![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I'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? ( Spoiler for WW ) 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 ( Spoiler for Katherine Neville's The Eight ) 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? ( Spoiler for WW ) 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 ( Spoiler for Katherine Neville's The Eight ) 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?
