A Rationalist's Guide to Chocolate Orange: We Don't Know, But We Think We Have a Pretty Good Guess

An, er, H/G thingie by AceMyth. Serving the chocolate-craving public since May 2003!

Q: Why "Chocolate Orange" and not "Emerald Flame", "Lightning Scarlet" or several of the flashier names in common usage?

A: because 1. Denying our roots of "Orange Crush" makes us look like pretentious little buggers who never really believed anything could come out of silly crushes, never mind that they were literary and thus very probably served a purpose, and 2. A general rule of thumb: The less it sounds like a Mary Sue name, the better.



Q: How ridiculous is it that this essay has already been translated into Thai, but I never bothered to translate it into Hebrew?!...

A: Very.



Q: I somehow stumbled upon this page. What the heck?

A: You can press the back button, go back to your normal life and believe what you like... Or, you can read this explanation first and see how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Interested in the meaning and essence of evidence and choosing theories/beliefs in general rather than the actual nitty-gritty evidence in favor of the specific theory of H/G? You might want to read Risking Falsehoods, Chasing Truths: The Ship Debate through Epistemological Lens instead of this. *** An astute psychological analysis of your shipping identity is just a click away!

0. Foreword

How we glow over these novels of passion, when the story is told with any spark of truth and nature! And what fastens attention, in the intercourse of life, like any passage betraying affection between two parties? Perhaps we never saw them before and never shall meet them again. But we see them exchange a glance or betray a deep emotion, and we are no longer strangers. We understand them and take the warmest interest in the development of the romance. All mankind love a lover.

-Ralph Waldo Emerson

In what is one of the most ridiculous typical fandom phenomena known to man, the most heated argument- and the most interesting subject- of almost any given fandom is not its overall plot, its moral implications or anything that would immediately come to mind when thinking of what defines a literary work of art. The greatest question, looming large, dividing fandoms and causing endless amounts of arguments is the seemingly irrelevant minutia of who gets together with whom. The reason for that is a complete discussion on its own, but the fact is that the question of the eventual romantic developments in the Harry Potter series is driving forums, motivating conflicts, and is such a dominant factor that pretty much any discussion on anything having to do with Harry Potter that isn't meticulously regulated is bound to deteriorate into an argument about "pairing them off" in very short order.



This text here is not for these debates. Or rather, it is and it isn't. While they do have their undeniable appeal and are quite enjoyable when gone about rightly, they are way too often- the pessimistic estimate is everywhere, all the time- gone about very very wrongly. The idea of firm H/G opposers actually being sent to read this because some supporter of the concept challenged them to is disturbing- I bet the record is somewhere around five lines past this foreword before closing the browser window in disgust (god knows I don't blame them). In fact, when I first wrote this I wrote it as nothing more than a reference guide that wasn't even supposed to be "read"! True, since then it might have become a bit more like a thesis and a bit less like a reference guide, but it was never ever meant to be "the mighty argument to crush, humble and enlighten all ye non-believers", which is how some, sadly, choose to parade it. If you're here because somebody challenged you to read it or even respond, I hereby release you from the challenge (bonus points if your reply contains "The author said I don't have to, nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah"). This thing is here for one purpose, really, and that is so if anybody ever feels the urge to check out what the lunatic H/Gers are babbling about when they say their ship actually has a snowball's chance in hell of happening, and perhaps give it a chance, they can take a look at it instead of wading through millions of "omg the letters they start with are adjacent in the alphabet!!!11" posts. Also, if somebody finds themselves extremely bored, this could be a nifty way to pass the time.



While this sort of approach eliminates over-emotionalism, something which is way too common in discussions of this subject, I don't pretend it doesn't have shortcomings- in the moral realm, that is. I am quite ashamed of (for example) analysing J.K. Rowling's views of her parents' meeting day and King's Cross Station for supporting the eventual relationship of two fictional characters. Anybody with any sense of decency and proportion would be ashamed of this sort of thing. But it remains. This "shipping" stuff IS actually very central to quite a large portion of Harry Potter fans in general; and if they are to be presented the answer to the question of exactly who is going to be Harry's eventual significant other (or, more precisely, a collection of facts, literary patterns and statements by the series author herself on the subject, with what I deem their natural logical derivatives which point to the answer), anything that helps point at the answer just has to be included, because when all is said and done this is just an exercise in predictive science- and science doesn't allow sentimentality to get in its way. This essay being about (fictional) love, for Christ's sake. Talk about an identity crisis.

Sometimes, approaching things in a purely systematic manner comes with a bit of a moral price. This is one of those occasions. But if that helps any, in my mind- (and hopefully in yours)- the predictive front is where this approach begins and ends.



And finally, in case you've missed it or something (many, for some reason, tend to), I repeat: while I believe that the facts speak for themselves, the reader is perfectly entitled to choose not to listen, or to dismiss them for whatever reason they see fit. The main purpose of this compliation is to present the relevant facts to those who are not familiar with them, or to those who have failed insofar to understand the impact they make when considered as a general case presented for Harry Potter and Ginny Weasley becoming a fictional couple. It is not by any means designed to "convert" those who are already familiar with the arguments included, have already considered them as a whole and have decided, for their own reasons, to reject the conclusion they suggest.

Around 80% of the pre-OoTP material in here is embedded into the fandom's collective so thoroughly it'd be pointless to try figuring out who actually thought of what first. Some things are probably my own ideas, but my brain has cultivated this whole thing so much at this point that I frankly cannot tell the ideas of me and the ideas of others apart; in fact, many of my own thoughts, arguments, original content and even other people's contributions which became a part of this compilation actually went the reverse-course and became commonly cited material, shaping its relationship with the manifest of H/G supporters in general to be one of mutual feedback and reflection rather than one of the compilation merely being a summary of the manifest for easy reference, as it has been in its earlier days. I've even had the hilarious experience of coming across an essay somebody compiled out of bits of evidence they encountered here and there in HP community, most of which originated here. Therefore, if you've ran across lots of H/G posts in the past, be ready for many "been there, read that, bought the T-shirt" moments.

The point of all of this is fairly simple and the thesis it presents is very specific and unambiguous (something that many general prediction-oriented theses in the ship debate as a whole lack). You could read it as a summary, really.

1. Fact: Harry Potter is a fictional character, whose fate lies completely and utterly in the hands of one Jo Rowling. (self-evident)

Therefore, a key postulate : Any prediction of Harry Potter's future not based on things expressed by Jo Rowling (canon as she views it, quotes) is irrelevant. (see sections II, IV)

2. Fact: Romance has been presented as a theme in the book. (self-evident)

3. Fact: Rowling has repeatedly said that Harry's love life will continue being active past this point. (see section V)

4. Fact: Harry currently has no person that can be described as his significant other. (self-evident)

Therefore, key postulate level two : There will be a person who cannot be considered Harry's fictional significant other now, but will be considered such in the future.

5. Theory: To qualify as a possibility to be this person, a character has to be 1. Female, 2. without a significant age gap from Harry, and either 3. quite developed already or 4. a new character we are barely familiar with right now, if at all.

Therefore, key postulate level 3: Harry will develop feelings in the future of the series for either 1. Hermione Granger, 2. Ginny Weasley, 3. Luna Lovegood or 4. An as-of-yet undeveloped character.

6. Fact: Rowling has denied Hermione as an option repeatedly and absolutely. (see section VIII)

7. Theory: If Rowling wanted to keep us from guessing at Hermione, she'd answer ambiguously rather than saying "no". (see section VIII)

Therefore, key postulate level 4: Harry will develop feelings in the future of the series for either 1. Ginny Weasley, 2. Luna Lovegood or 3. An as-of-yet undeveloped character.

8. Fact: This is where absolute elimination ends, and speculation begins; there's no way to truly know who this person will be, so we ought to stick with our best guess as of now. (self-evident)

9. Fact: The possibility of a newly-developed character has, by its very defenition, borderline zero evidence to sway us in its favor. (self-evident)

10. Theory: Both Ginny and Luna are possibilities, but Ginny has a lot going for her as a possibility in canon and in Rowling quotes, the two sources we defined as analysis-worthy, that Luna does not. (see sections VI,VII)

Therefore, key conclusion : We can't know who Harry will develop feelings for in the future of the series, but if we had to pick a best guess, it would be Ginny Weasley.

The crucial component holding this whole thesis together is the focus on Rowling'’s point of view, how she views and has chosen to construct her story so far and what patterns she has been following that we can safely assume that she will continue to. Its sole purpose is determining the future development of the series- it would have absolutely no meaning for anybody with a deconstructionist bent (deeming their own interpretation of the text the criterion for analysis rather than authorial intent). But the water that this thesis does hold, I believe that it holds very well.

Whoa!, says you, another name change? Are you trying to get this thing to be known as "Uh, that Acemyth H/G thingie, you know which one?"?.

Yes, I am. That aside, I thought it could be useful to put the bottom line right up there in the title instead of hiding it between the lines.

I don't know the future of Harry's fictional love life. I don't even pretend to know.

But by golly, do I believe I've got a good guess.

I. But What if It's All One Big Mistake?

Likely scenarios include

* The "absolutely nothing happens" scenario, noted in "The Acid Test: Did It Pass?", which means I Overestimated the degree to which Rowling was willing to toy with Harry's love life in the series;

* The "Harry, serial girlfriend switcher" scenario, which means I Underestimated the degree to which Rowling was willing to toy with Harry's love life in the series, which is closely related to

* The "Harry/Hermione's Harmonious Harmony and other words that start with H" scenario, which means that Rowling simply lied to her audience to set them off course,

* The "When Harry Met Luna" scenario, which would make the H/G foreshadowing either a gigantic coincidence or a red-herring of epic proportions, and finally

* The "Harry meets Mary S- er, new character" scenario, a horror I am not even willing to describe the implications of.

But you know what? The second part of the headline is there for a reason. This whole thing is just a guess. An educated guess, I'll grant myself that, but agony over failed guesses should be reserved to stuff like "D'oh, I was sure they would invade through Calais!" rather than "D'oh, but I was sure he would end up with Ginny!". Lighten up, people!



This doesn't mean there won't be a full acknowledgement of me screwing up my predictive work in here if that turns out to be the case, however. Not acknowledging one's mistakes is not healthy, and could lead to several negative things (arrogance, twistedness, the splitting of Aselia into Sylvarant and Tethe'alla).

II. What You Won’t Find Here

You might not like to hear this, but nobody ships based solely on authorial intent. No matter how much I abuse scary words like "hypothesis" and "presumptuous", I don't, and no matter how vigorously you are shaking your head right now, you don't, either. Yes, when Rowling wrote the books she definitely intended something, but whatever it was, its role in that attachment to the plot and characters we experience is, at most, partial. We have pasts and emotions and ideals and our desire to see them acknowledged and resolved stems from a layer of our personality so fundamental that it doesn't care about the difference between reality and fiction.



We humans are hopeless dreamers. We dream even when we're awake.



Now, here's the scoop: This is not a bad thing. In fact, it is one of the most wonderful things conceivable. But when attempting to infer future fictional developments, it does tend to get in the way a bit.



A reader scanning this outside of the context of the fandom in general may wonder- and rightfully so- whether this whole array of “evidence” actually justifies the possibility of Harry and Ginny from the point of view of the pure observer- of the normal, plain old reader. Because while consistent symbolism and author statements- in short, metatext analysis- are all much more reliable tools for constructing concrete evidence for the eventual occurrence of a literary development, one could easily get the impression that the possibility a case for is presented here is a soul-less game of “guess Harry’s significant other if you’re intelligent enough” rather than a part of a story- that Harry and Ginny are two literary entities strangers to one another and their possible eventual emergence as a couple, while guessable, would in terms of the storyline come from nowhere.

The reason analysis of actual interaction between Harry and Ginny is- absurdly- not used once in this document lies within its target audience. The ship question, as already explained in the foreword, is a very emotionally loaded one- and you can’t take three steps into the fandom without running into somebody’s interpretation of what is “right” for canon in the light of the romantic developments that have occurred so far. Harry/Hermione supporters claim that Harry and Hermione’s friendship is the setup for romance; Ron/Hermione shippers maintain that Ron and Hermione’s constant tension is, in fact, such a setup, rather than the aforementioned friendship; and the Harry/Draco shippers will readily swear to God that Harry and Draco’s rivalry is actually the elusive setup. And potentially they are all right.

Analysis of emotion-laden canon scenes is self-indulgence of the sort I heavily encourage participation in, but its place is not here. In the fandom that grew the Rationalist's Guide to Chocolate Orange, objective facts are a precious few, and gratuitous opinions are a dime a dozen- so I thought, well, let's see if I can concede that my emotions have no meaning, that my opinion hardly matters, that J.K. Rowling is the only person with any authority on her characters, and come up with a convincing case anyway.

Yes, I believe the Chocolate in the Library scene was heartwarming. Yes, I believe that the "Lucky You" scene was powerful. And yes, I believe that underdogs can win and rejection can be overcome. But what in the world do my beliefs have to do with how Rowling is going to write her series? Nothing.



So I've decided to focus on the things that do, here. Prediction is tough, merciless business. If you want the case for Harry/Ginny from the character development, canon analysis perspective, there's no essay fulfilling that requirement at this time- However, I foresee that in the future a great essay will be written to fulfill this very function by Red Monster and will be available at this URL: Giving Her the Power: The Characterisation of Harry/Ginny. Check back here at 2005! :P (Ah, the wonders of constant revision...)

III. The Acid Test: Well? Did it pass?

The document from before the OoTP revision stated:

"[Ginny's larger role in OoTP] is a double-edge sword for H/G. On one hand, it debunks the common 'Ginny has served her purpose, and now it is time for her to fulfill her true destiny as a wallpaper' interpretation. On the other hand, it means that OoTP is pretty much the crucial time frame for an H/G friendship to develop. If after book 5 there's still not a at least a serious H/G friendship, it would basically mean that any H/G would have to start being developed around book 6, then- if it develops in the same turtle-like pace relationships tend to develop at in HP- reach its peak (climax) as a mini plot-arc against the backdrop of book 7, which would be Harry's world's private apocalypse. This would make it quite difficult to separate the romantic developments from the main plot, as the latter becomes more and more dramatic and prominent. Unless Rowling is planning on making H/G a key element in the downfall of Voldemort or somesuch, no H/G friendship development in book 5 does not bode well for the ship."

So technically we could pretend that the H/G development is right on schedule and nobody should be bothered about it, but while that possibility is tempting, it's impossible to pretend that it was what we were expecting all along. Sunk, it's not, but H/G is most definitely derailed from the path your average H/Ger had in mind when hopping aboard for the first time. The common mindset was that it was only a matter of time before Harry would reciprocate Ginny's feelings; said feelings being the first step of set-up.

Instead, we got treated to this unexpected and literally counter-intuitive course of development that on the one hand is just about what should be happening for H/G but on the other leaves the uneasy feeling that something is not quite right. So foreshadowing for the relationship is present, no doubt. AND Ginny became Harry's friend, providing him with the sort of friendship neither Ron nor Hermione had been providing him up until then, and the sort of friendship he desparately needs- firm and no-nonsense, but considerate and understanding. There's only this problem of Ginny's feelings disappearing (or at the very least being majorly suppressed). And Harry hasn't started showing us typical signs of impending romance, either.

"Okay, now it's set up for the next book. We have just the allusions we need, now it's just a matter on following up on it in the next book- they won't stay platonic for long…"

Sound familiar from anywhere?

Congratulations, H/Gers, you have just been accepted into our brand new and exciting "A touch of what supporting H/H is like" program.

IV. Unvehement and Unscary Shipping 101

A touch, not the whole deal. If it were that, this document wouldn't be here.

I'm not overly in favor of ship debating; Ship advancement in OoTP has been nonexistent, and looked like pretty much a major regression in the arc of almost all possible ships (Except for H/H which had nowhere to regress to anyway). But if you're still not tired of it by some miracle, or are a fandom newbie fresh and ready to tread boldly where veterans have gone weary, do not repeat the mistakes certain other people who had to deal with a similar situation before you have made.

That is, Do not :

1. Indulge in mindless conjecture. "Evidence" for something is defined as any piece of a posteriori info with possible implications that challenge the a priori perfectly acceptable theory that the aforementioned something is not true. Conjecture is closing your eyes and pretending that said a priori theory is not perfectly acceptable, and is the first step towards concluding that the theory you came up with must be true, regardless of how ridiculous it is. Occam's Razor is your friend.

2. Turn to symbolism/metonymy/other forms of subtext without justification. A motif gains symbolic meaning when I. A consistent PATTERN emerges, II. Strongly loaded CONNOTATIONS and PRECEDENTS outweigh the simpler interpretations, and/or III. CHARACTERISATION and PLOT are in tandem with the alleged symbolism. These three elements are somewhat tied into one another, and usually it's only somewhat safe to assume symbolic meaning when all three are present (EMPHASIS placed on the supposedly symbolic element also helps). Lack of one element makes for a weak symbol, lack of two constitutes a wild guess, lack of three means that you should get it into your head that not anything that could be a symbol necessarily is.

3. Boast about being able to see things others don't and being more intelligent than them. Combo Pak: Prove absolutely nothing, offend tons of people and set yourself up for a humiliation in case you're wrong, which may not be as impossible as it seems to you in this specific point of time - 3 for the price of one! A little humility never hurt anyone.

4. Claim that your ship has moral superiority or some sort of other pathos-oriented advantage. If you try to show it to somebody and they don't see it, there are numerous possible reasons for it- them being the very personification of evil, or any other lesser derivative of that general concept, is definitely not one of those reasons. Argumentum ad Hominem is Latin for "Bzzzzzzk! Round over, no rhetorical points for you. And good going with terribly annoying anybody who might be in disagreement with you, if that was what you were aiming for."

5. Fetch evidence from sources that have nothing to do with literature without the question at hand directly making them relevant. No, proving H/G through five-dimensional geometry is not concrete canon evidence. Even if you have a Ph.D in five-dimensional geometry.

6. And, most importantly, mindlessly forget yourself in the vortex of shipping. If you're a fan of the series, like sharing the experience with others and wake up one day to find out that the ship debate has ate said experience whole, try putting things back in perspective. (I am very well aware that in the online fandom, uttering the sentence "putting things back in perspective" is first-degree heresy and I might be burned at the stake for suggesting this.)

Yep. So we expected Ginny's non-platonic affection to stay and H/G friendship to form, thus safely carrying us from "probable" to "evidence overload". And it didn't happen that way, so yeah, H/G is a bit more of a challenge to argue in favor of now than it used to be. But that is no excuse for arguing it horridly, like supporters of ships challenging to argue (i.e. pretty much all of them) scarily often do. Especially not when, thank your Holy Entity of Choice, an alternative exists.



Scoop: Having solid evidence that H/G is above just a possibility is lightyears ahead of having frail, ridiculous evidence that they're currently in mad lurrrrrrrrrrrrrve with each other. Sure, pick an unreasonable position drawing its support from the thematic implications of the Lily/James parallel as reflected in post-modern Micronesian mythology, be my guest. Just don't be surprised when the people on the other side of the debate effortlessly produce the needed amount of ad-hoc hogwash to match yours.

V. H/G development in OoTP: Not Quite Lloyd/Collete, but Trying(tm)

Nothing takes the taste out of peanut butter quite like unrequited love.

-Charles M. Schulz, Charlie Brown in "Peanuts"

In Order of The Phoenix, the Harry and Ginny dynamic took a shape so unlike what it has been like in the past that those who were against them as a couple on an emotional level were practically forced to change their position, or at least, paint their old position with some brand-new colours. This is true for the position- any position- that supports this development, as well, because the old way of looking at both their characters is hardly relevant anymore. Pretty much everything that had to do with Harry and Ginny, individuality-wise and interaction-wise, was turned upside-down in the series' fifth installment. Harry became a much darker figure, prone to mood swings, anger outbursts and the shadows lurking within his soul starting to put up one tough fight to consume him; his main emotional quest as the series progresses, or at least one of his main emotional quests, will no doubt be reconquering them (the final scene of the fifth book shows that he is somewhat on the right way already). Ginny, meanwhile, made the full shift from a 2.5-dimensional character to a three-dimensional one, her character presumably having not changed much, but Harry's vantage point definitely having done so.

When this neo-Harry and neo-Ginny clash, they create interactions that within the frame of their characters as of Philosopher's Stone to Goblet of Fire were impossible and would have felt horribly out of context. Suddenly, Harry is angry at the whole world and Ginny cheers him up; Harry is being totally unreasonable and Ginny puts him in his place; in short, the whole Harry/Ginny thing got treated to some grade-A character development. The inclusion of Ginny giving up on Harry within this bundle pack brings the whole plot thread to a crossroads- is nothing going to happen between them on the romance front? Is the "giving up" a facade that will eventually break, letting Ginny's eternal one-sided feelings manifest again?



Or, is Harry going to have to smack himself in the head and go, "what in the world were I thinking?"



I deem the third option the most likely, and what has been considered evidence on the subject- viewed in the light of this new situation- amounts to what I consider the logical foundation, or more simply, the reason behind it.

VI. Literary Patterns Redux: The Black Hole of “It Fits”

He almost walked into a group of men clustered around a poster nailed to the wall. It declared, indeed, that the head of the dragon that had terrorised the city would be worth A$50,000 to the brave hero that delivered it to the palace.



[..] "Fifty thousand," said one of them reflectively, rubbing his chin.



"Cheap job," said the intellectual. "Well below the rate. Should be half the kingdom and his daughter's hand in marriage."



"Yes, but he ain't a king. He's a Patrician."



"Well, half his Patrimony or whatever. What's his daughter like?"



The assembled hunters didn't know.



"He's not married," Vimes volunteered. "And he hasn't got a daughter."



They turned and looked him up and down. He could see the disdain in their eyes. They probably got through dozens like him every day. ' 'Not got a daughter?'' said one of them. "Wants people to kill dragons and he hasn't got a daughter?"



Vimes felt, in an odd way, that he ought to support the lord of the city. "He's got a little dog that he's very fond of," he said helpfully.





-Terry Pratchett ("Guards! Guards!")

It’s important to note that treating things that just fit in as evidence for something is a terrible case of affirming the consequent; true evidence for occurrence X is defined by simply not fitting in if X is not the case, while literary patterns tend to be of the weaker, “fit in” type of evidence. What the reader should be asking themselves if they decide to assess each instance independently is, “Other than foreshadowing H/G, what other reason could there be for this?”.

The main "offender", in this sense, is undoubtedly the scene at the Chamber of Secrets. In literature, the serpent and the dragon are interchangeable and stand for the same concept; this makes the whole climax of CoS a deliberate and ingenious twist on the well-known "Hero risks himself, defeats the dragon with his mighty sword and saves the maiden" pattern, embedded into the literary collective by romanticists like Tennyson (Idylls of the King) and Sir Walter Scott. When it comes to extratextual romantic allusions, you can't get more blatant than that. The scene seamlessly fits in with the rest of the storyline in quite a masterful way, which- deliberately or not- definitely diverts attention from this age-old cliché given a facelift.

The final word, surprisingly, belongs to Steve Kloves:

("Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets", movie script, final revision March 1st 2002, scene 133B)

Harry WHEELS, sword in hand, and fends off the slashing serpent like St. George and the dragon.

You can read the religious legend of St. George, patron saint of England , and his rescue of the princess here and a study of the legend here. Compare to the myth of Perseus and Andromeda (Which shares common roots with it).



For bonus points, allow yourself to be dumbfounded by the existence of sentences such as "She was so pale and motionless that if it had not been for her flowing tears and her hair that moved in the breeze, he would have taken her for a marble statue". Watch out, JKR! The Greeks are gonna sue you for copyright violation!

If you recall the criteria for concrete symbolism I mentioned earlier, this little pattern qualifies with flying colours. A hero descends into the darkness to slay a dragon with a sword, rescuing the damsel in distress- that's all the consistent adhesion to a pattern AND all the loaded connotations and precedents you could ever hope for, outweighing simpler interpretations without much difficulty. Plot is decidedly in tandem (an event of this scale appropriately being placed in the climax), and characterisation seems to be so as well- Harry as a hero is no news, and Ginny seems to have had the exposition of her character engineered to play the part of "damsel in distress", regardless of later developments definitely putting a twist on that. As for emphasis, any more emphasis, and the book would explode.



Great, then! Kudos to Rowling for a perfectly implemented pattern! What an excellent usage of-



No, wait, something's missing.



In these princess-and-dragon fairy tales, always and without exceptions, the Hero earns something when the brave deed is done. As for that, we have encountered blatant literary vacuum. Sure, St. George had the privilege of the town converting from Paganism to Christianity (W00t!), but chances are you know what the mainstream alternative is. Andromeda is definitely not alone.



Yet, I hear you ask, couldn't have Rowling taken this path simply because she felt it would enrich the book’s pages if such an allusion, without bothering with its romantic implications, would be included? Is alluded romance truly the only thing that could stand behind the existence of this pattern in the books?



A good question. We'll leave it aside for a moment. Read on.

Harry Potter is a classic boarding school story (with a twist). A little infodump, if you may:

The "Boarding school" story, a subgenre of the "school story", is a genre almost unique to the English-speaking nations which developed, across the world, as a direct consequence of the British Empire . There are some German and American boarding school stories, but very few. The peculiar habit of the English upper and middle classes to send their sons away to school from an early age was eventually to lead to the creation of such classics as Tom Brown's Schooldays (Thomas Hughes) that reflected the subculture of children in these institutions. The popularity of these books spread in the early years of this century over that part of the world ruled by England . According to Musgrave, "The genre was conceived around the middle of the last century and was almost dead before the Second World War. ... The accepted version of the biography of this minor literary genre is that it was born suddenly and apparently without parents, with the publication in 1857 of Tom Brown's Schooldays."

It was not until Harriet Martineau published The Crofton Boys that the form of the school story took something approaching its present shape. This book was published as volume four of a series called The Playfellow. Hugh Proctor, the youngest boy at Crofton School, loses his foot in an accident. He had gone to school at the age of eight, rather than the usual ten, despite there being no one to 'mother' him. Here, the daily happenings in a boarding school are fully recounted. The book is full of moralizing about religion, while the importance of learning (both before Hugh goes to school, and especially after his accident) is emphasized. The tone changes at this point to encourage perseverance as well as acceptance of, and satisfaction with, one's lot in life. Eventually, Hugh, whose ambition in life had been to become a sailor, goes to India . The book closes with his mawkish observation, "I should never have gone to India if I had not lost my foot; and I think it well worth while losing my foot to go to India ."

Here, for the first time, we see what will become the typical late-Victorian boys' book ethos of overcoming all trials and tribulations to achieve one's heart's desire. If only for this reason, this book marks a watershed in the history of the school story. [see credits for source]

(A quite amusing comment found while searching for info: "The HP books owe a lot to Tom Brown's Schooldays. Therefore, I'm waiting for an analogue of the Flashman books by George MacDonald Fraser. Draco Malfoy and the Intifada, anyone?")

The Harry Potter series crosses many genres, but the "Boarding School" one is very dominant. The scope of the story is focused majorly on the students and much less on the staff, who, while having characters of their own, are mostly static except for the rare occasions where we do get a glimpse of their characterisation; The hero- Harry- is an orphan who grew up in an hostile environment, going on (the magical equivalent of) a boarding school; He makes a best guy friend straight from the beginning, he's good at sports, and he committed (and will continue to commit) heroic and brave acts- all characteristic of the typical boarding school hero. Try running a google search with the query "boarding school story" if that's still not enough.

A plot element found commonly in the boarding school genre is the two best friends eventually becoming brothers-in-law (Through the hero marrying the friend's sister, because the Hero himself usually spends the bulk of the plot detached from immediate family in all its forms, thus killing two plot arcs with one stone). This possible eventual development has been foreshadowed and introduced to us through the Black family tree and the common inter-family marriages within the wizard world.

So what does it do for us in terms of proof? Not much. Not all boarding school stories have this plot device- probably not even the majority, because the school story never was keen on focusing on romance. It largely focused on the male half of the population. That this plot device is a respected option doesn’t automatically mean it’ll happen. But read on.

(Regardless of the brother-in-law plot device, recommended reading in this genre includes the Lawrenceville Stories by Owen Johnson, the Malory Tower and St. Clair serieses by Enid Blyton and Stalky and Company by Rudyard Kipling.)

Ginny is a currently very important character, but a variety of literary techniques are apparent from the novels indicating that her importance might not end in friendship alone when all is said and done: Ginny was the first girl of around his age that Harry got to noticing in the Wizard World (and in fact, the whole book); basically this corresponds to the "fair mystery" rule of introducing early people who will be important to the plot later (like the villain or the future lover), repeatedly used by "mystery" authors such as Agatha Christie, Dorothy L. Sayers and Margery Allingham - which, while not compulsory, is definitely welcome. But what's important is that she isn't only introduced early, she's introduced first. Which is a romance plot device as old as time itself, which is also, undoubtedly, cliche'd as hell. (I am benevolently using the term.)



It's unignorable, however, that her being the first girl Harry runs into could be a coincidence. After all, ONE of the girls had to be the one he meets first, and Ginny might have ended up being it simply because hey, it had to be somebody. Main characters very commonly end up with characters of the opposite gender that not only were not introduced first, but actually were introduced quite a bit into the story. Read on, though.



The author seems to go out of her way to give extraordinary adjectives and descriptions where Ginny is concerned. "…She was running, half laughing, half crying…" (PS/SS), "…Harry caught a pair of bright brown eyes…" (CoS), "…Flaming-Red hair…" (CoS), "…Her face was white as marble, and as cold…" (CoS), "Relief- warm, sweeping, glorious relief- swept over Harry." (CoS, when it turns out that Ginny isn't accused of opening the chamber), "Her face was glowing like the setting sun…" (CoS), "A mane of red hair" (OoTP), [Ginny's] "Vivid head" (OoTP) and "Ginny was curled like a cat on her chair, but her eyes were open; Harry could see them reflecting the firelight" (OoTP). Those wistful metaphors and similes are something used in Rowling's world to enrich the description of something (in most cases, an object), but rarely of people, and in no other case consistently of the same person. If she isn’t going to be important in any way concerning them, why the continuous reference to her features in such a positive light?



Well, one could consider it a weird anomaly of descriptive text- after all, inducing from descriptive text to the character’s romantic future is quite the unsubstantiated logical leap. But read on.

"Warm, sweeping, glorious relief" is easily the most powerful purely positive emotion we've "seen" Harry experience so far, and it was- very oddly- triggered by Ginny not being expelled from Hogwarts, which you’d obviously expect Harry to care about, but not that much. Is it indicative that he had some sort of subconscious feelings for her at that point, or something? Heavens, no. On the canon level, he just cared, a lot. When Rowling wants to show romantic feelings, she does it. (Note, though, that Hermione turning out to be okay after all in OoTP got the similar "such a powerful wave of relief […] that it made him feel light-hearted". It is not as if Ginny is the only person in the world Harry deeply cares about, though the worrying feeling being more emphasised in Ginny's case- (stronger emotion, and of pure worry rather than guilt ("It's my fault if she's dead"))- and one case being lack of expulsion from school while the other being lack of death- does make a difference). This is true and absolute "fit in" material; H/G explains it- Rowling letting Harry care early for a character that is going to be important to him- but it does not necessarily imply H/G.

To further emphasise the point, the day that Ginny was taken to the chamber was given an absolute in terms of feelings- which isn't done often. This specific example of the asbolute could be interpreted as referring to Hogwarts being closed; However, put in context, it's clear that Ginny- rather than Hogwarts- is the cause of the "worst day of Harry's entire life":

( CoS , UK paperback, p.218)

It was probably the worst day of Harry's entire life. He, Ron, Fred and George sat together in the corner of the common room, unable to say anything to each other. Percy wasn't there. He had gone to send an owl to Mr. and Mrs. Weasley, then shut himself up in his dormitory.

No afternoon had ever lasted as long as that one, nor had ever Gryffindor tower been so crowded, yet so quiet. Near sunset, Fred and George went up to bed, unable to sit there any longer.

"She knew something, Harry," said Ron, speaking for the first time since they had entered the wardrobe in the staff room. "That's why she was taken. It wasn't some stupid thing about Percy at all. She's found out something about the Chamber of Secrets. That must be why she was- " Ron rubbed his eyes frantically…

The emotional emphasis is definitely not on Hogwarts. Two sentences later (in other words, in the same context),

Harry could see the sun sinking, blood red, below the skyline. This was the worst he had ever felt. If only there was something they could do. Anything.



You know the drill. So what? He cares about her well-being and her well-being put in danger was the “Worst day of his life”. Big whoop. He cares for Hermione and Ron and Sirius and Lupin and half of the world around him, too, and you don’t see anybody rallying up to predict their romantic involvement. Rowling putting that in to emphasise that Ginny is important is a theory, and nothing beyond that. But read on.

In OoTP, during the whole year, Harry was dating Cho Chang and Ginny was dating Michael Corner. Both couples broke up, and lo, Michael/Cho was formed. We've all probably run into the Double Date pattern in the storytelling media, and more than once; Two people go on double dates, their dates run away with each other, and the two people left become a couple, themselves. Michael and Cho could have got together with anybody else, could have stayed single, their future love lives could've been forever ignored- but Rowling decided, for some reason, to inform us that they found comfort in each other. Curious. Those two couples are consciously juxtaposed and paralleled:

(OoTP, UK hardback, p. 311)

Hermione rolled her eyes at Harry and then said in an undertone, while Ron was still muttering imprecations about Michael Corner, 'And talking about Michael and Ginny … What about Cho and you?"

(Note that the first part of Hermione's question mentions first the male then the female (Michael, Ginny), and the second mentions the female then the male (Cho, Harry)- which is curious to say the least. The juxtaposition of the two couples is in its own interesting, but putting it that way can quite easily be interpreted as a hint of the destiny of Cho and Michael eventually being the same as of Harry and Ginny.)



This one’s only other explanation other than H/G is being a coincidence, but it’s a strong one. Isn’t the author allowed to mention couples without them being overanalysed to death for parallels? But read on.

…The most prominent auxiliary hypothesis this document suggests could work with its main one is, if you will, one gigantic well known cliché-that-isn't. When Ode to Harry Potter contained the line "When you miss me it will be too late," nobody gave it second thought as bizarre that the song is making such a baseless prediction, because it alluded to such a common pattern. Returning feelings after the original feelings are apparently gone is one of the most ironic romantic plot developments in existence, if not the most ironic. And irony is one of Rowling's favorite games. Barty Crouch Jr.'s quotes as Moody through GoF are one gigantic Irony. Ron and Hermione's oh-so-obvious developing romance despite the ubiquitous bickering? Irony. Ron in CoS joking with an offhand comment that "[Tom Riddle could have got the award for special service to the school] for killing Myrtle, that would've done everyone a favor", which in a horrid twist turns out to be true- Irony here, Irony there, Irony everywhere. Even if Rowling isn't planning on putting Harry through smacking himself on the forehead for not noticing Ginny earlier, the option very probably at least appealed to her.



Then again, she can’t just surrender to her own whims, go ahead and write every single possible ironic development in the books, now can she?

(OoTP, UK hardback, p.441)

'Oh, don't lie, Harry,' said [Hermione] impatiently, 'Ron and Ginny say you've been hiding from everyone since you got back from St. Mungo's.'

'They do, do they?', said Harry, glaring at Ron and Ginny. Ron looked down at his feet but Ginny seemed quite unabashed.

'Well, you have!', she said, 'And you won't look at any of us!'

'It's you lot who won't look at me!', said Harry angrily.

'Maybe you're taking it in turns to look, and keep missing each other,' suggested Hermione, the corners of her mouth twitching.

Notice that this is not symbolism but rather a suspicion of the author (or Hermione) trying to convey something. If it weren't for the corners of Hermione's mouth twitching, this shouldn't have been given second thought. Then again, whatever the author was trying to convey, she wasn’t very clear about it. We can’t just jump to conclusions. So read on.

Read on, read on, read on… “What’s up with you, mate? You admit that literary patterns will tend to be of the `it fits in` brand, which is an unreliable brand of evidence; You then proceed to bring up arguments only to admit they could have totally no merit whatsoever, one after another, and tell the reader to “read on”. Well, I’ve read on, and I don’t see anything remotely resembling evidence yet.”

Look again.

While the “it fits in” brand of evidence isn’t the most reliable in the world, there are times when something fits in too much to be a coincidence. Every single argument in here might have had an alternate explanation, but when any two words- in this case "Harry/Ginny"- have such astounding explanatory power as to what would otherwise be very odd storytelling anomalies, one is forced to seriously take them into consideration. We know Harry will probably land in another relationship (Canon has set this up and Rowling has flat-out said so). And suddenly there’s this one girl who’s his best friend’s little sister, who is a common match-up in the genre he’s in, who’s the first “eligible” girl he ever saw, who the author has some weird fixation with describing her pretty features and throwing Harry into decidedly unjustified fits of grand emotion over her for no apparent reason, who’s been a part of a re-enacted and twisted legend of the hero slaying the dragon and saving the maiden as the maiden with the part concerning romance mysteriously absent, who’s been crushing on him since the second book and gave up hope, turning to others, making the hero starting to like her incredibly ironic- and the author in question is an iron-a-holic. Then we get silly classic foreshadowing bits like Hermione’s lip twitching or Ron’s trademark furtive look and a blatant Michael/Ginny – Cho/Harry parallel (And we all know what happened to Michael and Cho). And all of this without a single “should” or an expression of my opinion on which relationships work and which don’t. This “fits in” so much that it may soon implode and create a black hole of fit-inningness.

VII. Joanne Rowling Snippets, Revisited: Poor Ginny, Eh?

Joanne Rowling does NOT lie to her fans. She dodges questions, she refuses to comment when she feels she's really corenered, and sometimes she even says something that ends up somehow contradicting the stuff she's said earlier, because she is not a supercomputer and this sort of thing is bound to happen when an immediate reply is required of her. She may fumble, she may stumble, but she is sincere, which makes all of the difference in the world. The woman who couldn't resist a little boy's puppy-dog eyes and revealed the title of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix ahead of time cannot possibly be the same as the woman who flat-out lies, repeatedly and heartlessly, to little kids with puppy-dog eyes just so they don't (god forbid) get the right idea on the central issue of Hermione's love life.



The former is very real and has earned my extreme appreciation. The latter is a myth without any basis in reality whatsoever.



Though alternate explanations for these quotes commonly emerge from other mindsets (Chiefly Harry/Hermione support), they are often ad-hoc, and serve mainly to settle the obvious contradiction that will occur between these quotes and canon in case the axioms of the other mindset actually become certified canon. In other words, they're secondary interpretations, which- while equally legitimate as opinions- are typically much more presumptuous. After each quote follows the most common alternate interpretation, and my (rarely positive) outlook on it.



Then again... time for a little disclaimer. Targeting ONE argument against my position does not mean I've automatically refuted all of them- I just used what are IMO the best counter arguments currently. Attacking a straw-man is a logical fallacy, and I am not a big fan of logical fallacies. Then again, if there are better counter-arguments, where are they hiding?

One last thing: When I mock the argument, I mock the argument, not the arguer. Believe me, I've been convinced of sillier things in my life than the stuff which comes up here.

Scholastic chat, February 3rd, 2000:

Q: Is Harry Potter ever going to fall in love with Hermione or is he going to fall in love with Ginny Weasley?

Rowling: in Book IV Harry does decide he likes a girl, but it's not Hermione or Ginny (A/N: Cho Chang, of course). However, he's only 14, so there's plenty of time for him to change his mind. ;-)

(Winking emoticon by Rowling!)

H/G Merit: This is a pretty direct statement that now- Harry's romance with Cho having ended- his affections are going to turn elsewhere, onto either Hermione or Ginny. Rowling likes to keep the audience guessing, but wouldn't blatantly mislead when she can just decide not to supply the info and keep everybody without a clue. "However… …mind" would've been a completely unnecessary part had what she wanted to do been answer the question while giving as little info as possible. That portion was there for a purpose. /Especially/ considering the winking emoticon.

Common Secondary Interpretations: Not secondary but equally legit in this case. It says either Hermione or Ginny and could be either Hermione or Ginny; in this quote, both interpretations are equally presumptuous. (See section VIII for what Rowling has to say on Harry and Hermione in specific).

Time Pacific Interview, December 25th, 2000

Rowling: "No one's wholly good.

I would say Harry has flaws and failings. He was too proud [in the fourth book] to talk to Ron about what was bothering them both. Harry was walking around thinking, 'I'm the one with all the problems,' and he did have a lot of problems, but Ron had been a faithful friend for three years, and I would have cut Ron a little more slack. And what about Ginny [Ron's younger sister]? Poor Ginny, languishing in love for Harry, and he's merrily asking out other girls right under her nose! But that's just a boy thing."

H/G Merit: A flaw or a failing of a fictional character isn't truly one unless they have to deal with it or its consequences. The first one mentioned was resolved in GoF, in what used to be one of the most depressing periods in the series until OoTP came out and dropped it to 5471st place- when Harry has to deal with not having Ron as a friend. Clearly for something to qualify for this list of immediate association, Harry will have to deal with its implications- "When Ginny had a crush on him for four years he didn't return her feelings, and that wasn't very nice, and that's that" does not quite cut it. Pre-OoTP, it was interpreted to be "He doesn't know how good she would be for him"; Now we have a very precise and painful scenario in mind of it being uncovered for the failing that it was with all its glory.

Common Secondary Interpretations: This quote is not often brought up in discussions in general for some reason (The "Platonic" and "really suited?" ones are more prominent, since they're related to the H/H vs. R/H debate, which is the main one). There ought to exist an alternate interpretation, but I've yet to run across it.

Red Nose Day Live Chat, March 12th

Glynnis L (A.K.A. GinnyPotter): Will Harry ever notice the long-suffering Ginny Weasley?

Rowling: You'll see... poor Ginny, eh?

H/G Merit: Oh, poor, poor, poor Ginny.

One has to wonder what would make Rowling say "you'll see" rather than "yes" or "no"; obviously, one of them would be a lie, while the other would be giving too much away. And it has already been proven beyond doubt that Rowling does not deem the ascertaining of a future plot development not happening as "giving too much away", unless she was still planning to milk it for plot/suspense value- as in her being very well aware that the point is still hanging in the air, deliberately keeping it in that state and planning to resolve it at some point. (Examples: Draco and Harry teaming up to fight evil, Harry and Hermione becoming a couple, Snape being in love with someone, which were outright denied; as opposed to Harry dying or Voldemort being eventually defeated, which were given similar answers to this one). She says "No" either when she's feeling courteous enough to let the information slip or when she believes the answer to be self-evident. And neither, apparently, is the case here.

Common Secondary Interpretations: "Nope, because she gets over him and that's that." While not logically incorrect, one would have to ask oneself whether /this/- Ginny just getting over it and life going on- was what Rowling was keeping under her sleeve and wanting to remain hidden. The way she put it was implying a much clearer resolution than the one given at OoTP with the disappearance of the crush, and said resolution is, hands down, just not enough for her to avoid outright saying "no, he won't and she'll live", after having no problem with denying possible developments of equal or even larger calibre. Mark my words- we have definitely not seen the last of this plotline.

From "Harry and Me" Special:

JKR: For me... King's Cross Station is a very, very romantic place, probably the most romantic station, purely because my parents met here. So, that's always been part of my childhood folklore. My dad had just joined the navy, my mum had just joined the Wrens, they were both travelling up to Arbroath in Scotland from London and they met on the train pulling out of King's Cross. So, um... I wanted Harry to go to Hogwarts by train -- I just love trains, I'm a bit nerdy like that. And obviously, therefore, it had to be from Ki-King's Cross.

(emphasis mine)

H/G Merit: One would not be too presumptuous guessing that Rowling would be prone to sentimentality in this case, and just as King's Cross has been a piece of folklore with romantic connotations in Joanne's mind ever since she was a child, she would associate the scene of a train pulling out from King's Cross to the same concept in her imagination. The very sentimental image of a girl running after the train, half laughing and half crying, then falling back to wave, seems to comply with this theme, and suggests that Rowling might have been projecting the general idea of "genesis of a romance" on Ginny through the iconography of her childhood.

Common Secondary Interpretations: The most common one is that since Rowling's parents met on the train, the quote could apply to Harry/Hermione, to Scabbers/Trevor, or to something along these lines. The exact quote (which is not often cited- Angua had to actually watch through "Harry and Me" to actually get that- thank you, Angua), mentions that they met on the train as it departed the station (An article on the Times re-affirms this). While the meeting of Scabbers and Trevor has occurred only well into the trip (though I doubt they need this piece of evidence- After all, Scabbers/Trevor is practically certified canon), this still could go either way, until one takes into account the blatant sentimentality of Ginny's appearance vs. the completely symbologically inconspicious roles associated with the train ride for the other characters. If there is indeed anything beyond a simple period of travel by train to that scene, it very probably applies to Ginny.

VIII. Harry/Hermione, or: What Happens When You Let Your Theories Swallow Your Facts Whole

It is almost impossible to discuss the possibility of Harry and Ginny as a couple without confronting the quite popular possibility of Harry’s eventual significant other being Hermione. Harry's affections are now free from Cho's grasp, which makes the weighing of evidence all the move relevant. The "Harry has time to change his mind from Cho to either Hermione or Ginny" statement mentioned earlier stresses the relevance even further.

The various positions on the matter regularly clash and try to outdo one another in a never-ending debate, and this makes my opinion on the matter seem small and insignificant (and rightfully so), but in the light of the quotes you're about to read, I just can't help the feeling that the only reason H/H still has the status of a possibility at all- let alone a more-than-a-possibility- is the eagerness with which people choose to cling to their initial assumptions, no matter what the logical price they have to pay is, rather than let go of them and choose a more reasonable approach.

National Press Club Luncheon, October 20th, 1999 (interview by Sean Bowler):

SB: I’m going to ask one more. There were a lot of groans when I said we were going to wrap it up, so one more. What happened to Harry’s grandparents?

JKR: Um, various interesting things, but again, I’m not going to share. [Laughter] Sorry! But that’s okay, cause we have time for another question, cause I didn’t answer that one!

SB: Okay, good. It’s a good excuse to write more books!

JKR: True.

SB: Yes. Um, is there anything that you’d want to add?

JKR: No, I’ll see one more question, cause we really didn’t get an answer for that.

SB: Very good.

JKR: *looking through questions* No, don’t like that one. Oh, I like this one… do Harry and Hermione have a date? [Laughter] No. They are – they’re very platonic friends. But I won’t answer for anyone else, nudge, nudge, wink, wink. [Laughter and sound of kids going “Aaah!”]

The Standard Response: The proverbial pain in the H/H backside. The usual general idea of the counter-explanation is that "Platonic" means something else than “nothing more than friends”, or- since the interview in question took place before the release of GoF- that the quote refers only to GoF. A recently new addition is that another quote by Rowling in the CoS DVD interview "debunked" it.

"Platonic" donating merely the state of the relationship is an explanation that pretty much claims that they feel that way for each other but don't get into a relationship yet.

Main Entry: pla·ton·ic

Pronunciation: pl&-'tä-nik, plA-

Function: adjective

Etymology: Latin platonicus, from Greek platOnikos, from PlatOn Plato

Date: 1533

1 capitalized : of, relating to, or characteristic of Plato or Platonism

2 a : relating to or based on platonic love; also : experiencing or professing platonic love b : of, relating to, or being a relationship marked by the absence of romance or sex

(Courtesy of the Merriam-Webster dictionary. 2a would be "Platonic Love" while 2b would be "Platonic Friendship", which we're discussing.)

Saying that two people are "platonic friends" while they're really in love- but just aren't dating or expressing public displays of affection- would be a very creative use of the term. Saying that they're "very platonic" in the same situation would simply be a lie. If "platonic friendship" means "unexpressed love" or “Romantic yet non-sexual love” (A relatively new interpretation that basically asserts that Rowling was using an ancient, obsolete meaning of the word to explain something to an audience of ten year olds), what exactly would be the term for a friendship without any romance or thoughts of romance whatsoever? Perhaps "Very Platonic" would do?

Oh, right. Silly me.

The second counter-claim to the obvious implications of this statement is the "quote refers only to GoF" interpretation. The most glaringly obvious hole in this theory is that there are no time qualifiers whatsoever that accompanied the statement, and no circumstances that allowed the presumption of such a qualifier by the person who asked the question, and more importantly, Rowling. Here are the questions that composed the interview, in chronological order:

1. "Did you write the books for children or adults?"

2. "How did you come up with Quidditch?"

3. "When did you start writing the books?"

4. "Where do you get the inspiration?"

5. "Several asked about the movie." [How is production of the Philosophers' Stone/Sorcerers' Stone movie going?]

6. "Can you imagine Harry ever growing up?"

7. "Have you written your next book? What happens next, please tell me."

8. "My students and I have wondered, is there any significance to you signing your book with just your initials?"

9. "Do you have any imaginary friends, and who are they?"

10. "What advice would you give to young people who have an interest in writing, and also to their parents?"

11. "You should probably read this one, because they're asking how to pronounce one of Harry's friends' names." [How do you pronounce Hermione's name?]

12. "How did you come up with [Hermione's] name?"

13. "Why is the Hippogriff half eagle and half horse?"

14. "Are you stopping at seven?" [Will there be only seven Harry Potter books?]

15. "How many points does Quidditch have?"

16. "Did Voldemort go to school with Lily and James [Potter]?"

17. "What other books would you recommend for a nine-year old?"

18. "Why in the first book does Harry's lightning scar flash when [Snape] looks at him?"

19. "Will Harry ever turn into a shape-changer like his father?"

20. "Are we going to learn more about Harry's mum in the next book?"

21. "What happened to Harry's grandparents?"

22. "Do Harry and Hermione have a date?"

Out of the whole interview, two questions out of twenty-two were specifically about GoF- that's precisely 9.090909091%. The rest of the questions are either about the series in general (like questions 4,14), various specific details (like questions 3,16) or not about the series ( like questions 5,17). Since it is not discernible from the context, in order to know that the person who asked question 22 was asking about book 4 (if they were), Rowling would need a time qualifier supplied in the question- and there is none. Ergo, the least presumptuous explanation would be "very platonic" applying to Harry and Hermione's relationship as characters in general. Claiming the nonexistent time qualifier to be "only up to GoF" is completely arbitrary and logically equivalent to claiming that they're very platonic only on Tuesdays, or only on odd chapters.

As mentioned, a relatively new addition to the array of claims attempting to somehow present the idea of H/H as still possible cites the following exchange from the CoS DVD interview as devaluating Rowling's statement:

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets DVD Interview, February 2003

Q: In this movie we've seen the kids develop from the first film, can you tell us about the relationship between Harry, Ron, and Hermione and how that is developing film by film?

JKR:

Well I think it is developing in the films as it does in the books, which is to say that they are, they're much stronger together than apart. They're much more aware, in the second film, of their particular strengths. So they're more effective, the children are able to do more complex things, for example the Polyjuice Potion. And also Chris in the second film has kind of foreshadowed what I don't do until the fourth book, which is that you get hints of certain feelings between the three of them, that belong to a sort of slightly more mature person.

This, obviously, does not "debunk" anything. One comes to wonder, in fact, how exactly a direct statement by the author as to the nature of two of her characters can be declared as "debunked" by a later statement, that's it, no questions asked. "Debunk" is such a general and convenient term- how exactly is this settled with the "platonic" statement, anyway? Did Rowling change her mind? Was the previous statement a mistake?

A quick look will readily reveal that it's much, much easier to see this statement as not implying H/H than to somehow explain away the author's original outright denial of it. This fictional "debunking" of the platonic quote is the classic case of treating two related pieces of data with a hypothesis that leads to the desired conclusion rather than with a synthesis that would settle the contradiction without a need for one; and one of the first principles of reaching the best conclusions you can with your available data is to avoid unnecessary hypotheses.



A possible example of such a synthesis- which happens to be my personal opinion on the matter- is that Rowling had meant the foreshadowing of feelings between Ron and Hermione, but didn't want to blatantly say it due to her simple instincts of not blatantly saying anything if there's any development or surprise value she could milk it for. Presumptuous? obviously. This interpretation would never hold water as evidence attempting to prove Ron and Hermione's relationship when challenged thoroughly enough. But what is good about it is that, unlike the "Rowling meant non-platonic feelings between Harry and Hermione" interpretation, this one does not require overly creative re-interpretation of every single statement in which Rowling denied Harry and Hermione as an option- re-interpretation that requires much, much more assumptions than the single "Rowling was just avoiding the specific names out of her habit of being vague and elusive". The numerous denials quite simply logically outweigh the possible implication of non-platonic feelings between Harry and Hermione in this quote, rather than it being the other way around.



But why make speeches about the theory of deduction when we can use an example? So let's do that. Imagine you're taking an IQ test of sorts- Psychometric, SAT, whatever it is that they have in the region in which you live- and are presented with the following question in the 'logic' section:

A reliable source has provided you with those three statements:

A: Joe, Dana and Chris are 14 years old.

B: Joe and Dana are very platonic friends.

C: There are certain feelings developing between Joe, Dana and Chris that belong to a slightly more mature person.

Circle the most logical conclusion:

1. Joe and Dana are developing non-platonic feelings.

2. Chris and Dana are developing non-platonic feelings.

3. Joe, Chris and Dana are about to engage in a love-triangle.

Pickers of options 1 and 3 in an actual test, I believe, would most definitely lose points. Statement B makes both impossible unless you doubt the premises, the premises solely being that the source providing the statements is reliable.

If you believe that J.K. Rowling is not a reliable source when it comes to the book series of Harry Potter, this is about where we agree to disagree. Suffice to say, lying to your target audience simply to prevent them from "figuring out" something is wrong on such a multitude of levels that I am repeatedly astonished that people accuse Rowling of it so often, and you should be relieved to know that none of these accusations have any grounding in reality.

Just denying something that is true to throw people off-course makes the discovery of the secret devoid of any actual sense of discovery, the reader feel cheated, and in short, it does the exact opposite of what it allegedly set out to do in the first place. A confirmation would ruin it for the readers right there and then, a denial would ruin it for the readers when they find out. Neither are a good idea. The best course of action for an author whose plot point was guessed in advance and still wants to conserve its original tension and potential would, by far, be an answer that neither confirms nor denies.



Like, for example, "You'll see".





AOL chat, May 2000

Q: As Harry matures, does a love interest develop between him and Hermione?

JKR: Harry & Hermione... d'you really think they're suited?

The Standard Response: The most common one is that the implied answer to the rhetorical question is, in fact, yes.

If you take that interpretation as a legitimate one, you might appreciate this bit of info, which I decided to include instead of just saying "This interpretation is ridiculously contrived" because that would be, of course, arrogant.

The rhetorical question is usually defined as any question asked for a purpose other than to obtain the information the question asks. For example, "Why are you so stupid?" is likely to be a statement regarding one's opinion of the person addressed rather than a genuine request to know. Similarly, when someone responds to a tragic event by saying, "Why me, God?!" it is more likely to be an accusation or an expression of feeling than a realistic request for information. Apart from these more obviously rhetorical uses, the question as a grammatical form has important rhetorical dimensions. For example, the rhetorical critic may assess the effect of asking a question as a method of beginning discourse: "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" says the persona of Shakespeare's 18th sonnet. This kind of rhetorical question, in which one asks the opinion of those listening, is called anacoenosis. This rhetorical question has a definite ethical dimension, since to ask in this way generally endears the speaker to the audience and so improves his or her credibility or ethos. The technical term for rhetorical questions in general is erotema.

Rhetorical questions come in a variety of structures, some of which are also figures of speech. One well-known example is the "do you really think ?..." structure; A rhetorical question of this structure is used to express doubt and challenge an assumption the other person is relying on in their argument, suggestion or question.

Joe: "You know, we might make it in time to the logic test auditions if we travel by bus instead of walking."

Dana: "Do you really think there'll be no traffic jams?"