[why psychopaths can love & other fictions]

[reenka]

Obviously I don't know when to give up & go to sleep, 'cause I skimmed yet -more- essays/arguments in mannazone ('The Administration' comm) & I don't want to go into specifics, but it made me think about authorial intent in a slightly different way.
    The thing is, really, that it's a double-edged sword, isn't it? What I mean is, it is both necessary to understanding (illuminating?) some basic plot-points or developments when utilized in key/minimum amounts and completely poisonous when used to explain away a reader's genuine reactions to what actually did happen. Like, you can use a known case of 'intent' to debunk what I'd call a 'transformative theory'-- one that takes canon and makes it a metaphor for something else, some external symbology. A good example of this is the things Harry/Hermione shippers found in book 3 to support canon H/Hr: those things were just contrary to the point of the given scenes, and you can call upon authorial intent as support of this argument. However, you can only use it to disprove actual conclusions from specific incidents: you can't disprove subtext or ambiguous cues (whether used for H/Hr, Sirius/Remus or even Harry/Draco subtext).

In other words, you can't say 'seeing' Sirius/Remus isn't a valid emotional response to canon cues; you -can- say it's not actually canon. Does that make sense?

Somehow this seems even more important when the author is actually there to argue with you; when they get involved and interact with fandom.
    
There's a limit there-- you can say what you intended (as the writer), but you can't dictate beyond what the writing itself shows. If, in fact, the writing didn't follow your precise outlined ideas (the meta!story in the writer's head), then it may be bad writing, or it may be the nature of writing itself, but it's not like the meta!story therefore overwrites the actual story experienced by a given reader.

A big part of this is simply a game of definitions; when it comes to talking about a character's emotions especially, we're walking on extremely shaky ground. One person's 'love' isn't another person's 'love'; what the writer may see as 'unacceptable' and 'indicative of moral failure' (or a diagnosable psychiatric disorder), the reader may see as 'tragic' and indicative of a wounded heart that needs healing. Also, what's 'obviously just a sexual thing' for the writer -and- a reader must necessarily be overridden if it's not for the characters as they perceive themselves. Is the reader wrong & the writer right? Vice versa?
    The answer has to be "neither", of course: regarding their own emotions, the character is right (and sometimes, if it's ambiguous and/or the character's confused, there is simply no answer). You cannot dictate meta-questions of a story's reality-- the sort of stuff that in actual reality, people would argue about because it's subjective. (Ie, 'did he really love her?'-- what possible consensus could there be in any situation like this? He did if he thinks he did, period; he did if he acts like he did also, to a large extent, yes, but then this is in the realm of 'reader's perception of subtext'.)

I'm especially impatient with any attempt by the author to project into a future they hadn't actually written; I won't accept 'he feels like X' or 'X is likely to happen' if this hasn't been shown yet. This is simply ridiculous-- the writer doesn't own every possible permutation of the future for the characters in their universe! I'm sure this is actually why some writers hate fanfic, because they think if they stop people from writing it, they'll actually stop them from thinking it. Uh-uh, no go. People perceive half-formed futures as soon as they have their idiosyncratic reactions to a given character's actions/emotions/etc; in terms of unstated consequences, a given reader will believe what makes sense to them based on life experience-- and this is a necessary part of reading, of bonding with fiction. It is that bit of self-projection that draws one into the world & the characters, that tugs them ever so slightly out of the author's head and into the reader's!

My issue, really, is that I'm perfectly happy with ambiguity. I love it that I can't really -know- that Brian's in love with Justin in QaF (though I think he is, in his own way) or whether Toreth 'more than just needs' Warrick (though I think he does, in his own way). Both of these are self-centered bastards with long-suffering caring boyfriends, and I admit there may be -some- wish-fulfillment in my wanting to look at the bright side as a reader-- but in both cases the romance becomes flat and utterly boring if you categorically answer 'no' (as the writers have in both instances, though the circumstances aren't the same).

What I'm trying to say is, 'Authorial Intent' is useful for understanding, but it cannot-- should not-- attempt to penetrate a reader's heart. In theory, I can accept 'this isn't love'-- objectively, things remain ambiguous. In terms of my own reaction, though, there is no ambiguity-- the bells ring, the numbers add up, my alarms go off-- bingo! I can shout it from the rooftops! I embrace subjectivity, since as a reader, it's become my story and in a very real sense these are my characters 'cause they also live in my head, so. This doesn't mean 'in my head', Draco Malfoy 'really' turns into this svelte angel who wears leather pants (or someone who's about to whisper sweet nothings anytime soon)-- y'know, because he's just... not like that. However, yes, my Draco Malfoy can be obsessed and in denial; my Toreth can be also. Yes. Oh yes. I can make this work with canon, okay.

So bite it. HE'S IN LOVE. :P

Comments

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

oho Okay I thiiiink I have a better handle on what you mean now. I think that, for me, it's difficult to understand the concept of something "feeling" like love to begin with, because obviously I'm hardcore rational. I wouldn't say that I reduce things to X or Y, and then stop there though - more like I define whether X or Y is present, or some combination thereof, and then try and determine what flavor it is. And I guess I have some difficulty understanding how, if it "feels" like love behaviorally, but is not motivated by the emotion we call love, it would be a problem to call it "not love"? Because applying the word or removing the word doesn't change the actual events/behaviors/what IS there, it just more cleanly defines the emotional underpinnings of those behaviors/events (or lack thereof).

And I would say the author determines if the character feels it, but it's also up to the author to communicate that through the page. I mean, I am pretty authorial in leaning, as you well know, but at the same time if the author writes "George came into the office wearing a blue shirt" and later says "The story SAYS the shirt is blue, but the shirt? It's actually purple" then clearly they're full of it.

For me, it's more a question of going to them WITH the ambiguities - Brian loves Justin, but is it IN loveness or is it non-romantic generic caring? George is wearing a blue shirt, but is it baby blue or navy blue? And it's interesting because it's like the thing that I would say is definitely the area FOR authorial clarification is, in fact, the very thing you want them to leave to the reader.

And I admit I tend to be one of those rationals who define emotions in a simple way - I'm not sure how clear that is in my actual writing, but that's because I consider behavioral reactions complicated more than because I consider emotions themselves complicated. I mean I'm pretty opposite end here again, because you're talking about the infinite complexity of human emotion and I'm kind of like, what complexity? I dunno, maybe this is because I am all steeped in scientific method, which requires exactly what you're talking about (reduction of a concept to a firm and unambiguous construct, because if you can't define it, you can't study/test it. And come to that, Manna is a scientist, isn't she? Cause... that explains it.)

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I do think the type of blue shirt is a valid area for authorial clarification, but this is not something that's debatable based on definition anyway-- pretty straightforward. Whereas people can't necessarily agree what's 'the emotion we call love', y'know? One of the bigger problems is as malafede said below, basically that people use 'empathy' for love and don't verbalize it or admit it. Some people just assume love is selfless and kind just like in the Corinthians, whereas that's just an ideal, not necessarily the reality. Plus there's the factor that different people (unhealthy people, self-centered people, just... emotionally skewed people) experience this emotion differently. I mean, emotions are universal but not -that- universal that you could project an outside definition & expect it to fit like a glove the way 'baby blue' stays constant as a color.

Of course naming it doesn't change what's there; it's more that when people use that naming as an assumption, a basis for consequent arguments as if it's 'obvious' that we have a growing problem, a widening gap in discourse, I guess.

Perhaps I perceive high complexity in emotions, but I'm not really saying it's infinite? That's what I meant by 'fuzzy'; applying 'the scientific method' to someone who's more complex emotionally requires a different approach, I guess. Like, most people do fit into molds, but the more interesting characters don't-- or at least they fit into more advanced molds. Sometimes in math, reduction to a 'real number' is impossible, for instance, and you have imaginary numbers explaining real phenomena-- and then there's always Pi, for instance. I mean, I'm using this as a metaphor; when something 'feels' like love, I mean it fits with my experience/observation of it rather than a rational definition. In a way, this is closer to the scientific method, which naturally depends on observation as much as definition (which comes second-- and in the end observation trumps it if there's a disparity, right?) I guess the closest to a 'rational' explanation would be just this-- 'feel' is a product of intuitive observation that hasn't been experienced widely enough to harden into a larger theory, maybe. Most people, on the other hand, don't pause to observe/think and just apply labels, which isn't scientific at all as far as I'm concerned. :>

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

People totally disagree on what baby blue is. But okay, now I have to get more clarification - are you saying the author gets to determine how they feel (which is to say, the character's actual emotional ... feeling) but should not pin a specific terminology to it because not everyone would agree that said feeling fits that terminology? Or are you saying that the author does not determine what the character feels or the terminology used to describe it?

Because I can get more in line with the former, although I do think it's impractical just because you can't really discuss something without giving it a name.

Scientific Method - yes, it's observation --> form a construct based on observation --> test observation. I'm not sure I'd say observation trumps definition so much as observation forms definition, and then you need to nail down what you're observing into specific variables.

But I mean, I guess my point was less that it's appropriate to approach emotional issues in this way (I do, but I can't help it because I am heartless?) than that I could see why someone who thinks along those lines (from nature or by training, but they really feed each other) would.

I'm *never* going to get "feel" just because I don't... get it!. I have no idea how else to d

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hmmm... I wonder about the whole question 'necessary naming'; I myself can and would discuss a relationship and the component behaviors and emotions without an overlying name (ie, specifically possessiveness, jealousy, need-for-reassurance, insecurity, all the various things that make up love, which isn't widely considered the most complex emotion for nothing). I would say that to give it an overlying name would be 'meta', which is what I have a problem with a writer having control over. It is talking about not just character's emotions but their deeper meaning-- and 'deeper meaning' is not 100% objective or even defined within the story, if the story's good, generally.

That's what I meant about 'symbology' when using the PoA!H/Hr example-- meaning, some symbology is in fact defined (as in, we know Harry & Hermione riding on a hippogriff together doesn't mean they're In Love [that's what I meant about transformational interpretations being wrong]. But perceiving selfish love as valid isn't a transformative interpretation-- the way perceiving Harry & Ginny's relationship in HBP as just 'puppy love' or 'a crush' isn't transformative or in any way 'against' the text as it stands, JKR's intent for them to marry and Ginny being the Ideal Girl for Harry aside. It would be incorrect to expect all readers of HBP to just accept Ginny's the Ideal Girl as if that's obvious just because JKR thinks so (meaning, it's really not obvious at all).

So yeah, the writer determines what the character feels, but this isn't as straightforward as it seems, because most people have such a range of understanding of what any feeling 'really' means. I mean, maybe someone could argue that 'baby blue' is a little more or less greenish (or whatever) but really there's some 'authority' you could appeal to. The writer has a literal but not a philosophical authority-- I mean, they have a philosophical authority too, but within limits. I really can't generalize with this; it's case-by-case, but mostly common sense to me.

It's not -just- terminology, anyway; people keep trying to focus on this aspect as if it's my central argument, whereas I keep trying to avoid it 'cause it's semantics, basically. What's more important is the conclusions and consequences-- how one changes one's view of other facts/events based on one definition or the other. To me, you could call a giraffe a snowcat and I wouldn't care, mostly-- usually names don't change what's really happening (ie, calling it a snowcat doesn't make it grow pale white fur). But calling their relationship empty of love does twist it into another shape. Emotions have that special property of being malleable according to point of view. Uh, this probably doesn't make sense to you, come to think of it, but :)) Yeah. You can 'explain' things several ways, generally (and though only one would be really correct, you could still have the others 'fit' and skew the story unpleasantly).

ANYWAY, I can see why people insist on rigid definitions... it just hurts my head. I wasn't making a really complex argument with this post, y'know :)) Just going NYAH! :> *shakes her head* This is what happens when people take you too seriously :>

I meant observation trumps definition when it contradicts it-- you need to redefine, right? You can't say 'I define it this way so this observation should and does fit'-- it's that blind spot we were mentioning earlier :>

Ugh, sorry, ignore previous comment.

[worldserpent.livejournal.com]

Am very sorry, I got confused and thought this was my own LJ. >____<

I just wanted to jump in and say that I think I am not so sure that it isn't a semantic argument. It's just that love is more loaded than snowcats, and that when someone says 'empty of snowcats' it is not something that is as meaningful as 'empty of love.' In any event, discussion is impossible w/o agreement on terms.

heh!

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

It's all right to just jump in, though I was a little confused because....um, you were addressing me as if I was speaking to you. But just in general, I think trying to have a logical argument about something I was saying based on a single intuitive leap (in the first paragraph) and a sort of 'nyah' emotional response confuses me after awhile....

I agree that love is more loaded than snowcats, which is why I'd be more careful with how one talks about it (...the contrast was sort of the point? to show why sometimes 'semantics' carry more weight than others). And yeah, discussion is impossible without agreement on terms, which is why I actually found it frustrating, partly. On the other hand, I felt the terms were imposed (as opposed to drawn from the story/characters' behavior), which was especially frustrating even if it's the author doing it. It felt/read like a somewhat unusual but not -that- different of a 'selfish/romantic' love-story, not uncommon for shoujo manga. The mangaka don't say -that's- not love in those contexts, y'know? It would be confusing/weird/wrong if they did, to me.

I don't dispute that deeper meanings can be entrenched in a story, just that the only people who can resolve them would then be the characters (that's why I was talking about the characters deciding if they're in love).

The reason I was perceiving 'selfish love' as valid was because it worked in that story, full stop. I wasn't imposing this dynamic, it was actually there; I wouldn't say it's valid otherwise. I still wouldn't argue it's the 'correct' interpretation if I wasn't seeing the opposite view given authority that is basically transformative in this context. It's probably hard to convince anyone if they didn't read this fic, so all I can say is take my word for it, haha. I'm not saying that either of the characters believe the psychopathic one is 'in love'; he just exhibits all the symptoms [of 'selfish/unhealthy love'] and is in heavy denial. That's why I said things like 'ambiguous' and 'non-standard' and so on.

If one says there is -no- love of -any- sort, this skews the story being discussed, as far as I'm concerned, so that's where it goes beyond semantics. It doesn't -have- to in every case, but because the behavior in question starts out being ambiguous and the character is so twisted/in denial/mildly unusual for the [romantic] role he's given, you wind up having conversations that are irrelevant and make no sense to me with that assumption. Like, 'why is Toreth acting the way he is, given he's not in love'. That whole conversation is impossible if one doesn't agree he's not in -some- kind of love even if he's not in some Greek ideal of love that's being imposed on the narrative. Ummm. Gods, now I feel even more muddled, sorry...

Re: heh!

[worldserpent.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry. I got this confused with another window. However, what I mean is that I think it is legitimate for the narrator to reach a conclusion and to adopt a definition of love, or for the characters to (because the narrator is a character).

Okay, yeah, I haven't read it, so I shall cease to discuss specifics. But, saying "there is no love of any sort" to me is more of a commentary on the person's definition of love, so it is a semantic problem that renders discussion impossible.

Re: heh!

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

It's definitely legitimate to reach conclusions/adopt definitions within the text; I was in fact saying so in my post (that it's the characters that would 'decide' whether it's love/other meta emotional things if there is ambiguity/conflict). In this case, in the story as I read it, there was a working relationship with 'selfish love' terms but no explicit definitions by the characters (ie, they didn't confront the issue, which is what leaves the blank space for debate/extraneous insertion, I guess, which is actually what I'm against).

Ahh... perhaps you are correct, and saying that -is- a commentary on their definition; because they seem to claim authority (or being more in touch with Authorial Intent), that's why I feel at all compelled to comment. Otherwise it'd be easier to dismiss the possibility of discussion; this way, I have this urge to say 'but I read the same story! I'm seeing what's there!' and so on. People had fruitless discussions like this about Draco in the HP books before HBP, and there were people who saw HBP!Draco coming, so to speak, but there were all these others who pointed to interviews and said 'look, look, she said he's a jerk! he'll never have any more depth than a simple bully!' and so on. So discussion may very well be impossible, but it's still frustrating, which is why I posted here and not on the mannazone, I guess :>

Re: heh!

[worldserpent.livejournal.com]

Possibly the author did it in order to force the readers to confront the issue themselves.

They may be claiming that the author is promoting a definition of love in the story? I don't know, I wasn't able to follow this. But, since the true debate is not over what is there, but what it should be called, it's not really a text issue.

Re: heh!

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I guess my point in why it goes beyond semantics is that in this case, the -way- that people calling it 'not love' is skewing the actual things I see as 'there' in the story because it's sort of... reinterpreting things in that light. You can't interpret things in the 'light' of some semantic issues (like 'what animal is this' or something), but love is a loaded and complex (as well as an especially ambiguous in this case) emotion. I don't -need- to call their relationship 'love'-- I have nothing invested in that word specifically. It's just that for -them-, calling it 'not love' leads to a whole slew of implications I see as extraneous/false in regards to the text.

If in fact the author -was- promoting a definition of love (judging from the central relationship and how it works), it would be the unhealthy/selfish love type, haha, that's the most silly part of it.

Re: Ugh, sorry, ignore previous comment.

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

And now I shall jump in and say I think it is semantic, which is probably why I can't get past trying to figure out the terminology issue.

Re: Ugh, sorry, ignore previous comment.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Well... technically, yes, it's semantics; meaning, it's about connotation of the term 'love' (though my objection is to the consequences of this, not to the term or lack of it). Usually semantics refers to something that's purely about that-- although when you're talking about language, not much is 'pure' in terms of meaning. I admitted this was mostly about definitions in my post; it's just that this tied in (associated in my mind) with issues of authorial intent, other characterization issues in the story, and various issues about people's assumptions about love, the characters' relationship and the links between these things.

I guess I would say it's not that it's not about that so much as it's not -just- about that, but this may be difficult to tell if you haven't read the story in question.

Re: Ugh, sorry, ignore previous comment.

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

Well, that's why I keep trying to avoid talking about the story specifics and instead stick to principles/concepts/theory?

Re: Ugh, sorry, ignore previous comment.

[worldserpent.livejournal.com]

Someone else told me on my blog that she also thought that the whole discussion is essentially a semantic issue. It may be that two people may agree on the basics of how to interpret something, but label it (semantics) under different words, but that essentially means the true conflict is semantics, so thusly arguing over interpretations and intent will getcha nowhere.

Re: Ugh, sorry, ignore previous comment.

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

Agreed. And I have to admit I find it a little baffling to get really worked up over terminology (and yeah, Reena, I hear what you're saying about it being more over consequences than the word itself but I guess I think the consequence arises from the weight people are putting on the word and thus cannot be separated out).

Re: Ugh, sorry, ignore previous comment.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I feel I have to add that -I- didn't bring this up-- I'm perfectly happy not to argue about semantics (...I really don't particularly enjoy it, so was trying to avoid it) but since people seem to need to name it 'love' vs 'not love', including the author.... Heh. I mean, I'm baffled as to why it matters too :P

Re: Ugh, sorry, ignore previous comment.

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

Well, I think it became an argument of semantics because it arose from one and because, as you yourself said, a lot of it is a game of definitions. And also because it's hard to discuss things like overwriting emotional reactions.

And honestly because that part is a little confusing? Because on one hand you're saying the semantics don't matter and on the other hand saying that if you don't use this semantic term it fucks up the story in your head, so it's just like... can we clarify that, because it's apparently a rather major inconsistency?

And for the record, I REALLY do not have an all fluff-and-rainbows view of what love is. o_O

Re: Ugh, sorry, ignore previous comment.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Semantics don't matter (generally), and if we can basically talk about the same things while naming them something else, or at least see something like the same story there, differences in semantics don't concern me-- I don't really feel the name to label things, but if forced will say 'this feels like love' in the case of Toreth. But-- when the consequences from the author's (...extraneous! as in, not-in-line-with/part-of-with-canon-as-is) definition shift the balance of major ambiguities and central issues in the story itself... there is a problem.

And of course I know you don't, ahaha. Well, neither do I -.- But if a story is fluff-and-rainbows!love, I don't dispute it! I don't go 'this isn't really love' (or something)! Conversely, if a story is dark/unhealthy/selfish!love, I accept -that- as the terms because it's what's... there. I would still accept another person saying 'okay, but that's not love', as long as it's a) not the author, since this gives the meta weight I feel is basically unsupported; b) not leading to a whole slew of unsupported transformations of other aspects of the story......

HOPEFULLY THAT MAKES SENSE :( Although I agree that uh, it's hard to discuss things like 'overwriting emotional reactions'-- I mean, I say that pretty easily but have a hard time narrowing down what I mean logically. Generally people either... 'get it' or... I have a hard time :D

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

Well what I mean about not being able to discuss something without giving it a name is just that a word is, in itself, a name. I mean, you can discuss the dynamic of a relationship without using the word "love" but you'd still be discussing the level of "need" or "desire" or "lust" or "possessiveness" and those are all names too. I guess to me, using the name "love" is the equivalent of that - not everyone's going to agree on what love is, exactly, true enough but then not everyone will agree on what "need" is, either. And yeah Love can be more complicated than need, but the point is that if we get into the realm of avoiding names because of individual definitions, then we're going to be like, gesturing and drawing.

I would say that perceiving Ginny as just puppy love would be transformative depending on what happens in HBP. I mean, I personally would just go with the idea that she's Harry's ideal girl, but that's mostly because I don't see any point in arguing with JKR because she's the one who's going to write that 'and then this happened!!' epilogue, not me.

I really can't generalize with this; it's case-by-case, but mostly common sense to me.

I guess that's my problem. Because I can't stand... like case-by-case things, especially in fandom because people are so emotionally loaded that they're probably going to skew the case-by-case to their advantage/to allow them to think what they'd like to think. Which isn't to say YOU'RE doing that, but it's actually a major issue for me, because I have that whole bias issue. Basically I have a hard time backing anything that allows people to make up their own rules, because people aren't objective about themselves to keep that shit in check. So it's kind of like.. although I agree in theory that case-by-case is good, I don't believe it creates anything resembling order in practice.

It's not -just- terminology, anyway; people keep trying to focus on this aspect as if it's my central argument, whereas I keep trying to avoid it 'cause it's semantics, basically.

Dude, that's because it's the only part of your argument that makes sense to me. You're totally right, that clarification paragraph... I mean it makes sense but it doesn't mean what you're saying to me. ... by which i mean, it just sounded like you said you didn't care if you called it love or not, except that if you don't call it love then that fucks it up. ...which makes no sense to me, and I assume that's not what you're saying but. I don't know what it means, LOL!

I meant observation trumps definition when it contradicts it-- you need to redefine, right? You can't say 'I define it this way so this observation should and does fit'-- it's that blind spot we were mentioning earlier

Indeed indeed. Well, hopefully you know me well enough to know I'm always in favor of redefinition. Accuracy, yo.

...and also, you know I totally don't speak NYAH. I CAN'T HELP IT.

[blacksatinrose.livejournal.com]

uh. not what happens in HBP. What happens in the 7th book!

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Well, see, I'm not against calling things names (...as I keep saying? um); mostly when names then change what I see as reality because of implied-but-unstated definitions, I have a problem. You could have a conversation like this: 'well, this is what I mean'-- 'aha, -this- is what -I- mean!' and I would be fine, but this doesn't tend to happen. When the situation's complex/non-standard/ambiguous, I think words like 'love' that are left to their supposed 'universal definition' actually lead to -more- confusion and non-clarity, not less.

If you like, just look at my exchange with zillah975 below. I don't even disagree with her that their relationship is interesting because it's non-standard; I just can't get beyond the fact that to me, there's nothing missing if you accept that love can be unhealthy. I think people who talk about 'Love' as if it's all flowers and roses tend not to be talking about the -text- anyway, but rather an outside so-called 'canon' I don't agree with/never saw/can't even contest. How can the writer define it when there is no obvious authority and yet things are phrased as if there was??

Of course one should agree on what definitions are used to have a conversation, but people just assume this outside definition fits when it doesn't-- as far as I'm concerned, that ideal is often irrelevant. You can still say 'love' or 'need' as long as you don't bring this baggage... not everyone does in every case (meaning, mostly things work okay in more traditional/typical scenarios), but when things are non-standard in a story, people start drawing on personal experience-- or worse, hearsay, whether reader or writer. It's not like anyone's claiming to have really studied love (...except me, I think I have, but that's neither here nor there). People are just using personal anecdotes and some ephemeral 'universal' truth we all supposedly know.

In this case, I was just saying that maybe people shouldn't impose these outside meta judgments on a story that doesn't fit them and isn't about them. In this case, I think even the AUTHOR is basically having a 'transformational symbology'!! YES, that is in fact my problem. Ah! I've defined it!! *dances*

And yeah, the Ginny thing would change depending on book 7, but I meant without book 7, just speaking as is, since at this point you can't assume anything (until it's written) even if JKR -promises- she'll write it. That's me being hardline, y'know :D