I think that this is the major problem with Ginny's character though Fidelius, that Jk assumes too much.

She assumes we have caught onto Ginny's warmth etc merely because she is a Weasley, but she hasn't really given us any canon to support it. The same with the bat-bogey curse, we are meant to assume she has used others to great effect but have been given no examples of it in this book.

I thought the scene which corijp points out where she takes Harry's hand and leads him away from DD's body is probably the most sincere we have seen her (and I personally dont think you can include the feeble parting dialogue between Harry and Ginny at the funeral) and that was a very brief sentence in 600 pages of book.

Jk forgot to take us with her when she mapped out Ginny's role. I honestly cant find one single quote in HBP which would lead me to believe that Ginny has great depth and warmth and is worthy of our hero.

So she took Harry's hand and led him away, really someone who had no clue what Harry was feeling could have done that. Shouldn't it have been accompanied by a sentence or two of descriptive sadness in her eyes, or even a single tear shed for how devastating this was for him? I understand she chose not to give them dialogue at that point because silence is often far more powerful, and it might have worked had we seen Ginny's capacity for love and warmth before the event, but we haven't.

I can understand how some people have mananged to accept Ginny purely because Harry loves her and they were always going to get together, but even they might concede that they are willing to believe in it more because it was a fated outcome, rather than a well written character developement.

I think it's easier to accept Ron's failings because we have become incredibly fond of him. He was beautifully written, like most of the HP characters and so of corse we are going to still love him when he strays into the path of ridiculousness, we love Ron, falts and all. A lot of us do not love Ginny like that and it is not a very satisfying feeling to be deprived of that kind of emotional connection in the end.

I think this was a great point, I had never really thought about it before. Ginny is very like her mother in her protectiveness and sharp tongue, but also her caring nature. I think this is shown best when -

I also think that people have said some very unfair things about Ginny.

As someone said before, Ginny never makes fun of Luna, she giggles, but is actually one of the only people who is nice to her and defends her. Also, many people say she was overly nasty about Fleur, but I think she has a few reasons for disliking her. She is feeling protective towards Bill and worried that Fleur is messing him around, like many sisters would. Also, Fleur is often quite rude and tactless, like when she says theres nothing to do at the burrow unless you like cooking and chickens. Im not saying Ginny was right for making fun of Fleur, but she didnt do without reason, and Mrs Weasley and Hermione did exactly the same. Someone said that Ginny still makes fun of Fleur after she and Mrs Weasley have made up, but this isnt true. Also, Ginny only actually went out with two other boys, which is not alot. She's a young girl and was just having her fun, and I don't think her intention was to get harry to notice her, but rather try and get over harry. Plus, no ones perfect! And totally perfect characters arent likable. All the characters have flaws, bu thats how we relate to them.

Razz sais in one post that perhaps it is the younger readers who like Ginny and the older who dont like her, but im 18! And I don't just like her because she was with Harry, I think shes a great character in her own right.

Also, Ginny and Harry are totally on the same wave length, at the funeral, it says that while looking into her eyes, Harry -

Ginny Knows Harry, thats why she is not shocked when he breaks up with her, and she is acting strong for him, to make it easier - part of her loving and caring nature, and -

x x

i completely disagree with you.!

She is 15 years old... when i was fifteen i had one boyfriend... and we are still together... but beyond the point... there was no one in my class who had like 3 boyfriends and sucked face with them all over places... ginny's actions with making out with her boyfriend are completely tasteless! If looks bad on her because she is showing a major display of public affection.. not that it is unspeakable to make out with your boyfriend, but not so the whole world can see.

I also don't think ginny has waited for ginny that long.. because she was with other guys... if you are in love with one man, why would you settle for anything less.. and that also takes alot away from the relationship if she wants to be with someone else.

And also i think the way J.K.R. broke them up was ridiculous.. if she was so inlove with him she should have shown some emotion.. come on... you are dating the man of your dreams... and he just dumps you...

I agree with ginny being one of my favorite characters, and i wish she'd would have a very,very.very big part in the next book....not just shunted to the side a lover girl to Harry.If one more person was to be added to the harry hermione ron trio then it oughta be her.


Hoover

I agree.

And to add to that, she apparently posesses equivalent magical talent to Harry and Hermione's, but without the book-learning or the trauma/dark destiny to go along with it. (Hermione has natural talent, honed by hard-work and application. Harry inherits some of his giftings from his parents, but is also inadvertently ‘gifted’ dark magical power - but, it comes at a price. With Ginny however? Who knows? Maybe she‘s born with it - or maybe it’s Maybelline. )

She is also suddenly gifted Hermione’s assertiveness in HBP (while the latter inexplicably regresses into a sap) - but without us ever actually seeing her develop into it, since being assertive was hardly characteristic of Ginny in the previous books. Oh, and she had recently been imbued with Quidditch skills that are roughly comparable to Harry’s and so forth (she even plays his position in OotP for a while, etc). She also joins the shiny-haired brigade along with Cho and Fleur, and suddenly materialises into a popular beauty, with charms sufficiently tempting to deign recognition (and refusal) from even disdainful Slytherins.

As Dana has been intelligently arguing all along, the girl is *such* a prime example of a Mary Sue. (Until I joined this site I had never read any fan fiction of any kind, so had no idea of what a ‘Mary Sue’ was. But, a few months later, and now I know.)

She simply ‘has’ without the reader ever being privy to the process of exactly how she comes by all of these wide-ranging talents. Even Harry’s attraction to her seems to be filtered through other characters. With Cho, we saw Harry responding to Cho herself. He thinks she’s extremely pretty. At the Yule ball, Harry thinks that Hermione is pretty. In both instances, it is not a case of Harry hearing other people discuss either girl’s prettiness and then suddenly coming to the conclusion that they are indeed ‘pretty’. It’s a direct reaction that stems from his thoughts and feelings - not someone else’s.

The reason why characters like Neville and Luna appeal, is that they not only have obstacles to overcome, but we actually get to see how this process might unfold. We watch them develop into their giftings, or at least express what is innate. We see, for example that Luna is idiosyncratic, highly individualistic and intelligent. We don’t need to have this information conveyed to us in a second-hand word-of-mouth fashion such as:

Parvati Patil: Yes, my sister Padma tells me that old Loony Lovegood is quite smart actually. That’s probably why she’s in Ravenclaw you know.
Lavender Brown: Maybe... but if you ask me, she seems a bit cracked with all those weird hats that she wears….
Parvati Patil: And as for that hair…. But I've got to hand it to her. She marches to her own beat ("said Parvati admiringly" etc.)

Fortunately, we were spared from such a ham-fisted scenario, where everything is simply 'alleged' and the character is drawn through commentary, rather than incident. Instead we are made directly privy to these aspects of her character through Harry’s direct observations and the way in which she behaves. The reader is then permitted to not only observe but to interact with Luna and cast their own judegement about her, rather than simply being told what she is like.

We gain further insight into Luna's hereditary intelligence through the brief, matter of fact account of her brilliant mother, as relayed by none other than Luna herself. In that one simple scene, we see that Luna is oddly mature and emotionally experienced, without anyone having to paint an obvious, tell-tale signpost to direct us towards that conclusion. We can detect the subtle nuances for ourselves. (That is what imaginative, textual space in children‘s literature is supposed to provide.) Despite her minimal appearances in Book five, her sparkling portrayal almost steals the show from our central characters.

In Neville’s case, the history of his parents is also revealed to us through incident. We also see Neville actively moving from being bumble-footed underdog, to a determined and potentially powerful wizard. (Or at least, that was the story that we were seeing with him, until HBP….) Despite being secondary characters, (who the lens of the narrative does not constantly focus upon) both Neville and Luna have been imbued with some form of history, personal trajectory and life.

With Ginny - there’s nothing. There’s no rhyme or reason. There is no visible struggle, no account and thus no story. Despite having every opportunity to gradually acquaint us with Ginny, and develop her into a prominent and interesting character, this did not eventuate. She’s just *there* all of a sudden, idealised and equipped with all of these wonderful skills, and attributes - just like magic.

Maybe it makes for fun writing, but it sure doesn’t make for engaging reading. It's hard not to be indifferent towards Ginny most of the time, save for when she is being actively unpleasant.

As usual Westerly, you delivered another thoughtful and insightful post that I thoroughly enjoyed reading.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I had a rant in the Harry/Ginny Venom thread in ships earlier to get some of it off my chest.
The only reason I can see why Jk presented Ginny as she did in HBP is because she was taking it for granted that we were privy to all the information about her that she was, which cant be true if Jk describes Ginny as warm, that is the very last word I would use to describe her. She is definitavely cold in fact.

I also commented in my little rant how Ginny does not seem to smile or laugh once in HBP unless it is at someone elses expense. Taken into context had we been shown the other side of Ginny, it might not have looked so bad, but because we lack any insight into her 'humanity and vulnerability' she comes across as nasty most of the time, which I found very disappointing indeed.

Ginny-Sue...yes. You make me laugh Dana! Oh, how I wish I'd seen that!

At any rate, you must know that it was your and Phoenix Effects early posts (- among other great posts and posters) that really paved the way for a particular vision of the series and mode of close-reading and analysis. Many of us (myself included) who joined this site later have merely followed the established ground-work. I'm responsive rather than original or insightful. I'm not that quick on the uptake and if I'm honest, it actually takes me a while to get going mentally.

For example, in one of my earliest posts on this board, I noted that the Ginny/Harry set-up (with Lily/James parallel) was obvious. While I thought it was pretty predictable, I honestly didn't care much about the pairing either way and didn't stop to really question this obviously ordained order. (Yep, just took the author at her word.) I just assumed it was going happen, so didn't give it much thought.

So I focused on individual character instead, which was of more interest to me (and which is more fitting in terms of this thread. ) I approved of the idea of what Ginny as an individual was meant to be. But in OotP, I only looked at her in terms of narrative and character potential (as in, "oh -she's going to become *this*, and "then, she's going to do *that*") - all the while overlooking what she was actually like, what she was already doing, and how she was portrayed in OotP.

It's a very easy trap to fall into, mistaking clear intention - for execution. I was too busy focusing on her potential as a character to examine whether or not I actually liked what was right in front of me. I tell you - this series lures people into predictive analysis and responses.

So yes, I wanted (and still want) another strong female character to stand alongside Hermione and McGonagall, and the all-to-brief glimmer we were given of Amelia Bones. I still feel the series is rather thin on the ground in this respect. But when I backtracked and re-read my copy (which to honest, I had only ever read once ) I realised that the execution of Ginny's character was heavy-handed, oddly hollow, and kind of forced. She just didn't appear naturally in the text the way that either Neville or Luna did. The writing surrounding her character wasn't effortless or organic. So I had to stop and think.

It actually made me a little uncomfortable to see the glaring gap between the idea of Ginny and the execution. All of this reportage about Ginny, and no actual Ginny in view.

And when she did actually grace the scene - she was annoying.

I was annoyed by her giggle-pity treament of Luna. Some may call it 'nice' or kind - but *groans* that is precisely the problem with her attitude. She is 'kind' to Luna - in a thoroughly patronising way, that infers a superiority/inferiority hierarchy.

IMV Luna is an intriguing, well fleshed-out character - not conveniently placed charity fodder for a thinly-constructed Ginny to attempt to build herself an identity upon, and accrue a semblance of substance to her person. The scene in the library where she attempts to insinuate herself into Harry's favour was so transparent that it similarly got on my nerves - while Ron's sledge-hammer hinting on the train at the end made me think - here we go....

At that stage, instead of complacently going along with the author's heavy-handed, transparent design for the series? I actually started to think, and ask questions which, is an important part of reading. As you say Dana, it is the responsibility of the author to lead her readers into her universe and to convince her audience. Telling without showing will never suffice and is one of the fundamental rules of convincing writing.

Before the sixth book was released, we had a thread where we expressed our worst fears for the series "I'll throw my book out of the window if...". I voiced two of mine - that the intriguing Luna would be given a lousy bit part rather than further developed, and that Ginny would be forcefully pushed into prominence out of the blue. Pretty prescient, eh?

However, it was one of your posts in the deceased 'debate' thread, where you described her as a "classic 'Mary-Sue'" that I really started thinking. First of all, I went to google and looked up what a 'Mary Sue' was - then I knew exactly what you were talking about and was able to identify what I was reading.

I have more to say about why I find it difficult to warm to Ginny. I feel that the Luna-Ginny dynamic nicely exemplifies why the character simply leaves me cold most of the time (when I'm not irritated), and I think that it is an important interaction that tends to be overlooked. But - I'll save if for another post.

Does that make it all right then?

I'm sure the thousands of children who are being bullied and even some who have been pushed to suicide might disagree with you there. I don't think it's an acceptable part of growing up at all, not when it genuinely hurts other people and can affect them right through into adulthood. There's far too much being "accepted" today for my liking...accepting bullish behaviour as a normal part of growing up is one of them.

That's why I am so vehemently against Ginny being portrayed as sassy when what she's actually doing, IMHO of course, is behaving like a spoiled brat. I don't spare Hermione the same criticism though, I have to say. I'm just re-reading HBP now and I was surprised to see her joining in the Fleur-bashing too - I admit I missed that on my first skim-reading.

Definately. I mean, I have to be perfectly honest and say that when I really want to, I can lie with the best of them. I have a pretty decent poker face and enjoy telling people that there's a flying monkey behind them.

But at the same time... I HATE Lying- real lying. I won't lie to get out of trouble and I won't make up a story to try and not hurt someone else's feelings. I just feel too guilty about it afterwards.

And I can't remember the last time that I flat out lied to a teacher or person of authority. You know, it might be one thing to say "Oh, I forgot to the put the brakes on, ha ha ha whoops" and treat it like a joke. More than likely you'd get a "you might have hurt someone, don't do it again" response but avoid trouble.

But to flat out lie after trying to hurt someone.... that's just low. What kind of people do that???

Crikey, mate! Understatement of the year or what?! Only teasing... But seriously, I agree with you - I can see what JKR was trying to do in bringing her up to be worthy of Harry, but she did an abysmal job of it.

This is really the crux of the matter, isn't it? Yes, we see that Ginny is popular and likeable through other characters reactions to her. I won't argue with that. But if this is what JKR's intentions were, then she made a huge mistake here, I'm afraid. Literature-wise, you learn about a character by reading about them, obviously...you judge them on their words and their actions. You judged Elizabeth Bennet and Mr Darcy on their words and actions in Pride and Prejudice, for example. We, as readers, were allowed to see both the good things and the bad things by reading about their actions - we saw Elizabeth as a fiercely passionate and devoted person, but we also saw that she could be prejudiced and stubborn. Ditto Mr Darcy. I loved both those characters very much - because I was allowed to form my own opinions about them.

Imagine how much poorer a novel it would have been if we had only been allowed to see their characters from the perspective of people's reactions to them - Lady Catherine De Burgh's to Elizabeth, for example, or Wickham's to Mr Darcy. It would hardly have led to the same reactions.

This is how I feel about Harry and Ginny. JKR should have allowed us to form our own opinions about Ginny - she didn't. She forced us into accepting that she is right for Harry by showing us that everyone else likes her, so we must too. I can't do that. I can't accept that something is the way it is just because the author says it is. That's not why people read books. If we wanted to be dictated to, we'd read 'Mein Kampf'. The fact remains that JKR did not show us Ginny's development when she should have and when she finally did, it was forceful, over-done and hence came across as coldness.

I don't think anything in any of the books has ever met with such strength of feeling as this whole issue and I think that's because no matter which way you look at it, JKR did unfortunately fall short of expectations with this one. She should have allowed us to form opinions about Ginny for ourselves - for her to earn her place alongside Harry through accompanying him on his journey, which she didn't do.