![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
heidiI've been pondering a line in an article in Slate entitled "Do It, Already!", which focuses on various omg-the-finally-hooked-up episodes of serieses like X-Files, Moonlighting, Cheers and West Wing, and if you read the article be prepared for some spoilers-about-last-week's-episode if you haven't seen it yet. Anyhow, the line is:
And I realised that that is exactly how I feel right now about both R/Hr and H/G (although I don't, actually, about R/T). So what if they're seemingly unworkable relationships in a lot of real-world ways? (Harry's survivor-of-child-abuse-and-the-lack-of-impact-it's-seemingly-had-on-him is one example of the unworkable-in-the-real-world backstory.) So what if Ginny spent fiveish years pining over Harry in varying degrees? Why should that be a hinderance if Donna pining, in varying degrees, for Josh, strikes me as somewhat endearing? Is it just the fact that one is a tv series that doesn't delve quite as deeply into the perspective of one character as the HP series has re Harry? Is it because in WW the crushing-party is an adult and not a ten year old who hold her mum's hand at the train station?
So a seemingly unworkable relationship is miraculously, happily tied up in the final pages? Like Catherine and Solarin, when she clearly would've been better off with Nim, who'd been, yes, pining after her for a long time, obviously, only to see her go off with his long-lost brother, and clearly he's set up to now find newly-slim Lily intriguing? It doesn't mean I can't still enjoy the series as a whole, the plot and hte story and the characters as a whole, just because I'm not enthralled by the seemingly unworkable relationship being tied up a nice, neat bow in the final pages. It's a tried-and-true narrative thread... maybe that's why I see it as seemingly unworkable?
Now, briefly, on the rant: I do agree with a lot of what JKR said on the whole, but it rankles me even more now re her characterization of Tonks in book 6, where she lost her look-changing-ability and thus some of her magic because of an unrequited crush. If she's trying to say that Remus didn't love her for her cute pink hair, then that's a groovy sentiment, but in Tonks' case, her looks aren't just cuteness or whatever, they're a part of her magic - it would be like Harry losing the ability to speak Parseltongue for non-Voldemortian reasons. I guess it's that I think she's right about overemphasis on looks in society, and yes, I too am now approaching this thought-process as the Mom of a Daughter - and it can change the way that you look at some things - but even someone with Looks (see: Narcissa) can have a depth that isn't noticable on first glance (see: Quidditch World Cup scene) but is apparent when her character is fleshed out more. And I wonder, again, if JKR has given half the amount of thought to a character like Pansy as some of us in fandom have - does Pansy hang out with Millicent, who is described as not exactly a pixie, and if she does, then what does that say about whether Pansy is completely shallow and looks-obsessed herself?
The marriage plot remains a tried-and-true narrative thread, and in Victorian novels it never bothers me when a seemingly unworkable relationship is miraculously, happily tied up in the final pages...
And I realised that that is exactly how I feel right now about both R/Hr and H/G (although I don't, actually, about R/T). So what if they're seemingly unworkable relationships in a lot of real-world ways? (Harry's survivor-of-child-abuse-and-the-lack-of-impact-it's-seemingly-had-on-him is one example of the unworkable-in-the-real-world backstory.) So what if Ginny spent fiveish years pining over Harry in varying degrees? Why should that be a hinderance if Donna pining, in varying degrees, for Josh, strikes me as somewhat endearing? Is it just the fact that one is a tv series that doesn't delve quite as deeply into the perspective of one character as the HP series has re Harry? Is it because in WW the crushing-party is an adult and not a ten year old who hold her mum's hand at the train station?
So a seemingly unworkable relationship is miraculously, happily tied up in the final pages? Like Catherine and Solarin, when she clearly would've been better off with Nim, who'd been, yes, pining after her for a long time, obviously, only to see her go off with his long-lost brother, and clearly he's set up to now find newly-slim Lily intriguing? It doesn't mean I can't still enjoy the series as a whole, the plot and hte story and the characters as a whole, just because I'm not enthralled by the seemingly unworkable relationship being tied up a nice, neat bow in the final pages. It's a tried-and-true narrative thread... maybe that's why I see it as seemingly unworkable?
Now, briefly, on the rant: I do agree with a lot of what JKR said on the whole, but it rankles me even more now re her characterization of Tonks in book 6, where she lost her look-changing-ability and thus some of her magic because of an unrequited crush. If she's trying to say that Remus didn't love her for her cute pink hair, then that's a groovy sentiment, but in Tonks' case, her looks aren't just cuteness or whatever, they're a part of her magic - it would be like Harry losing the ability to speak Parseltongue for non-Voldemortian reasons. I guess it's that I think she's right about overemphasis on looks in society, and yes, I too am now approaching this thought-process as the Mom of a Daughter - and it can change the way that you look at some things - but even someone with Looks (see: Narcissa) can have a depth that isn't noticable on first glance (see: Quidditch World Cup scene) but is apparent when her character is fleshed out more. And I wonder, again, if JKR has given half the amount of thought to a character like Pansy as some of us in fandom have - does Pansy hang out with Millicent, who is described as not exactly a pixie, and if she does, then what does that say about whether Pansy is completely shallow and looks-obsessed herself?
