Subscribe
Previous Post
Last week Lilit wrote a post on her (negative) feelings towards Ginny Weasley. The comments came in fast, some agreeing, some filled with fan-girl rage. Here we bring you another point of view on Mrs. Harry Potter.
If I may offer an alternative, perhaps more male-oriented perspective on the matter of Ginny Weasley:
You’re right to suggest that Ginny Weasley is bland, uninteresting and, in many ways, a manifest deus ex machina of a character. What you’re missing is the fact that this is entirely intentional and, even more so, necessary.
I would be willing to bet that a blind survey of Potterites that asks them whether or not they like Ginny, the overwhelming majority would answer “yes” (perhaps even “yes!”), and when pressed as to why, specifically, they like her would more than likely come up empty.
Right! Why do we (by which I mean “Ginny apologists like myself”) like her? And, for that matter, why do we like Harry? Why does anyone like Harry?
Because we’re told to.
One of the enduring features of the hero mythology tradition is that the central character must only ever be interesting on an archetypal level (ie, she must be a hero, and she must be dang good at hero-ing) and not on a human level (if you can identify her favorite author, or musician, or sandwich, then the mythmaker hasn’t done her job).
Think about it: What does Luke Skywalker do when he’s not meditating or training Jedi or whatever? Does King Arthur have a favorite painter? What kind of music would Buffy put on a mix tape? Tell me, aside from “magic” and “friends”, one thing that interests Harry Potter (and before you say it, yes, Quidditch counts as magic, and Harry hardly spends much actual time talking about how much he likes it anyway, as much as we’re meant to believe the contrary).
There’s no way to answer these questions, as much as we supposedly know about the characters in question. The same is not true for, say, Han Solo (gambling, smuggling things, drinking), or Willow (Ani Difranco, Portishead), or Hermione (books, history, Ron Weasley). And if you did a similar blind survey of favorite Star Wars characters, no one would answer Luke Skywalker. Buffy is no one’s favorite Buffy character. And Harry Potter is no one’s favorite Harry Potter character. Except, maybe and perhaps tellingly (and this is a guess), J.K. Rowling‘s.
There is a point to all this: The central character of a hero’s myth must always be maximally thinly-drawn in regard to personal details, nuances, and idiosyncrasies, because to as great an extent as possible, the hero must always be us. Whoever is reading Harry Potter must, as much as possible, identify him or herself with Harry, and that’s a tricky thing to do. The easiest way to do it, of course, is to leave as much to the imagination as possible. Harry likes whatever you like, listens to whatever you listen to, reads whatever you read. He likes Ron and Hermione because you do, and vice versa. Harry is only ever as interesting a character as the person reading wishes or wills him to be.
Which brings me to Ginny. Yes, Ginny is dull and blank, and in a family filled with distinctly undull and unblank characters (even Percy) she stands out as particularly lame. But Ginny’s only real personality traits are as follows: she is unwaveringly, unfailingly good, and she loves Harry Potter. Do you see where I’m going with this? Any character whose ultimate purpose is to love and eventually end up with Harry needs to be as open a book as Harry is. That’s why Harry couldn’t be with Cho Chang, or Luna Lovegood, or (God forbid) Hermione Granger. Those characters exist in some capacity beyond the reader’s own projections, and Ginny doesn’t. She’s whoever you want her to be.
It is thus somewhat unfair to attack her as a character. She’s not a character. She, like Harry, is an idea, limited only by whatever the reader brings to her. In my mind, she’s cool and heroic and probably has great taste in music and likes the Red Sox, because, after all, she, like Harry, is mine to define however I want to define her.
 | Why I Hate Ginny Weasley |
 | Snap This: Why Ginny Weasley is Cooler Than Bella Swan |
 | Fan Service: ‘Harry Potter’ and the Uncomfortable Erotica |
 | Cutegreggator: Creatures from ‘Harry Potter’ |
I’ve never understood the argument that we never see how Ginny changes from the shy little girl who has a crush on Harry to badass fantastic Ginny. I mean, think about it – of course we don’t see it! We are looking through Harry’s eyes throughout the books and Harry pays little to no attention to Ginny UNTIL she becomes attractive to him! More than that, of course we won’t see flaws – merely because HARRY doesn’t see Ginny’s flaws. I mean, I’m sure some of them would have become really obvious if we got to spend any time with them as a couple, but we really only see Harry’s perspective on Ginny when he becomes infatuated with her. And really, can any one of us say that we’ve seen flaws in an object of infatuation?
I agree with Michelle. I mean, I see your point about Harry, definitely, but the difference is that he has flaws (perhaps most importantly, his “saving-people-thing,” as Hermione put it). Ginny is perfect. She’s the beautiful tomboy girl-next-door with a heart of gold and brains to go with it. And that’s the problem with her.
But I have to laugh at all the people crying that you must not have read the books closely enough. Here’s an embarrassing secret: I’ve read each of the books at least ten times, very closely, and literature and source analysis are what I did all through school. And I haven’t even seen movies 4-7.5. And I think Ginny is a boring, bland character.
I dislike Ginny, but not because she is bland, but because she is way to perfect in the books. In the beginning she is Ron’s shy and awkward Potter-obsessed little sister (which was a perfectly good character!), and then out of nowhere JK Rowling makes this huge point about how Ginny is awesome, but we never see anything awesome about her. She is suddenly the prettiest girl in school, awesome at magic, good at quidditch, all the boys (even Slytherins) want to date her, she’s admitted to the Slug Club, she has a sarcastic sense of humor, etc. She appears to have absolutely no character flaws, which I think makes her an obnoxious stand-in character. Harry has plenty of flaws- he is impulsive, quick to anger, doesn’t focus or prepare well,etc. Hermione is bossy and irritable, and Ron can be lazy, rude, and juvenile. Ginny? Nope, she can do no wrong, and in my eyes, that makes her the most wrong of all.
I really catch your point, and I love how you write. I love the hp series, but, I think that the little details described on Ginny’s and other characters, you can have an idea, not exact, of how Ginny and others react in some situation, even they don’t describe it. Only people that haven’t read it correctly or capture the escence of J.K’s descriptions will imagine the characters however they want. But really, you write beautifully, I understand you, you are very intelligent! Continue writing! :)
We don’t know Harry’s idiosyncrasies? What he did in his spare time? When I read posts like this I always wonder WHAT BOOK DID YOU READ?
Anyway: guys like Ginny. She plays rough. She hits hard. She’s a red head. And she knows to wait for you to get over that dumb crush.
It’s that simple.
omg!! I loved reading this!! Is great if you’re a writer/beginner writer. To come to realize this. Because I feel like I always want my characters to be known all around with all their tastes and all! Great Post! :)
I like how you write.
EXCELLENT.
Marie, to clarify: I’m not talking about every main character. I’m talking about main characters specifically from hero’s myth stories (chosen one plucked from obscurity, chosen one rejects her own destiny, chosen one coaxed into own destiny by wise stranger, chosen one assisted toward destiny by crowd of cooky friends with very human attributes, chosen one learns to be an adult/destroys the ultimate evil/restores balance to the force).
Stories that follow that narrative include things like: Harry Potter, Star Wars, Buffy, Arthurian legend, Spiderman, Superman, Moses, Lord of the Rings, and on and on and on and on.
Doctor Who does not count (though I’m a huge Whovian) and yes I would concur that he is the best character in Doctor Who. Dexter is the best character in Dexter. So on and so forth. So I’m not talking about all stories, just ones with a particular structure.
I’m glad you like Harry, I’m just not sure why, in crowd of such memorable and deep characters that surrounds him, you’d pick him out. But hey, not all theses are iron-clad.
“Why does anyone like Harry? Because we’re told to.”
…Yeah, no.
Harry is my favorite character for a plethora of reasons, and a number of main characters from a series of books or television shows or films are my favorites (i.e., Dean and Sam from Supernatural, the Doctor from Doctor Who, etc.) — none of those reasons include any of the words, “Because we’re told to.” Maybe you’ve been chatting with too many people who think that way, I don’t know, but not everyone bases their love for a character solely on the reasoning that the creator of said character says we ought to. Nice try, though.
Also, not every main character of a series is “thinly drawn,” as you put it. But I guess that’s a matter of opinion. As for Ginny, I have my reasons for disliking her, but “dull” and “blank” are not words I, personally, would use.
Gosh! Ginny? Ginny?! She’s 1 of my least fave characters. I hav 2 say that I’m really weird coz Voldemort is 1 of my faves
@Mich:
I’m a devotee of the books (and I’ve seen all the movies, too, obviously), but I would contend that Ginny is proportionally thinly-drawn in the movies as she is in the books, which is to say that the books draw out all of the characters in more detail than the movies do.
Ginny in the books, again, isn’t much of an actual character in that nothing she does or says seems to distinguish her from any other background character. She’s a background character thrown into the foreground. There’s no question she’s the least-developed Weasley, and while there are sparks of personality, she’s still deliberately neutral. Harry cracks jokes, loves Quidditch, etc. as well, but I would seriously challenge you to do describe to me who Harry Potter really is in anything but broad strokes.
I guess the best way to illustrate this is that, thinking back on the experience of reading the books, I can’t remember anything about Ginny other than what you point out and what I discussed above. On the other hand, I *do* remember quite a bit about so of even the most minor characters. I don’t think that’s just me, and as I point out, I don’t think it’s unintentional either.
But your point is valid, that Ginny is even LESS of a real person in the movies, which makes sense, since movies are designed for much greater levels of mass consumption and appeal as compared with books.
And, as I said, I love Ginny, too. That was the point, after all.
This sounds like someone who’s only seen the movies. Ginny is far from bland or blank in the books. She’s full of personality, loves Quidditch (plays on the team!), cracks jokes, has a similar humor to Harry, and even gets in mischief much like her older brothers Fred and George. I LOVE her character in the books, she’s one of my favorites.
The screenwriter or director or whoever ruined her on film though.