![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
edenfallingI think one of the reasons I started writing "Secrets" -- there were several and they were all rather tangled and I was definitely not aware of all of them at the time -- was a nagging dissatisfaction with the ending of CoS. Fundamentally, this dissatisfaction stems from a disjoint between my moral understanding of the universe and Rowling's moral vision as presented in her work, but that's a long, complicated topic for another day. On a more surface level, my problem is that the ending of CoS is simply too trite.
For example, after the big explanation scene in Professor McGonagall's office -- which, interestingly, Rowling does not actually write one word of until we get to the reveal that diary!Tom is a copy of the person who became Voldemort -- Mrs. and Mr. Weasley take Ginny off to the hospital wing. Later, Ron takes Lockhart to the hospital wing.
Presumably Ron sees Ginny while dropping Lockhart off, but we get no mention of this. We also get no mention of Percy, Fred, or George being informed of their sister's rescue. Instead, an hour or two later Ron is down at the feast with Harry, giving no indication of any residual emotional upset. Possibly this is shock, or possibly he's deliberately being cheerful, or possibly Harry skimmed a LOT of details during his explanation so Ron doesn't quite realize how close both Ginny and Harry came to death. I don't know, and Rowling doesn't seem to care enough about Ron to give any explanation.
Ginny may or may not be at the feast; she's not mentioned. Her brothers may or may not have visited her in hospital; we're not informed. Her parents may have stayed the night, or may have gone home after as little as an hour; nobody ever discusses it, and Harry never asks.
In fact, we learn NOTHING of the Weasley family's reaction to events, and Ginny's recovery happens entirely offscreen. We don't meet her again until this paragraph (p. 340 of the SFBC edition):
The rest of the final term passed in a haze of blazing sunshine. Hogwarts was back to normal with only a few, small differences -- Defense Against the Dark Arts classes were canceled ("but we've had plenty of practice at that anyway," Ron told a disgruntled Hermione) and Lucius Malfoy had been sacked as a school governor. Draco was no longer strutting around the school as though he owned the place. On the contrary, he looked resentful and sulky. On the other hand, Ginny Weasley was perfectly happy again.
Perfectly happy? (And blazing sunshine to drive the idea home?) I don't believe it for a second. Nobody can recover that fast from something that devastating.
And it doesn't even make sense for the series arc! See, CoS is apparently supposed to show Ginny's suitability as Harry's match -- they've both faced a version of Voldemort and lived. But Ginny is not a heroine; she's almost entirely passive all through CoS. Her only moments of agency happen offscreen -- throwing the diary into Myrtle's toilet, and stealing it back from Harry -- and they're both reactive rather than proactive. Furthermore, the narrative belittles Ginny's experience -- Rowling dismisses a year of trauma with that one line about 'perfect happiness' -- which seems stupid if she wanted to play up parallels between Ginny and Harry. (Compare this, particularly, with the entire book's worth of post-traumatic stress Harry gets to indulge in during OotP.)
...
I can see how Harry is young enough to still not grasp all the implications of events -- and he can be awfully self-centered at the best of times, though I'm not sure Rowling always understands that -- but I keep thinking that if he could sympathize with Dobby, he ought to have been able to sympathize with Ginny as well. He ought to have been curious about how the Weasleys, a mostly functional family, would deal with the aftermath of a crisis. He ought to have looked beyond his worries about his similarities to Tom Riddle and realized that compared to Ginny, to Hermione, or even to Ron, he got off lightly.
You see, while Harry is the main character of the series, CoS is not really his story. It's Ginny's story. Ginny is the one who suffers most. Until the very end, Ginny is the one whose choices matter most. Ginny is the one all the events turn around.
Yet Rowling marginalizes her, shoves her offscreen, mutes her voice. Rowling allows Harry to ignore Ginny and trivialize her suffering.
Harry is supposed to be a hero. In my mind, a hero is not just someone who saves the day. A hero is someone who cares about other people and genuinely tries to help them, not just defeat monsters and ride off into the sunset without noticing the chaos in his wake.
Harry kills Tom, but he leaves Ginny's life in shambles and never gives her a second thought once her parents take her away.
His failure to care mars the book.
---------------
...I seem to have slid into talking about moral issues despite my resolve to leave them for another post. *sigh* But the point stands. CoS trivializes Ginny's suffering in favor of a trite 'and then they lived happily ever after... at least until next year' ending. That annoys me from a storytelling perspective, because I like to see consequences and an understanding that people do not act or react in isolation; we live in community.
The trite happiness of the ending annoys me even more from a moral perspective, because it dismisses Ginny's trauma (possessed by a sociopath, twisted into thinking she's responsible for his actions, loss of control over her own body and thoughts, metaphor for rape) as just the mcguffin of an adventure plot. I find that especially demeaning after the narrative takes Harry's lesser trauma (OMG, I share some traits with my parents' murderer!) as a serious concern.
But maybe that's just me. Thoughts?
For example, after the big explanation scene in Professor McGonagall's office -- which, interestingly, Rowling does not actually write one word of until we get to the reveal that diary!Tom is a copy of the person who became Voldemort -- Mrs. and Mr. Weasley take Ginny off to the hospital wing. Later, Ron takes Lockhart to the hospital wing.
Presumably Ron sees Ginny while dropping Lockhart off, but we get no mention of this. We also get no mention of Percy, Fred, or George being informed of their sister's rescue. Instead, an hour or two later Ron is down at the feast with Harry, giving no indication of any residual emotional upset. Possibly this is shock, or possibly he's deliberately being cheerful, or possibly Harry skimmed a LOT of details during his explanation so Ron doesn't quite realize how close both Ginny and Harry came to death. I don't know, and Rowling doesn't seem to care enough about Ron to give any explanation.
Ginny may or may not be at the feast; she's not mentioned. Her brothers may or may not have visited her in hospital; we're not informed. Her parents may have stayed the night, or may have gone home after as little as an hour; nobody ever discusses it, and Harry never asks.
In fact, we learn NOTHING of the Weasley family's reaction to events, and Ginny's recovery happens entirely offscreen. We don't meet her again until this paragraph (p. 340 of the SFBC edition):
The rest of the final term passed in a haze of blazing sunshine. Hogwarts was back to normal with only a few, small differences -- Defense Against the Dark Arts classes were canceled ("but we've had plenty of practice at that anyway," Ron told a disgruntled Hermione) and Lucius Malfoy had been sacked as a school governor. Draco was no longer strutting around the school as though he owned the place. On the contrary, he looked resentful and sulky. On the other hand, Ginny Weasley was perfectly happy again.
Perfectly happy? (And blazing sunshine to drive the idea home?) I don't believe it for a second. Nobody can recover that fast from something that devastating.
And it doesn't even make sense for the series arc! See, CoS is apparently supposed to show Ginny's suitability as Harry's match -- they've both faced a version of Voldemort and lived. But Ginny is not a heroine; she's almost entirely passive all through CoS. Her only moments of agency happen offscreen -- throwing the diary into Myrtle's toilet, and stealing it back from Harry -- and they're both reactive rather than proactive. Furthermore, the narrative belittles Ginny's experience -- Rowling dismisses a year of trauma with that one line about 'perfect happiness' -- which seems stupid if she wanted to play up parallels between Ginny and Harry. (Compare this, particularly, with the entire book's worth of post-traumatic stress Harry gets to indulge in during OotP.)
...
I can see how Harry is young enough to still not grasp all the implications of events -- and he can be awfully self-centered at the best of times, though I'm not sure Rowling always understands that -- but I keep thinking that if he could sympathize with Dobby, he ought to have been able to sympathize with Ginny as well. He ought to have been curious about how the Weasleys, a mostly functional family, would deal with the aftermath of a crisis. He ought to have looked beyond his worries about his similarities to Tom Riddle and realized that compared to Ginny, to Hermione, or even to Ron, he got off lightly.
You see, while Harry is the main character of the series, CoS is not really his story. It's Ginny's story. Ginny is the one who suffers most. Until the very end, Ginny is the one whose choices matter most. Ginny is the one all the events turn around.
Yet Rowling marginalizes her, shoves her offscreen, mutes her voice. Rowling allows Harry to ignore Ginny and trivialize her suffering.
Harry is supposed to be a hero. In my mind, a hero is not just someone who saves the day. A hero is someone who cares about other people and genuinely tries to help them, not just defeat monsters and ride off into the sunset without noticing the chaos in his wake.
Harry kills Tom, but he leaves Ginny's life in shambles and never gives her a second thought once her parents take her away.
His failure to care mars the book.
---------------
...I seem to have slid into talking about moral issues despite my resolve to leave them for another post. *sigh* But the point stands. CoS trivializes Ginny's suffering in favor of a trite 'and then they lived happily ever after... at least until next year' ending. That annoys me from a storytelling perspective, because I like to see consequences and an understanding that people do not act or react in isolation; we live in community.
The trite happiness of the ending annoys me even more from a moral perspective, because it dismisses Ginny's trauma (possessed by a sociopath, twisted into thinking she's responsible for his actions, loss of control over her own body and thoughts, metaphor for rape) as just the mcguffin of an adventure plot. I find that especially demeaning after the narrative takes Harry's lesser trauma (OMG, I share some traits with my parents' murderer!) as a serious concern.
But maybe that's just me. Thoughts?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-09 07:46 am (UTC)I don't know. I think you'd be better off re-writing the whole series instead of trying to make head or tails of Rowling's in-universe morality.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-09 07:04 pm (UTC)And I thought, wait a minute. Harry's impulse was to use Cruciatus on someone for the horrible, unforgivable crime of... insulting Professor McGonagall? And after feeling no remorse for that, he then goes on to demand that Voldemort feel remorse?
To which I say, hypocrite! And also, what happened to you, Harry? How did you go from the boy who couldn't cast Cruciatus after watching Bellatrix kill Sirius, to a person who can wish crushing agony on someone for a trivial insult? (Okay, the person in question was a Death Eater and had also been oppressing Hogwarts all year, but still. There is a massive disjoin between provocation and response.)
Rowling lets her 'good guys' get away with murder, literally. They are good not because they're necessarily objectively good, but because they're subjectively good -- i.e., they're 'her side.' She writes against prejudice, but undermines that message constantly by showing prejudice against Slytherins as a good thing. She shows how the broken legal system of the wizarding world can bite her side in the ass, but she doesn't ever let anyone criticize it systematically; they just criticize the choice of 'victim.' (In other words, if the Malfoys got a rigged trial, I don't think Rowling would have batted an eye.)
...
Argh.