought that Harry was upset over something involving Cho. So, Harry had corrected her and instead told her what he wanted, rather than revealing what was really bothering him. Once again, Ginny is oblivious. There is a difference between wanting to understand someone and actually understanding them. Ginny wants to understand Harry, but she doesn't.


I find foreshadowing to be very vague sometimes. All people do when something incredible in the series happens is take some innocent scene in past and claim that it forshadowed the large event that just occured. For example, if Harry were to marry Parvarti Patil in the end, people would have claimed that the yule ball forshadowed their marriage and romance when clearly, at that time, Harry just went with her as a last resort and he didn't even talk or dance with her the entire time.

The only things that we can actually really say that forshadowed H/G would be the amortentia potion when Harry smelt Ginny's scent and Harry's pangs of jealousy (the chest monster) which all happened in the sixth book just before they hooked up.

okay now I have to say that my advanced courses in my A Level (abitur whatever) are both english and german literature so I really know what foreshadowing is...therefore I have to dismiss the thought that prior to the sixth book there was even the slightest hint of the H/G relation ship and insisting on anything else must be that what you really would like to read... I am afraid that happens occassionally to readers
yet I cannot deny that Rowling wanted us to think that Ginny is a loveable character...but again not really prior to the sixth book...

out of thin air Ginny is described as someone who looks awfully good and that everyone wants to be with...
remember the fourth book....the yule ball...not being old enough to go and noone asking her out except for neville...and she didnt even seem to be satisfied with that as Harry said she looked miserable when she says that (she didnt deserve such a good guy like neville )
what the heck does she think she is?

anyway...Harry is even occassionally annoyed by her...he wants to get rid of her in the fifth book, he never ever confides her into his secret plans or her emotions...she is hardly even around him to really know and understand him...I mean how often was this girl with the trio? and how the hell is she supposed to be such a trustworthy person to him?
this process is never even implicitly explained....

and talking of implicit and explicit...the author tells us explicit things that dont fit with the implicit ones...her behaviour and her description are paradoxe

to the fleur thing...
of course Hermione agreed with her...she was jealous because of ron...that was foreshadowed in the fourth book already and we can be sure she isnt that silly not to see that Ron is trying to draw her attention on him...
and Ginny was just being immature and totally annoying... I dont like Fleur that much either, I mean she is okay, but when Ginny behaved like that I really started to like her...(imagine!)..because nothing justifies that awfulness

I'm not saying I believe in something that isn't there. I'm just saying that there might have been more to Ginny, JKR couldn't fit into the books.

That seems a bit vague ... er, sorry if it was.



Here, i see that no one actually knew what was bothering Harry. No one saw what Harry saw and no one knew how much that was bothering him. So really, Ginny was no more informed than Ron or Hermione. If there's a quote in the book that states otherwise, then i'm dredfully sorry.

Harry had been holding the need to talk to Sirius inside him for ages. He didn't tell anyone, even Ron or Hermione. But he told Ginny. Sure she might have just turned up, and sure he wasn't looking for her or anything, but he still told her, when he didn't tell anyone else.

Ginny may be oblivious to the reason Harry wanted to talk to Sirius, but she understood the importance of him wanting to, even though it'd be dangerous with Umbridge around. (Unlike other's, EG. Hermione's constant "Don't do it!" even though it was important to Harry to talk to Sirius).

Well, that's the way i see it. Anyone else is free to see it otherwise.

Moon(I luv you Luna), thank you so much for clarifying what I was trying to say!




Ginny really does understand Harry in a way that Ron and Hermione don't, and she helps him where Ron and Hermione can't.

You nailed it. Thank you so much!

duh but when Harry has this fake dream about Sirius who is the one who actually has as the only one the real knowledge that he is being fooled...its hermione...its not ginny...and why? because she knows him best beside Ron...
not just in that case but in many cases Hermione or Ron are those who actually are analyzing Harry best and saving the situation (most of the time)
IF Harry has any soulmate in the entire series its definetly one of them (or Luna who has a very unique understanding of him and seems to share some experiences with him -> being bullied, looked at...etc..)
but guess who it cant be...Ginny...this is just too far-fetched

you know what if Fred and George would have turned up they would have realised his urge as well...or if Neville turned up...or if Ron turned up...what Ginny did is not even a big deal... I mean even a blind and deaf person would have known that as it was so obvious...and harry himself stated that he wanted to talk to him...duh...how very surpirsing that Ginny got that one...is she dump or something why shouldnt she geit it..everyone would!

I agree with everything that Gwenog had just said. Ginny just happened to be in the right place at the right time, and just because Harry told her what was botherting him and Ginny understood the importance that he really need to talk to Sirius, does not jusitfy your claim that she understands him any better than Ron, Hermione, or even Luna. Anyone could have seen that.

If Ginny really did understand him, then don't you think that Harry would have confided with her more often instead of constantly pushing her to side. The only people he ever tells anything to is Ron and Hermione even though he knows how they would react; Hermione trying to put everything into a logical sense and Ron, understanding, yet not of much help.

Ginny is a nuisance. She is the fourth wheel on a wagon that only needs three.

I say, good show! Good show, UnknownLocket!
I couldn't agree with you more on the subject!

Like I said in my earlier post, Ginny was fine, until the fifth book. Then she just took a turn for the worst. I wish she hadn't.

I'm not saying Ginny understands Harry better than Ron or Hermione (Or anyone else for that matter). I'm just saying she does understand him, as it may seem that she doesn't. This scene is an example of it, really.

Overall really, i just see Ginny as a character who is forceful and determined. I don't see that as bad.

Though i must agree on the forth wheel. I hate it when people try and include her into the trio, when it's the trio we've come to know and love.

I thought Ginny was quite a humerous character in CoS in the way that she was embarrassed to be around Harry, but then ended up being rescued by him in the end. Then in OotP she came out of her shell a bit, and was able to have a normal conversation with Harry, which was quite nice, but when they got together in HBP that just ruined it in my opinion. I've never liked Ginny as a character - I never disliked her, but she's nowhere near one of my favourites.

And I agree wholeheartedly about the fourth wheel thing - Harry, Ron and Hermione get called the trio for a reason; because there is THREE of them. Not four, so why is there the need to plonk Ginny there randomly when desired? And she doesn't even seem to have any friends in her own year - not counting Luna - though she is described as too popular for her own good. Yes,that's with the lads, but you'd think she'd have some lass mates as well, wouldn't you?

I just don't think she's likeable enough during HBP and after that - I think she's too confident about herself, which doesn't go with the character we got to know in the first 3/4 books.

Ginny Weasley is an underdeveloped but overbaked character that invokes varied feelings form the fans largely due to fanon. Of all the main characters Ginny comes across as the most unidimensional character, while some may term it simple, I call it shallow. Canon can never entirely escape the influence of fanon and I suppose that's what leads to such extreme reactions on Ginny. In many fanfictions, Ginny is portrayed as Harry's true soulmate, whose bat of an eyelid sends Harry into convulsions. The fact is that their interaction in canon is at best superfluous. Her character neither displays much outstanding talent nor high degree of maturity that her fans claim her to possess. Being a Quidditch buff and being possessed by Snake face doesn't qualify you to be Harry's lifepartner, only in JKRs twisted sense of emotions and her embryonic understanding of human emotions do such implications arise.

Harry could have married Percy Weasley and I am sure it would have come out the same way.

Interesting idea mayfair.
When I started posting in this thread, I truly did want to understand why individuals liked the characterization of Ginny so much, when it was at such odds with my reactions to how she was characterized. With other characters, whether I liked or disliked them, at least I understood the opposing viewpoint and what in canon supported it.

I feel that Ginny is a secondary character not a main character, and a very poorly written one at that compared to other secondary characters in the series. I agree that she is an underdeveloped character, and "she neither displays much outstanding talent nor high degree of maturity that her fans claim her to possess". I am just not ready to place the blame largely on fanon and fanfics; I believe the author and a lack of canon should also take some criticism.

There are few examples of Ginny’s characterization in the text. Based on reactions to posts I have made in this thread, when canon is used to support a quality of Ginny’s that upsets Ginny-philes, it is dismissed as only happening once, or claiming that it occurs off page, and we just don’t see it, etc. What I don’t often get is canon to refute my statements. This is a problem with the manner in which this character is written: if Ginny is an important secondary character she should have been included more frequently and written better. The reader should see Ginny interacting more with the other characters, not merely hearing about it.

It has been reported (I don't have first hand knowledge because I don’t read interviews by authors who want to tell me how and what I should read in her/his books) that JKR said in an interview Ginny is powerful, talented, tough but not unpleasant. Unfortunately, while the author may have said this she did not write it. Therefore, readers who hang on her every word and believe what she said, thought it must be true despite nothing written in canon to support it.

Because there is so little written about Ginny in the text, especially things written that are shown and not just told, fanon is able to creep in: the reader is more easily able to project her/his fantasies, wishes, characterizations upon this underdeveloped blank of a character. If the reader chooses, s/he can ignore the little that does exist in canon that refutes the readers’ personalized version of Ginny. It’s even a bit seductive to create Your-Very-Own-Ginny, perhaps in your own image.

I think while fanon exacerbates the extreme reactions to Ginny, the cause is primarily due to poor writing, and an author whose stated intentions for a character were not realized in the written texts.

vega of the lyre, you bring up an interesting point, but I must tell you about the nature of writing. Ginny Weasley is entirely J.K. Rowling's creation, and even if she didn't always appear for what Rowling said she was, because she is J.K. Rowling's creation, she is what J.K. Rowling says she is, whether the text in the book says so, or whether because Rowling says so.

If you want evidence for Ginny's character, there are many who would be willing to provide it. I have seen many people bring evidence in favor of Ginny's character. I have myself, and I still believe strongly that she is a good character. I have also seen people try to bring in evidence against Ginny's character. You say that those providing evidence in favor of Ginny were unable to give sufficient evidence. Those providing evidence against Ginny were also unable to give sufficient evidence. In the analyses I have seen against Ginny's character, they actually provided even worse evidence. Each time they twisted things, they left things out, and they made things up. On the other hand, those who provided an analyses for Ginny's character gave references, stating the exact volume and page number, and each time, those such references and inferences were directly from the books.

Listen to me, I sound like a lawyer. In order to be fair, we have to give Rowling the benefit of the doubt, and grant her the ability to make Ginny who she is. If Rowling says that Ginny is powerful, intelligent, and talented, then she is. Everything Rowling has ever said about Ginny, I have found to be consistent with the books and perfectly believable.

You say she is underdeveloped, but I could see Ginny's character, as Rowling described her in interviews, long before Rowling described her. So did all of my friends who have read Harry Potter. And so did my mother, who majored in comparative literature and knows a lot more about literature than most people posting on this web site will.

Ever since I started reading Harry Potter, I have read it deductively, making no real conclusions until the later books, because it was not my vision, it was Rowling's vision, and Rowling's vision may have differed greatly from mine. I was right. And it was because I thought this way that I was not surprised by Harry's relationship with Ginny, and I thought it perfectly consistent and plausible.

If you don't agree with me on this one, then I am sorry. But nothing that anyone ever has said has changed my mind about Ginny, and I still support her as a developed and likable character.

That is all I have to say.

I am not sure that "JKR wote the books and we must accept what she says as sacrosanct" type assertions to be very correct or healthy from the point of view of a debate. JKR may have written the characters but they have to be accepted by fans to make them work. That the fans love her characters but are not entirely enamoured with the way she presented them is evident from the sheer volume of fanfiction out there. JKR may have suggested Ginny to possess all the virtues that she waxes eloquent about, but I find ti quite surprising that she never invokes it in the books. I mean if you want the readers to accept a character in a particular way then you write them like that.

The way Ginny has been written gives an impression that JKR wanted fans to have an open mind on her and form their own opinions because much of her is left to conjecture. Apparently the gaps are filled up by fans as and how their varying degrees of imagination allows them. It's difficult to say who's right about this, because that's entirely the problem one has while connecting the dots to build a figure. In the absence of sufficient dots, you can connect them to find yourself staring at a dog or a cat, it's what you have in mind and what you wished to see that you end up putting on the canvas. Ditto for Ginny. People see her in different ways none of which seem to score over the other.

Must you?
The characterization of Ginny is based on how it's written in the books. Alternative interpretations, if they are supported by the text, are valid. With respect to "because Rowling says so", as I responded to your previous statement about interviews...


I obviously didn’t explain very well. The point of this thread is not whether Ginny is a "good" or "bad" character, it’s how Ginny is characterized based on canon. mayfair posted that the extreme and varied reactions to Ginny, as evidenced by this thread, are due largely to fanon. I replied that while fanon exacerbates the varied reactions the cause of the extreme and varied reactions is poor writing. I think that JKR is capable of writing secondary characters, such as Luna, well. I don’t think that Ginny’s characterization was written well, as there doesn’t seem to be consensus about what her characteristics even are. My point was not that I was wanting "evidence for Ginny’s character", it was there is often only 1 instance of a characteristic and only 1 instance may not be persuasive enough to support its existence to everyone’s satisfaction. If other instances had been written it would support and strengthen the existence of a characteristic.
Well, that’s your opinion. Interestingly, you yourself do not provide references, "stating the exact volume and page number" in your posts Feb 4 2008, 04:21 PM Feb 5 2008, 12:11 PM or Feb 5 2008, 06:11 PM, while I did provide quotes, chapter and page number when I refuted your statements in my post Feb 5 2008, 07:55 PM. I’m not sure if my responses to your statements were the worst evidence, the twisting, the leaving things out or the making things up of your sweeping generalization, but if so, I would like you to address them. You are more than welcome to disagree with what I have written, but the statements I made were backed with direct quotes from the text.

While I dislike how Ginny has been characterized, I have provided textual support for my statements, as evidenced in the following posts.

re: talented witch?: A comparison of Ginny and Luna in OotP
My Webpage

re: Ginny mocks Luna in OotP
My Webpage

re: reconciling Ginny’s lack of interest in the Quidditch World Cup (GoF) with her sudden prowess in OotP and HBP.
My Webpage

re: Ginny’s attitude toward poverty (inconclusive) and receiving preferential treatment
My Webpage

re: Ginny’s moral ambiguity through her support of the use of Sectumsempra
My Webpage

re; Ginny’s morally ambiguity Part 2
My Webpage

re: Ginny’s underdeveloped sense of right and wrong. Comparison of Flint, Crabbe, and Ginny’s very similarly described actions in Quidditch matches
My Webpage

re: Ginny’ moral ambiguity Part 3 /underdeveloped sense of right and wrong Part 2 (response)
My Webpage

re: Powerful witch? revisited after DH
My Webpage

re: Ginny is a damsel in distress revisited
My Webpage

re: Jealousy in DH
http://

QUOTE(E.Austen @ Feb 19 2008, 06:42 AM) [snapback]486843[/snapback]

In order to be fair, we have to give Rowling the benefit of the doubt, and grant her the ability to make Ginny who she is. If Rowling says that Ginny is powerful, intelligent, and talented, then she is. Everything Rowling has ever said about Ginny, I have found to be consistent with the books and perfectly believable.

No, I don’t have to give J.K. Rowling the benefit of the doubt. If the author's intent is for Ginny to be powerful, intelligent, and talented then I expect her to be written in the books as possessing those characteristics in a demonstrable way. If that was how it was written I would have accepted it, but it wasn’t hence my quibble (re: talented witch? re: Powerful witch?; re: damsel in distress)
Huh? That’s a bit of a non sequitur. I don’t ship.

Nope, I don’t agree with you. That’s your opinion - great. My perception of Ginny’s characterization is based on canon, and is therefore valid.

My perception of Ginny is based on canon too. I did not myself provide references, because I wasn't making an essay for you, only that in my opinion this is turning absolutely ridiculous.

I am writing an essay about Ginny, however, that will not be finished for quite some time, because there is so much to say, and because I haven't got a lot of time to write it at the moment. Maybe I should notify you when I finish it.

Besides, even if I wanted to make references, in the posts I have made before this one, I didn't have copy of the books with me. Do you think I carry the whole HP series to the university every day along with my textbooks and my computer? It is usually betwen classes that I make my posts.

What I post on here is based on what I have written elsewhere concerning Ginny, and that had a full bibliography and all references, for your information.

Mod Note: Some of the discussions are getting quite heated and personal in here. That is not the nature of this thread. Please do not say things like 'Must you' when a member says I will tell you how I see it, or respond with 'Take a literature class'. Comments like this will only succeed in getting this thread closed down.

Please try not to take things so personally, and be aware that I am keeping a close eye on things. If you need a reminder of the rules in operation in this particular thread, then I suggest you go back to my opening post.

Thanks
etphonehome
Forums Moderator.

While I tend to believe this to be true, I wonder whether Ginny's characterization was deliberately left to the imaginations of the readers with a sprinkling of Rowling's specificity here or there. It could be that Ginny, whose characteristic is so firm in her mind, may have been hard to translate on paper (perhaps even for the author?) I know a lot of writers whose characters start as merely ideas who "grow" and evolve as they write on. Maybe Ginny was so firmly established and detailed that writing her exactly as Rowling wanted was difficult and that, except for those few moments or necessary characterization, is the reason why she is not word-for-word present in the books.

Maybe that's why Rowling has continued to tell us post-DH about the lives of the characters and their futures as she could not properly convey them within the context of her stories. Consequently, however, I think this is where Ginny's characterization conflicts both sides of the Harry Potter readership. If she chose to keep Ginny ambiguous, why suddenly shove her in our faces in HBP? Why not let her evolve like other characters if the case was to provide a suitable "mate" for Harry?

I think that you have hit the nail squarely on the head there Corpus_Agnelli. Some of us will read one thing into a character--things that endear that person to them, makes them likeable that others, like me, find irratating, dislikable and downright annoying. A definite case of JKR leaving things to the reader. She had/s a knack for creating a stir this way. You only have to take into consideration her personal feelings about Snape, a character she wrote without sympathy or liking and yet unfathomably many readers warmed to him.

I detest the fact that Ginny went from this likable little girl who was completely naive in Chamber of Secrets, to being hardly mentioned for two books until she tagged along with the DA to the ministry only to be thrust down our throats as the love of Harry's life in HBP.

There was no character evolution for me, she was just put there as this flirtatious teenager who was becomming an embarrassment to her older brother (Ron). Then all of a sudden we are to accept her as our heroes chosen one..beats me. I get it that she had a battle on her hands as not only the youngest child but the only girl in a family of 7 boys. Perhaps if JKR had given us some of this story I could have warmed to her but I'm afraid I couldn't. But this is only my personal opinion and how I interpret what little characterisation there is of Ginny in the HP books.

I'm curious why you think your opinions are valid when people with opposite views from yours isn't? I've read a good bit of your links, and I have to admit that you have a good argument to support your theory. However, it seems to be based upon your own interpretation and how you view things and put them together. I can look at your comparisons and see the flip side of the coin, too. There is more than one way to see and interpret things.

I think this is an excellent point. JKR may have left Ginny's characterization for her readers to dissect and build how they wanted. As a result, personal opinions and interpretations are going to play a big part in how the reader sees Ginny. That doesn't make things canon or one point more valid than the other. The only thing canon is what we read (without personal interpretation, assumptions, or personal comparisons) and what JKR tells us.

Personally, I like Ginny. I was disappointed that we didn't get to see more of her development. But I can see where JKR was going with her...well, at least my opinion of her. I'm sure it's hard to develop a character when their personality keeps them in the background from being shy. It wasn't until she stopped being shy that we got to start seeing her. I think that's why it seemed like she just suddenly popped out of no where.

At least Snape's character evolution was deliberately left "up in the air" for the reason you stated. Curiously enough, however, his big reveal just as Ginny's characterization leaves me wanting. I think in both instances, Rowling had such a specific, firm vision of events and character that perhaps she just couldn't translate onto page.



If it was deliberately done, as I've mentioned, because it was hard for Rowling to write Ginny's character from pen to paper, I can understand that. If she was doing it to give the readers room to imagine, then I wonder why certain elements were forced to give people (like me) who never really cared about Ginny restrictions on what they can imagine.

Seeing Ginny for how I think and how she is presented in the books are two entirely different things. I think this is where the difference between opinions and cannonical items lie.

When HBP and then DH came out, I really did feel as if Rowling was telling me that my opinion (that H/HR and Ginny) of certain imaginings really had no place in her world...and therefore not valid. My defence is, "...yeah, but you wrote it!!" Hence, it's valid.

I purposefully used the word "perception" rather than "opinion". A perception is based on the facts that a person possesses and has no absolute value, i.e. it is neither "right" nor "wrong". Therefore having a perception based on the facts that you possess make that perception valid. If I am presented with more facts it may change my perception.
Secondly, I have never said opposing perceptions are not valid because by definition they are (also by definition they have to based on some facts)

What I try to do is make a statement and support it with canon: this what I believe (or not necessarily believe but a point I'm pursuing) , this is why I believe it and here is what is written in the text that supports my belief. I am open to change my beliefs based on what others can show me. I invite individuals to show me the flip side, tell me what you believe and why you believe but also support it with canon - direct me to exactly what and where it is in the texts. As I have stated, this is why I came to this thread initially. I am very objective about the other characters in the book, I understand why individuals differ in their ambivalence/like/dislike of characters and I see what is written in the texts that support it However, with Ginny I wasn't seeing the support in canon for some of the characterizations.


That's a very interesting idea, Corpus Agnelli, about using imagination to fill in Ginny's characterization. This may explain why readers who were ambivalent or too uninterested in Ginny to bother fleshing out her character, went scurrying to the texts looking for cannonical support, when confronted with a characterization of Ginny by those who did use their imagination.

If Rowling can't translate her vision of character and events onto the page, I think that reflects poorly, in this small instance, on her writing abilities.

It's interesting that you make this particular point. Under normal circumstances, I do go looking for cannnonical support. I trawl through pages of text looking for anything that will support what I have said, but with Ginny I never have done. Subconsciously perhaps, because I know there not to be enough evidence within the text to support my theory. JKR did a poor job with her characterisation IMO, if I can say that I don't refer to her books for cannonical support, because I don't expect to find any.

It really is a small instance which is only magnified by the fact that Ginny, the character, is intertwined with Harry's in the epilogue.

It's really hard to buy into something if you've never, from the start, filled in those imaginative gaps with positive characterizations of Ginny.

To clarify, I don't mean that people who believe in a more more pleasant and opposing to my own characterization of Ginny is imaginary. Rather that a lot of these "ideas" of Ginny are missing from the actual text, and that what little text exist is rather non-descript.



An interesting discussion would be whether infusing additional characterization into the original text would provide a better literary ground for Ginny's character analysis, and whether Rowling (or some very skilled (fan)writer? any takers?) would considering going back to revise her work. I only suggest this as many artists (and the artistic community in general) consider this taboo - once a masterpiece is created, you don't do back to revise it - ...yet George Lucas went back and revised the Original Trilogy despite many a critic clamouring against it...just a tangential train of thought...

What I meant by "this small instance" was more in relation to JKR's overall writing ability. I was trying to be clear that while I don't think she is a poor writer, she is definitely more competent in some areas than others. And yes I think her writing of Ginny's characterization was abysmal.
I totally agree!

Again, I agree. mayfair was making a point that fanon was responsible for the disparity between views of Ginny.

I am always interested in what mayfair has to say and we tend to agree. I was simply trying to engage him in a discussion because while, I don't necessarily disagree with his point, I think the disparity between views is primarily due to poor writing.

For me, personally, it's too late. I needed to read it in the original text: I hold the author and editorial staff responsible its absence.

Hi guys,

This is quite an interesting topic! I never gave Ginny much thought in HBP, to be honest. The only thing that has ever bothered be was the "Monster" in Harry's chest (ugh!).

And I think that the bottom line was exactly that. Despite Ginny's character being suddenly thrust in our faces in Book 6, she still was very much in the background. In Book 7, I expected her character to be more developed.

After reading the posts on this topic and my memory of cannon, I would have to say that I agree with those that can't help but see her in a negative light. BUT, thats only based on the few and far between instances that we have seen her. JK did say that her character, in her head, was talented, strong, and all around the best choice for Harry.

It does seem that JKR had intended for Ginny to be a positive, likable character. (Doesn't JKR say in one interview that "Hermione was who she was, and Ginny was who she wanted to be" in school? Forgive me if I've misinterpreted (its been a while) or if I'm repeating something someone else has said.) But that doesn't help the fact that Ginny's character development was rushed and, despite the attempt at creating someone likable and on equal footing with Harry, there really wasn't very much time to do so and the end result backfired.

I agree whole heartedly with the posts above that agree that Ginny is underdeveloped in cannon, and a lot of the great things people have to say about this character are not entirely text based.

Somehow, who Ginny was in JKR head was not translated well into who we know Ginny from cannon to be . And quite frankly, it doesn't really matter what JK says in interviews ( I love the Phill Pullman quote!), if she wanted these books and their characters to be as timeless as the classics (i.e, Elizabeth Benet), then she cannot rely on what she says in interviews to build her characters for her. She has to do it in her volume of published work, because in 50 years, 100 years, 300 years, it is highly unlikely that her readers will be looking up and referring to these interviews to develop Ginny's character for them. It will have to be based on cannon, and cannon alone.

Although the readers of this generation are biased because they have such access to these interviews, Ginny's character still is lacking. What of the next generation, the one's who can only interpret the character through cannon? I foresee many more who find Ginny's character unworthy.

The biggest problem with this is that, yes, Ginny was intended to be a great, positive character; someone who was understanding and good and perfect for Harry. And in cannon, we do see hints at this, but they're just hints. Its all very ambiguous. . IMPO Ginny doesn't have enough dialog or pages in the books for the readers to really know her. Also, Harry's feelings towards her seem to be based on lust rather than something about her personality, so that tells us little about why she's so important. This, to me, makes it hard to pin down her true character. Who is she?

This is all coming out funny, so I'll try to simplify: IMPO Ginny's character is too ambiguous for us to understand why we are supposed to like her. This ambiguity, when coupled with instances where she acts...less than nice, makes it seem (to some people) like the times when shes horrible are instances that show her true character, because we have little to compare it to. So for a lot of people, those instances where we see how rude she can be outweigh those instances where shes a great person. It makes it hard to understand why, other than her sex appeal, Harry should love her.

So, I pose these questions to those who agree that Ginny's ambiguity is a main ingredient in misinterpretation of Cannon!Ginny in comparison to JK's idea of Ginny:

(Disregarding the Deathly Hallows) Based on the track that JK had set up for the development for Ginny's character, how did you expect further character development to go? Do you view those instances where Ginny is not the most likable character as her growing up, and expected to see more of a mature character in the seventh book? Or (if you really do think Ginny is just a bad seed that can't be helped) did you expect Harry to get a clue?
What would have made her more worthy of our main character? If JK had chosen to attempt it, do you think she could have made Ginny's character less vague (and how), or was it beyond fixing?

Good post soleil, you had some good comments re: Ginny and Rowling's lack of development of her character.

I agree that Rowling should have developed Ginny's character well before HBP. She didn't really let the reader in on just who this girl was prior to HBP. IMO Ginny was so under developed that I all but forgot her entirely. And then for Rowling to thrust her into our faces like she did in HBP was unconscionable. I know a few shippers who like Ginny and Harry being together, but they didn't like how Rowling brought the couple together. It was a let down for them. Harry's chest monster is an example as to why people can't stand H/G. It's obvious that this animal is based on lust. Those that say it isn't a metaphor for lust is being unrealistic and quite frankly, delusional. (there's a right time to use this word, this is one of those times) It makes little difference if Rowling didn't mean for it to be interpreted as lust, because her saying so in an interview is moot. It's what she wrote and how others interpreted her writing. And, yes, I do like Philip Pullman's quote too!

I also hate those post scripts that Rowling gives in interviews. Twenty years from now, these interviews will be forgotten, but the text that is canon will not. Readers will again be divided in their understanding as to why Rowling paired off Harry with Ginny. Once again readers who either don't ship at all or readers who prefer Harry with Hermione or even Luna, will be upset, while those that want H/G will be thrilled. And so a cycle will be repeated.

To be honest, pairing Ginny with Harry is as bad as if Rowling had paired him off with say, Hannah Abbott or Susan Bones. These girls were also under developed in the books, grant it a bit more so than Ginny was. But, my point here is that these girls (Ginny included) were UNDERDEVELOPED! I can't say this enough: Ginny just wasn't developed enough to justify being with Harry. Plan and simple. Short and sweet.

Exactly, Dumbledore's Widow! You've said exactly what I was meaning to say.

The fact that Harry's chest monster is the description chosen emphasizes (and is, perhaps, a result of) the fact that we simply do not know Ginny well enough for there to be any other real reason why she would be the love interest.

I fully agree that Ginny's character should have been developed well before HBP. JK said that she had intended to have a relationship between Harry and Ginny from the beginning. If this is true, than she had plenty of time to develop the character, and simply failed. If its not true (which I am beginning to suspect more and more) than she was pressured by outside sources to develop another strong female lead, and under the time constraints, Ginny's 180 is the result. Another fail.

Does anyone think that (if they do think that Ginny's character was underdeveloped) if JK had attempted it it could have been fixed in the seventh book, or was it a lost cause after HBP?

Book 7 would have been ample time. I was never a big fan of the DH plot-instances which really detracted from the main Harry Potter story, and while there have been some interesting critical analyses on that subject I will put them aside as they have little to do with Ginny's characterization save for one: it really did not present any opening for Ginny's character. The horcrux plot does, to some degree, but as the book really did place much emphasis on the Death Hallows, there were scant oportunities for all secondary characters alike.

Even then, if Rowling just showed us a little more about Ginny rather than telling us after-the-fact, it would at least have served in Ginny's interest to promoting a more well-rounded character.

I used to not mind Ginny, but I find she's started to be... less likeable from HBP and on. Sort of annoying, actually. She's been a little all over the place, just plain annoying, and somewhat... I don't know how to say. It's like she's using the nice, friendly, girly, sweet side of her... Just the puppy-face kind of look. I don't mean I hate her, I don't dislike her particularly as much as Cho , but she's been annoying me a tad since HBP. Though she can be really nice and she's being quite supportive and friendly with Hermione.

Sorry about backtracking but I still can't understand how the library scene demonstrates that Ginny understands Harry.


In the library scene in OotP, Ginny doesn’t show an understanding of Harry, while Harry doesn’t confide in Ginny as he doesn’t share what is truly bothering him.

Harry is upset about Snape’s memories of James et. al. that he saw in the Pensieve. He is upset immediately after he witnesses the scene in the Pensieve and he continues to brood, feeling worse about it as time goes on.

"What was making Harry feel so horrified and unhappy was not being shouted at or having jars thrown at him; it was that he knew how it felt to be humiliated in the middle of a curcle of onlookers, knew exactly how Snape had felt as his father had taunted him, and that judging from what hea had just seen, his father had been every bit as arrogant as Snape had always told him." (OotP chapter 28 p. 573 Raincoast)
"leaving his mind free to dwell, ever more miserably, on what he had seen in the Pensieve.
He felt as though the memory of it was eating from the inside" (OotP chapter 29 p. 575)
"For nearly five years the thought of his father had been a source of comfort, of inspiration. Whenever someone had told him he was like James, he had glowed with pride inside. And now… now he felt cold and miserable at the thought of him"

Harry doesn’t search out Ginny to confide in. Ginny runs Harry to ground in the library, where he is brooding alone. Initially, Ginny mistakenly thinks he’s upset about Cho. 'You seem really down lately,' Ginny persisted; 'I’m sure if you just talked to Cho…' (OotP chapter p. 577).

Harry at this point doesn’t seem pleased to be talking with Ginny, speaking to her brusquely. He also misdirects Ginny away from what is truly bothering him, i.e. what he saw in the Pensieve, and leads the conversation in a different direction by building on Ginny’s emphasis on "talked". Harry sets her up and Ginny raises and takes the bait; Harry’s statement implies there is someone he does want to talk to. I don't know if I think Harry does this intentionally or unintentionally. But, perhaps, if Ginny really understood Harry she might have seen through this ploy for what it was, avoidance; Harry not wanting to discuss what was really bothering him.

" 'It’s not Cho I want to talk to, said,' said Harry brusquely.
'Who is it then?' asked Ginny.
…
'I wish I could talk to Sirius' he muttered." (OotP chapter 29 p. 577)

Ginny never asks the obvious question why? She never asks Harry why he wants to talk to Sirius. That would actually get at what is truly bothering Harry.

I don't see Ginny's understanding of Harry in this scene. She initially totally misunderstands the situation thinking Harry is upset about Cho. Harry never confides in her that he is upset because he identifies with Snape when he's being taunted. He never confides to her that he thinks his Dad might have been as arrogant as Snape has always claimed. He never confides in her how upset and confused he is about how he actually does feel towards his father. These are things that are truly bothering Harry and he confides none of them to Ginny. He gives Ginny a small sop, telling her he wants to talk to Sirius, but certainly doesn't tell her why. Harry wants to confide in Sirius what’s bothering him, and Ginny becomes a means to an end in achieving this purpose.

Heh heh heh...my favourite thread...still looking nice and healthy

So the debate on Ginny still rages, eh? Mmm...seems like JKR didn't do such a good job of wrapping everything up after all

Good to see Dumbledore's Widow still fighting the good fight

And I couldn't agree with you more, vega - I've never been able to see Ginny's understanding of Harry, which echoes the earlier comments about lack of character development. You know, everyone I've spoken to about this - and there's a lot of HP fans come out of the closet at work recently for some reason! - is of the same opinion, even those who have liked Ginny all along.

Ginny will always be a great big pus-filled carbuncle on this series as far as I'm concerned and it will forever be a huge disappointment to me that Harry didn't show a little depth and end up with someone who was a little more three-dimensional - like Luna.

Anywho - good posts, soleil With regard to what JKR could have done though...oooh....re-written everything about her, basically. She was never anything more than Ron's younger, irritating sister to me. Yes, JKR tried to make her seem big and clever in a cheap-Arnie-film kind of way, but I don't want to be told how I should perceive a character - I want to be shown the actions of that character and behaviour so that I can make up my own mind. I don't think we ever saw that with Ginny which brings us right back to underdevelopment of character. Being a kind of budding writer myself, I know that if I wanted people to believe something about a character I had created, I would place them far more in the fore-front of the action so that the readers would get a feel for them on a first-hand basis, rather than via second hand stories about how powerful she was (from her brothers) or, even worse, these affected displays of "I'm going to show Harry I don't care about him anymore by snogging half of Hogwarts while hexing the other half into oblivion while simultaneously flicking my hair around like someone on a L'Oreal advert"...if you know what I mean

Urgh...JKR's set the Women's Movement back fifty years, honestly.

Hi Louise! Where have you been?! Glad to see you posting again.

I know exactly what you mean about being told something about a character as opposed to being shown. I really do dislike that about Rowling. I can't say I have ever heard of another author doing what she has done.

As for Ginny, well, I too saw her as nothing more than Ron's little sister who had a crush on Harry. Rowling should have let well enough alone. I didn't appreciate her shoving Ginny down my throat in HBP. And the way she re-created her in that book. It's nauseating.

Rowling never once proved to me that Ginny and Harry belong together. Certainly not in canon. And, quite honestly, I don't pay any attention to what she adds onto a character in an interview, or some question and answer session. To me it's like - 'if it ain't written in canon, it didn't happen!'. All she really proved to me in HBP was that Ginny and Harry were nothing more than your average teenager - horny!

JKR butchered Ginny's character completely. I don't see how she could write such great and likeable seondary characters such as Luna, Fred, Neville, and George, and then fail horribly with Ginny's. She changed Ginny for all the wrong reasons and into all the wrong things just so she could catch the eye of Harry. And worst of all, none of it was convincing.

I couldn't agree with you more UnknownLocket. It is odd that Rowling would create such likeable secondary characters like Luna, Neville, Tonks, Remus, Sirius, and the Weasley twins, and then fail so miserably with Ginny.

If Rowling truly intended for Ginny to be the one that ended up with our hero, then she should have tried harder in developing Ginny's character over the first five books, like she did the Weasley twins and the others. Ginny was ALWAYS in the background and then in HBP, Rowling thrust her into our faces! IMO, Hedwig was better developed than Ginny was!

Ditto! This is the point I am trying to make all through this whole "ginny" discussion.
The point is that we all can see that JKR failed to do a proper description of Ginny as we all get a very dfferent impression of her.
Some think she is awesome, others that she is okay and quite a lot people think tha she is awful.
But what we can all see in the books, without anyone being really able to deny it, Ginny was made to something in book 6 that was not inteded at the very beginning, from the first book up to the fifth.
JKR never planned to make a super duper cool awesome heroine who is a little vamp out of Ginny as it has come out
Nor did she want to make Ginny Harry's whatever...wife?..pfft...
She was sitting on her desk, having the Half-blood prince scripts infront of her and was like:" Hmm...well I think I have to find a perfect match for Harry now. It's the sixth book and in the next he won't have the time. Hmmm..who could it be...let me see." *JKR closes the eyes gets out a pencil and points at a random name* "Oh..it's Ginny...well never mind that. I will make her change a lot and everyone will like her."

Oh well anyway...Louise that one really cracked me up:

I'm going to show Harry I don't care about him anymore by snogging half of Hogwarts while hexing the other half into oblivion while simultaneously flicking my hair around like someone on a L'Oreal advert"

I don't know...the denial is rampant in these forums. One might go as far as suggest they are delusional!

Ginny's deconstruction has been fairly thorough, but the biased here is clearly negative. The criticism I have is that I see a lack of positive biases that stand on a supportable base. Can a positive characterization of Ginny stand up to scrutiny? Surely, the ambiguity of her character should allow such a claim.

I bring this up since this doesn't appear to be the case. If so, is there really ambiguity in her character, and therefore is she a justifiably poor character? There are ample supporters of Ginny, but so far a good case hasn't been presented. Could it be it's just not possible under scrutiny?

...trying to revive the thread

Corpus_Agnelli-

I will do my best to revive the thread...

For I disagree with most of the posts on this thread. I have gathered that msot people think she is an underdeveloped character, that JKR didn't portray to the fullest extent and didn't do a great job of putting the Ginny she saw in her head on paper.

Well, I disagree. It seems a lot of people feel that she should have been elaborated on before HBP. However, that wasn't her time or place. Think about it, first book we learned a little about Ginny, and how excited she was about the magical world of Hogwarts and that of meeting HP. In the second book, we discover that she is having a terrible first year at Hogwarts and that she is still bashful around Harry. However...if you can think back, she comes to Harry and Ron (HARRY and Ron) to confess that she believes she is behind the attacks and that there is something wrong. That is, one, a huge step for her in approaching Harry, and two foreshadows that the one person she will eventually be able to go to at all times is her future husband, Harry. Then Harry saves Ginny, blah blah blah, you guys know the rest.In the third book, we find Ginny hanging around with the gang, a little more comfortable with Harry, and it is starting in this book and extending through the fourth that Ginny really takes a back seat.

This is on purpose. Ginny isn't the only theme running through these books, and in the third and fourth book, she shouldn't have been developed any more than she was. The third book was fully focused on Harry's past and it's relationship with Sirius Black and all of James Potter's old mates. In the fourth book, it's all about Voldemort, Harry and Voldemort. There is no room for Ginny and there shouldn't be, she wasn't the focus whatsoever.

Then we move onto the fifth book and Ginny begins to creep back into the picture. One, she has a boyfriend! That's huge! She turning into a woman, she's beginning to like boys, take notice of people other than Harry (even if it was in effort to get Harry to notice her). Then she was with Harry by his side no matter what (foreshadow anyone?). Then let's move onto magical ability.

We all know that Harry is by far the best DADA student in his grade and now-a-days that's basically the only subject that matters against good ol' Voldy. SO what does JKR make Ginny good at...DADA. Her bat-bogey hex is off the charts (the movie makes it the reducto curse). I personally don't think this was a coincidence. Ginny wasn't made out to be spectacular at astronomy, nope, just hexes, which is down the same alley as Harry. You guys can sort through the rest of the book, I'll move on.

So we come to HBP, where you all have a problem with Ginny. By this time we know she's turning into a woman, is having mature feeligns towards boys, is more than capable in DADA, likes Harry, she's pretty and smart, she'll stand by Harry at any cost and will turn to Harry for leadership and friendship. Not to mention we have a physical description of her as well as what she likes to do at home and at school (Quidditch and family aspects). That's pretty developed in my opinion.

HBP brings about a relationship with Harry, and it seems that a lot of people took it very negatively and I've beent rying to come up with a reason why. Most people I feel blame it on the lack of development for Ginny's character. I know some people who think that Harry should be with Hermione or someone else. Me personally, I feel there are two reasons. One, because people are not familiar with this side of Ginny and therefore dismiss it immediately. They feel that it is too late in the series to be changing there image of Ginny and Harry, yet I beg you to see that characters change as they grow older. So naturally, one should have expected both characters to develop feelings for the opposite sex, maybe even each other. Secondly, some people feel like she is a distraction to Harry and don't like it when someone adds worries and extra issues to Harry's life. However, you must understand that these different feelings, positive or negative are what keep Harry going. If he was isolated and put all his energy and time into fighting Voldemort without thinking about anything else, we wouldn't have a 7 book series, it'd be done after 5. There is no way he'd be able to mentally survive.

So, Corpus_Agnelli, there's my brief explanation of why I like Ginny, and I'll sum it up again....I like Ginny because she adds something different to Harry's life, makes him feel happy, and helps him "along the way to greatness, no doubt about that."

...hope this revives the thread, haha

~HJP~

I disagree that Ginny going to Harry was to forshadow their relationship. In fact, I disagree with any forshadowings that have nothing to do with the main plot because I believe that all other foreshadowings are manipulated by people to support their ideas. But anyways, the only reason I see that Ginny came to Harry to reveal her secret was for JKR to have a good story to write. We know that Ginny is shy and nervous around Harry and she doesn't know him enough to trust him with anything. So why would she go to Harry? The most practical thing for her to do would be to tell one of her brothers privately. But the story is written through Harry's point of veiw so the secret would have never been revealed in front of him and it wouldn't have had much of an impact hearing it second-hand from Ron, Fred, or George. Also the revelation may never have gotten round to Harry if she had chose to confide in one of her brothers and trust him not to tell anyone else.


I understand why in the 3rd and 4th books Ginny has no reason to be mentioned very often, yet it makes no sense why JKR should completely ignore her as she did when she plans for Ginny to play a large role in the hero's life. Why should she even bother mentioning Cho in the third book when it isn't till the 5th that she and Harry get together? Why should Malfoy keep being mentioned when it isn't till the sixth book till he has a significance in the plot? Why should Neville keep being brought up? Why is Parvati Patil even mentioned at all in the books? Why are all these insignificant names being brought up such as Hannah Abbot, Ernie MacMillan, and etc. when Ginny has the largest role yet least development. No one is asking for Ginny's name to appear every 5 pages. But she can still be mentioned once or twice, just as Fred and George were, and developed here and there just enough so we aren't knocked of our feet when she is seen snogging Harry.


Ginny doesn't just creep back into the picture, she explodes onto the page. Now we're hearing that she has a boyfriend, now her love life is a concern to her brothers. And once again, I don't see any foreshadowing there.


Her bat-boogey hex is said to be very powerful, yet we have never seen her perform it. This goes back to the point that Ginny really isn't as powerful as she is said to be. For one, Harry doesn't want her to go along with him to the DoM. If she is as good at hexes as she is supposed to be, out of all the DADA members, she should be one of his top picks, yet he says (and I'm paraphrasing this) "out of all the DA members, Luna, Nevile, and Ginny would not have been his choices." Hmm, I wonder why...Second, in the DoM, she breaks her ankle and nothing sugnificant is mentioned about her dueling. And third, end of sixth book when she is seen fighting with a death eater, it is Harry that saves her neck. She is just dancing around dodging curses and for some reason never thinks to throw one of her brilliant hexes back at her oponent. She had Felix Felicis too, so it should have been easy. And seventh book she almost dies, end of story.


I'm not sure if the books ever described her as smart but she was definately pretty. So pretty that she could catch any guys' eyes, including Slytherins and our hero Harry. But I don't feel like we know much of Ginny as a person. I never knew she liked Quidditch until it was mentioned in the sixth book (stealing her brother's brooms) and until she became a part of the team and snapped at Hermione for her lack of knowledge. But by then, I felt it was too little too late. All of sudden interests of her's are being mentioned that are similar to Harry's just so it could lead up to the kiss.

All in all, I still believe Ginny to be a underdeveloped charcter.

Well, it is the readers choice to say whether foreshadowing exists or not, and unfortunately all we can do as the reader is guess, so I'll agree to disagree with the foreshadowing. Umm, as for why insignificant names are being mention, and you brought up two of the Hufflepuffs, the answer I feel is simple, and sometimes overlooked. The books are still stories and we need a little mention of someone other than the main crowd every page. There are other people and that's the main reason for their mentioning, again this is just my opinion.

Malfoy is mentioned because he is a major character throughout the whole series. He's been a constant pain in Harry's neck for years and this hatred has a lot to do how he feels and reacts in later books and briefly in the epilogue, so that's easy. He's mentioned because he is an important character, simple as that.

We may not see Ginny's bat-bogey hex, however we hear about...she's invited to Slughorn's party because of her abilities, she gets out of trouble in the fifth book because of that specific hex. If you read the series again, maybe you'll uncover the truth that she's real good at magic and definitely can hold her own.

If you remember in the book, Harry didn't want anyone to come with him to the DoM. It so happened to be those few because they were the ones with him and the ones who wanted to go with him. It's not like he had a crowd of people to choose from and was like, "No Ginny, stay here." So I don't see where you're coming from there.

Quidditch...fourth book onward is when we start to hear she likes the sport.

I agree that she may have been a tad on the underdeveloped side but not to the degree that people are exclaiming. And at least the thread is kind of revived...

Well, it is the readers choice to say whether foreshadowing exists or not, and unfortunately all we can do as the reader is guess, so I'll agree to disagree with the foreshadowing. Umm, as for why insignificant names are being mention, and you brought up two of the Hufflepuffs, the answer I feel is simple, and sometimes overlooked. The books are still stories and we need a little mention of someone other than the main crowd every page. There are other people and that's the main reason for their mentioning, again this is just my opinion.

Malfoy is mentioned because he is a major character throughout the whole series. He's been a constant pain in Harry's neck for years and this hatred has a lot to do how he feels and reacts in later books and briefly in the epilogue, so that's easy. He's mentioned because he is an important character, simple as that.

We may not see Ginny's bat-bogey hex, however we hear about...she's invited to Slughorn's party because of her abilities, she gets out of trouble in the fifth book because of that specific hex. If you read the series again, maybe you'll uncover the truth that she's real good at magic and definitely can hold her own.

If you remember in the book, Harry didn't want anyone to come with him to the DoM. It so happened to be those few because they were the ones with him and the ones who wanted to go with him. It's not like he had a crowd of people to choose from and was like, "No Ginny, stay here." So I don't see where you're coming from there.

Quidditch...fourth book onward is when we start to hear she likes the sport.

I agree that she may have been a tad on the underdeveloped side but not to the degree that people are exclaiming. And at least the thread is kind of revived...

Timing is not the issue for me, and neither is shipping as I am staunchly a non-shipper. In the Harry Potter series, I feel that Ginny either functions as a plot device or the Hero’s reward at the end of his quest; she doesn’t read like a well-developed well-written secondary character.
I am unsure what characterization of Ginny is supposed to be shown in this example. That said, Ginny goes to Ron, not Harry, to tell her secret. "Just then Ginny Weasley came over and sat down next to Ron"(CoS chapter p. 211 Raincoast bolding mine). As UnknownLocket has stated, Ginny went to confide in a family member, one of her brothers, not Harry. She wasn’t going to go to the twins because their idea of comforting her was to jump out at her and scare her "Ginny Weasley, who sat next to Colin Creevey in Charms, was distraught, but Harry felt they were going the wrong way about cheering her up. They were taking it in turns to cover themselves in fur or boils and jump out at her from behind statues." (CoS Chapter 11 pg. 139) Ginny wasn't going to go to Percy because he was being overbearing and bossing her into taking a pepperup potion. "Ginny Weasley, who had been looky peaky, was bullied into taking some by Percy" (CoS chapter 8 p. 94). Ginny approached Ron in the Great Hall at breakfast. Ron was questioning her and Harry just barged in on the conversation because Ginny looked like Dobby when he was conflicted about sharing information and Harry guessed that it was information about the Chamber of Secrets.

I'm not sure that being reportedly good at the Bat Bogey Hex is actually making Ginny good at Defence against the Dark Arts because, according to JKR’s own website, a hex has connotations of dark magic. From JKR’s website: "Hexes:_Has a connotation of dark magic, as do jinxes, but of a minor sort. I see 'hex' as slightly worse. I usually use 'jinx' for spells whose effects are irritating but amusing."

A hex that give bodily fluids flapping wings that attack seems a bit of a party trick. I am underwhelmed by Ginny being reported to be good at a minor dark magic hex that has the effect of being slightly more than irritating.
I don't think Ginny is really good at magic, and I certainly don't think it was shown in the books. With respect to UnknownLocket’s statement that Harry did not have much respect for Ginny’s DADA abilities the quote is "Harry's eyes met Ron's. He knew Ron was thinking exactly what he was: if he could have chosen any members of the DA, in addition to himself, Ron and Hermione, to join him in the attempt to rescue Sirius, he would not have picked Ginny, Neville or Luna." (OotP chapter 33 p. 671). And rather than being able to "hold her own", Ginny was shown to be ineffectual in the DoM debacle (everyone performed Reducto in the book). As UnknownLocket has stated, Ginny is ineffectual in a duel. She is a damsel in distress, who was rescued by Luna blowing up a planet in the Death Eater’s face who broke Ginny’s ankle in OotP, by Harry in HBP when Amycus is toying with her, and by Mrs. Weasley in DH when she, Hermione and Luna were dueling Bellatrix. So rather than seeing Ginny as being really good at magic and holding her own I see her shown in the books as a damsel in distress who needs rescuing.

Yes Ginny was described as pretty.
I have never encountered Ginny being characterized as smart in the series, but I am open to having someone directing me to this in canon.

"She’ll stand by Harry at any cost" leads me to characterize Ginny as morally ambiguous. For example, Ginny’s support of Harry’s use of Sectumsempra on Draco, no matter how she tries to rationalize it, is morally wrong. Ginny not only supports Harry’s use of the Prince’s potion book, she is actively endorsing Harry’s use of what’s written in the book, claiming the Sectumsempra curse is a "good" curse. She verbally attacks Hermione on a personal level rather than argue the logic of using a curse written in a book that Ginny previously was against Harry using. Rather than being "good" as Ginny claims, Sectumsempra is Dark magic, and not just dark but one of the darker curses. Sectumsempra is identified by its creator, Snape, as "such Dark magic". Ginny is the only person who supports Harry’s use of the curse on Draco. No one, (Snape, McGonagall, Hermione, Ron) including Harry supports the use of Sectumsempra.

Ginny’s superior Quidditch skill was part of her extreme make-over. I find it hard to reconcile Ginny's lack on interest in Quiddich as it is shown in canon in GoF and a merely adequate skill in OotP with her awesomeness in HBP. And yes I know the reader is told 2nd hand that Ginny has been stealing her brother’s brooms since she was six. Again, this is something the reader is "told" belatedly to explain her sudden interest/skill in Quidditch. However, in GoF, what is shown is a Ginny who is not interested in the talk about Quidditch. Even if she didn’t participate she might have listened "raptly" and not have talked about Bill’s hair or fell asleep. At the dinner table, during "spirited" talk about World Cup, Ginny is talking with Mrs. Weaseley and Bill about his hair. (GoF chapter 5 Pg. 59). During the World Cup final, there is one description of Ginny’s reaction to the Quidditch match and it is "horror-struck" because the Irish Seeker was hurt when Krum did the Wronski Feint (GoF chapter 8 Pg.98) Then Ginny falls asleep during the after match discussion (GoF chapter 9 Pg. 106) In GoF Ginny does not appear to be someone who is overly interested in Quidditch. In OotP, we are not shown Ginny’s skills, we are given an evaluation of her skills when she is named the replacement for Harry. Harry appears to be shocked (with a slight negative overtone IMO) by Ginny’s being named replacement Seeker, while Angelina acknowledges the shock of it, and gives Ginny lukewarm praise. "but she’s pretty good actually, Nothing on you of course" (OotP chapter 21 p. 400).

I'm still not sure what Ginny's positive characteristics are, beyond pretty (which I'm not even sure is a characteristic). I continue to think that Ginny was poorly written secondary character.